Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
- Afrikaans
- Alemannisch
- አማርኛ
- العربية
- অসমীয়া
- Azərbaycanca
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Boarisch
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Cymraeg
- Dansk
- Deutsch
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- فارسی
- Français
- Frysk
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- 한국어
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Ido
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Íslenska
- Italiano
- עברית
- ქართული
- Қазақша
- Latviešu
- Лезги
- Lietuvių
- Magyar
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- मराठी
- Bahasa Melayu
- Minangkabau
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- Nederlands
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Napulitano
- Нохчийн
- Norsk bokmål
- Norsk nynorsk
- Олык марий
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- Pälzisch
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Română
- Русский
- Саха тыла
- Shqip
- සිංහල
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Suomi
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ไทย
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Xitsonga
- 粵語
- 粵語
- Zeêuws
- 中文
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eoghan1234 (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 26 July 2009 (Undid revision 304365083 by Wizardman (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
![]() Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||
Nominating
Commenting, etc
|
Nominations
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:36, 22 August 2009 [1].
Fungus
- Nominator(s): Malljaja, Sasata (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fungus is a core topic, and on average, receives several thousand page views per day. It is also the flagship article for the Fungi Wikiproject. Co-nominator Malljaja and I have been working on it for several months, and I think it's up now up to standard. Looking forward to seeing the article improve even more with the help of your collective input. Sasata (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is
mostlyvery good, but it's missing for the infobox image File:Fungi collage.jpg; please see Template:Taxobox/doc for how to fix that. For File:Ergotamine3.png the alt text "Chemical structure" isn't informative; in similar situations I've simply used the systematic (IUPAC) name, which you can get from Ergotamine, as being better than nothing. One other thing: for File:Ascocarp2.png the alt text should describe the locations in words, rather than teasing the visually-impaired reader by saying that the image shows the locations. Eubulides (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, have made the changes suggested. Sasata (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was fast! Thanks; it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, have made the changes suggested. Sasata (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments It would be awesome to get this to FA and it looks close - I wish I didn't have more pressing priorities so I could help more. So for now I'll leave you with some thoughts about the Human use section:
- First paragraph: I'm not sure what purpose this paragraph serves, being a mixture of unrepeated information and an incomplete summary of the Human use section. I would suggest antibiotics would surely be worth its own subheading, being one of humanity's greatest discoveries last century. At present, the article states that fungi produce antibiotics, but does not clarify whether current industrial production relies on fungi (I believe it does), as opposed to using sythetic methods.
- Have started a section on Antibiotics to address this point. Let me know what you think. Sasata (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cultured foods: At the moment there's an ambiguity which seems to (incorrectly) imply A. oryzae is used for tempeh production. It's probably worth mentioning A. oryzae is also used for sake production, an enormous industry in Japan. If you can find a good source, it would also be nice to have a sentence describing the "domestication" of fungi - fungi like A. oryzae and Aspergillus sojae seem as different from their wild relatives as poodles are from wolves.
- I've corrected this and included separate refs for each A oryzae and Rhizopus. The issue of domestication is an interesting one, though perhaps not without controversy, since domestication of fungi probably occurred via a process that consisted of unwittingly choosing fungal species or strains that gave a preferred outcome in food production. That's different from that of say, dogs and horses, where selection was more direct and probably less fortuitous. I've inserted a section on the relatedness of the "domesticated" Aspergilli vs their closely related wild and toxin-producing relatives, without getting into too much detail here. Malljaja (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other: Ideally it would be nice to have a sentence or two describing what it is about fungi that make them ideal for the industrial production of all those metabolites and enzymes. Off the top of my head: simple nutritional requirements permit the use of low-cost materials or even waste products as growth substrates; cheap and simple separation by filtration of myclelial flocs or pellets from the growth media (cf. bacteria); efficient secretion pathways permit high yields of proteins; as eukaryotes, fungi can do post-translational modifications of proteins (e.g. glycosylation) that bacteria cannot; gene splicing techniques permit the production of heterologous proteins (eg. bovine chymosin) and the rational enhancement of yields; biological production in general produces optically pure compounds (not racemates), which is important in e.g. lactic acid.
- I've included a small section mentioning the enormity of natural products produced by the fungi in the "Human uses" lead. With regards to heterologous expression, I've given a specific example from a recent outstanding paper in which they describe the assembly of a novel benzylisoquinoline pathway (which provides the backbone for drugs like codeine and morphine) in baker's yeast. Metabolic engineering is a "hot" topic and too big an apple to get a good bite in a general entry like this—so I've only included what I think is a representative example, which also illustrates the direction of this, ie, away from filamentous fungi, which are more messy to grow, to the easy-to-grow unicellular yeasts. Malljaja (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Model organisms: The article is incomplete without some mention of the tremendous contribution the study of model fungi has made to our understanding of basic biology. The one gene-one enzyme hypothesis came from the study of Neurospora crassa, which is also used for studying circadian rhythms – who knew a mold could have its own 24-hour clock? Aspergillus nidulans is surely worth a mention, and S. cerevisiae must be the most-studied eukaryotic cell on the planet.
- Excellent point! Much of eukaryotic cell biology, molecular biology, and genetics that I have learnt early on was from experimental work with S cerevisiae. So, I've created a section "Biological model organisms" that now houses your suggested reference. It still needs some comprehensive refs, which I'll fill in once I get to my books/finished slogging through pubmed. I've also included some recent models for human and plant pathogenicity, which may be relevant. Malljaja (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank-you for your comments, you make some good points. I'll think about this and integrate your suggestions into the article shortly. Sasata (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Spectacular work Sasata and Malljaja! I'm amazed how much has been accomplished in 24 hours.
- Some specific responses:
- Antibiotics: See Talk:Fungus#Antibiotics
I hope to have addressed these with the recently added info on the relationships of antibiotics with quorum sensing and as chemical defence. Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cultured foods: I like the new additions. Malljaja, I think there's a bit more to domestication than you imply above – there's good evidence that A. oryzae, at least, has evolved over the course of its domestication (eg see the section on starch-degrading enzymes in Nature 438:1157). I think the level of detail in the article at present is good.
Thanks, for the nudging and suggesting to include it as example for domestication. Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Others/lead: I understand what you mean about metabolic engineering being too big to cover, but I think there should at least be some acknowledgement somewhere that filamentous fungi can also be genetically manipulated. At the moment it almost reads as though yeasts, specifically, have just become amenable to manipulation. Is it really true that the direction at the moment is away from filamentous fungi? :'-( If there's genuine consensus in the field, so be it, but I'd be wary about putting too much weight on one review... I think researchers tend to talk up their favourite group of organisms, as I'm sure I do with by admittedly-somewhat-messy-but-nevertheless-easy-to-grow Aspergilli. "Facile" seems a bit obtuse here – could "more facile and faster" be replaced by "more efficient"?
I've inserted a short sentence on genetic engineering of fungi and included a landmark methods paper as citation. You're right that I over-emphasized the shift from yeast species, yet it is remarkable that yeast can be engineered to make such fairly complex molecules, considering that S cerevisiae hardly makes any natural products in nature (if one doesn't count ethanol ;-)). So, while Aspergillus and other industrially used filamentous fungi are probably still going to be used for secondary metabolite production, they've now got some serious competition. I've replaced "more facile and faster" w/ "efficient".Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Model organisms: This is exactly what I wanted to see :-). I think all the species could be wikilinked, even when it means duplicating links – it looks odd having some linked and others not, and none are linked nearby.
Done. Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - for now. Clearly this is an important core article and it has been on my Watchlist for months. It is long and takes a long time to read. There is so much information here about this diverse Kingdom that I feel many casual readers will drown in the detail. It is difficult to avoid comparing the article with Bacteria, Archaea and Virus, all of which are FA, and faced the similar challenge of condensing huge subjects into digestible, not-overly technical encyclopaedic contributions. I shall be interested to read any comments from reviewers from a non-scientific background, especially those regarding the article's accessibility to lay readers. I feel that this may be the major obstacle to reaching a consensus here. A few comments on the prose:
Here, "More recently, fungi are being used as sources for antibiotics used in medicine and for various enzymes," - the "are being" sounds wrong. How about something like, "Since (when?) fungi have been used as sources.."?
- Now "More recently, fungi have been used as sources for antibiotics in medicine..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this sentence, "Fungi are also deployed as biological agents to control weeds and pests." I think "deployed" is too strong a word" a simple "used" would suffice, and is "also" needed?
- Changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, "The fruiting structures of a few species are used recreationally or in traditional ceremonies as a source of psychotropic compounds." It doesn't actually say that they are eaten. It is assumed that the readers already know this.
- Have changed "are used" to "are consumed". Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This part, "Fungi can cause deterioration of manufactured materials and buildings, and represent significant pathogens of humans and other animals, and losses due to fungal diseases of crops (e.g., rice blast disease) or food spoilage can have a large impact on human food supplies and local economies." needs to be split because the structure of the sentence is illogical. The problem starts with the "can cause" which has to connect with "represent" and "can have".
- Now "Fungi can deteriorate manufactured materials and buildings, become significant pathogens of humans and other animals. Losses due to fungal diseases..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, "Fungi typically grow as hyphae, which extend at their tips, containing an organized assembly of vesicles" - I think this would be better: "Fungi typically grow as hyphae—which extend at their tips—that contain an organized assembly of vesicles"
- Agree, have changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Diploid" is linked at its second occurrence.
- Now linked at first occurrence as well. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't like "hypersaline areas" - and suggest something like "environments with high salt concentrations".
- Changed. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, "but the true dimension of fungal diversity is still unknown", will the truth ever be known? I word recast this sentence.
- How about "...the true dimension of global fungal diversity is not well understood."
In this phrase, "the number of plant species in select environments", select doesn't sound right.
- Have changed "select" to "selected", is that better? Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is repetition here, "Most fungi grow as thread-like filamentous microscopic structures called hyphae, which are microscopic filaments".
- Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will readers know what is meant by "crosses"?
- Changed to " Mating experiments between fungal isolates..", and moved the Mating in fungi piped link to here.
Here, "Species may possess vegetative incompatibility systems that allow mating only between individuals of opposite mating type", is the surreal "vegetative incompatibilty" needed?
- Not for the average reader, have removed the esoteric term. Now "Some species may allow mating only between individuals..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something missing here, "These sporangiospores are means of rapid dispersal of the fungus".
- Fixed this sentence. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this clause, "suggesting that they were the dominant life form at this time—nearly 100% of the fossil record available from this period", the emdash doesn't work well as a connector.
- Now "...dominant life form at this time, representing nearly 100%..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, "Similarly, females of several wood wasp species (genus Sirex) inject their eggs in addition to spores of the wood-rotting fungus Amylostereum areolatum; the growth of the fungus provides ideal nutritional conditions for the development of the wasp larvae" - I think we have to spell out what the eggs are injected into.
- Right, now "... inject their eggs together with spores of the wood-rotting fungus Amylostereum areolatum into the sapwood of pine trees;" Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is repetiton in the Human use section: "other fungal species are used in the production of soy sauce and tempeh" and later "Mycelial fungi, such as the shoyu koji mold (Aspergillus oryzae), are used to brew Shoyu (soy sauce), and to prepare tempeh", for example.
Here, "Most notable species include those of the genus Agaricus,[143][144] Ganoderma,[145] and Cordyceps,[146] which are being used in the treatment of several diseases", I am interested in why we have "being" and not a simple "which are used". To me the use of being implies some sort of trial or experimental usage.
- This sentence was added by another editor. Have changed to your suggested wording (after confirming in source). Sasata (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, for now, does "cheeses" really need linking?Graham Colm Talk 12:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, unlinked. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments:
- The section about the giant Armillaria ostoyae colony seems misplaced under Evolution – perhaps move to Morphology or Growth and physiology?
- It's now in the proper section, Morphology. Sasata (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After "Currently, seven phyla are proposed:", it's not immediately obvious that each of the seven subsequent paragraphs refers to one of these phyla. Changing the following paragraph to begin with "The microsporidia..." might help, or consider re-ordering. I personally think seven bullet points would be ideal, though I know some editors don't like bulleted lists in FAs.
- Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made the bold change of adding bullet points, as I agree that highlighting the phyla names in some way makes the section easier to read. It means both images will have to be on the right. That said, anyone that's offended by this stylistic change is free to alter the layout. Sasata (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Great work developing this article. I think you have both done an excellent job! One minor point would be that the article currently links to sapwood, which is a disambiguation page. Perhaps you could link to the specific article? Regardless, again, great work. ---kilbad (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, looking at the Checklinks, I believe links/URLs are not to be added within citations in which a journal subscription is needed to view the full text. ---kilbad (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, didn't know that. Have removed the two subscription-based urls. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is untrue, the only reason why the tool separates those links is because some were returning a 400 error. — Dispenser 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's great to see how far this article has come in a short time, and is certainly one we should have at FA quality. There are still some deficiencies in the content and style of the text. I've made some style revisions myself, and will be making more. I will point out just one specific section lacking content, that on Evolution. "Evolution" means "change", and this section does little to cover the change of fungi through time. It does have a number of facts about early appearances, and does mention a few changes, such as the transition to land and the fact that early fungi had flagellated cells. However, where is information about:
- the origin of the Asco- and/or Basidiomycota?
- the earliest sporocarp fossil?
- the earliest lichenization events?
- what changes accompanied the transition to land?
- what is the nature of most fungal fossils? (what parts, what scale, and what form of fossilization)
- There is quite a lot of missing information in this very important section, and more than a few well-known papers that were not referenced. Taylor & Taylor's The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants is the gold standard among paleobotany texts, and has an entire chapter on Fungi, Bacteria, and Lichens. I recommend a thorough look there and at some of the papers cited therein. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll work on this section, I can get a hold of the text you suggest pretty quickly. Thanks for the comments, and the copyediting. Sasata (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded this section to address at least some of the points you mention above. Am reluctant to expand much more, and think further information would be better placed in the daughter article (which is not much more than a stub now, unfortunately, but easily has enough associated literature to be featured as well.) Sasata (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see whether I can help. The section currently is very choppy and lacks context for readers. There isn;t even an explanation of the form in which most fungal fossils are preserved. Consider that most people think of "fossil" as a dinosaur bone or cast of a trilobite, but this isn't at all what is usually meant by a fossil of a fungus. At the very least, there should be a full paragraph with an explanation of what a fungus fossil is like, how they are found and studied, and the limitations of interpreting such fossils. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After consulting T&T, I've now added the additional information you requested. I disagree that a whole paragraph should be devoted to describing fungal fossils, seems to me that that level of detail is better suited to the daughter article; for this section I've given one sentence plus hints later (i.e. mention of spores and hyphae further down). Let me know if you think the content is sufficient, and hopefully Malljaja will tighten my prose :) I'm also tempted to put a picture in that section, as it's 4 paragraphs long now, but barring finding a pic of a fossilized spore or something, am not sure what could go in there. Maybe EM of a spore like this]? Sasata (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The content looks much better now. It still needs a bit of refinement, which is much easier for me to help with than initial article hunting (since I don't currently live near a major research library). The first paragraph is pretty much what I wanted to see in terms of describing what a fungal fossil is (a microscopic permineralization) and how it is studied. The first paragraph thus provides the context necessary for understanding the rest of the section. As for images, you might contact one of the people who took one of the pictures here, as they were willing to grant permission in the past. I unfortunately have no slides that I have full rights to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review – Most of this is pretty good, though there were some issues that I cleaned up. However, I do require your assistance in the following case(s):
- File:Neotyphodium_coenophialum.jpg – Check the categories, please?
- File:Armillaria ostoyae MO.jpg – Check the categories, please?
- File:Cyathus stercoreus Fruchtkörper.JPG – Please give English translations of the description and source.
- File:Wn8-05-2.JPG – Please fill in the description, and see if you can get the image renamed.
- Every other image looks good. NW (Talk) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the nominators should be held responsible for these problems. The only potential concerns here are sources, free license or fair use. Graham Colm Talk 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ok, I got to make use of my otherwise useless 4 years of high school German. Have done as requested with the images, except for the file renaming, I'll have to find someone else to help with that. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged the file for rename, but have forgotten that moving of files is currently disabled on Commons. Ah well; it will be fixed eventually.
- Everything with images looks great now. NW (Talk) 04:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ok, I got to make use of my otherwise useless 4 years of high school German. Have done as requested with the images, except for the file renaming, I'll have to find someone else to help with that. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the nominators should be held responsible for these problems. The only potential concerns here are sources, free license or fair use. Graham Colm Talk 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments this article looks much better than when I last looked a few months ago - the prose is full of information so will be critical to make it as accessible to the general populace without introducing amibguity. I will make straightforward changes (please revert ones which inadvertently change meaning) and note other queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some have lost the ability to form reproductive structures, and propagate solely by vegetative growth. Yeasts, molds, and mushrooms are examples of fungi. - I note these as the way they are juzaposed makes it look like the three examples in the latter are somehow related to the former. Some juggling of sentences will help with this.
- ...wine, beer, and soy sauce. - I would have thought bread was a more widespread example than soy sauce... (3 most common/global maybe best here?)
- More recently, fungi have been used as sources.. - could be more exact and specify from the time that penicillin was discovered.
- However, only limited and incomplete information exists on the true biodiversity.. - be nice to use only one adjective here surely (?)
- All of these excellent points have been addressed in recent edits. Please advise if further tweaks are necessary. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, only limited and incomplete information exists on the true biodiversity.. - be nice to use only one adjective here surely (?)
Comments: I have initiated a line-by-line prose review on the article's talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for your comments; I've responded here. Malljaja (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Thanks Sasata and Malljaja for acting on so many of my comments. The recent additions to antibiotics and to the human uses intro are great. A couple more suggestions:
- I think the lead should clarify the distinction between yeasts, molds and mushrooms. Probably the third and last sentences of the first paragraph should be merged and expanded. I suspect many readers would assume molds and yeasts are separate groups – that these terms only refer to morphologies should be made explicit early.
- I've merged the two sentences into, "Commonly known fungi include yeasts, molds, and mushrooms, which are general descriptions based on appearance and growth form that are often applied to groups of unrelated species." I hope this better captures how common name usage is often unrelated to scientific groupings. Malljaja (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From Characteristics: "Fungal hyphae may have multiple nuclei within each hyphal compartment, and many budding yeasts are diploid." I'd suggest eliminating the second part (diploidy is not unique to fungi), and merging the first part into the first bullet point under "Unique features". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Malljaja (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Current ref 103 (Assembing..) is lacking a publisherCurrent ref 120 (Wong G. ...) is lacking a publisherCurrent ref 171 (Harris, R....) is lacking a publisher.What makes http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/mythfolk/flyagaric.html a reliable source?Current ref 185 (BBC...) is lacking a last access date
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments—I've replaced most of the web-linked sources with references from journals, and checked and included an access date (I left this one in for easy access). I agree that the treesforlife site is not a reliable source (while interesting, the author does not give any sources), so I've exchanged this one with a journal citation as well. Malljaja (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the link to sporocarp. Sasata (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lead needs reorganizing. A basic article like this should be accessible to a high school student, but already the first two sentences use words like "eukaryotic", "monophyletic", and "phylogenetically". The reader has to work way down through a series of obscure words to get to the main things she wants to know, which are that (1) fungi consist of yeast, molds, mushrooms, and related organisms, and (2) fungi form a separate kingdom, distinct from plants and animals. It's okay to become more technical later, but a high school student should be able to get an overview of the topic without being hammered. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... I thought the lead was pretty accessible already. I somewhat agree with rewording or removing "monophyletic" and "phylogenetically", but in my experience, most people know what "eukaryotic" means before high school. Would like to hear other opinions on how accessible the lead is, and perhaps some other specific examples of things that should be reworded or simplified. Thanks for your input. Sasata (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, I think the lead is accessible. This topic can be jargon-y/technical, but I think overall the editors have made the subject accessible for general readers without loosing meaning in the process. ---kilbad (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-arranged the lead following your suggestion, ie, I moved the sentence containing the words in question downward. I removed "phylogenetically", since this may also prompt the misconception to those not familiar with the term that the fungi differ from other organisms only by some exotic character. I concur with Sasata that most high school students should be well acquainted with "eukaryotic". Looking at an FA such as Genetics, I note that it also contains some technical language (e.g., heredity) that are not part of common vernacular. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- May I suggest that the nominators ask Tim Vickers for his opinion of the Lead? He is skilled at pitching these important sections at the just the right level. Graham Colm Talk 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-arranged the lead following your suggestion, ie, I moved the sentence containing the words in question downward. I removed "phylogenetically", since this may also prompt the misconception to those not familiar with the term that the fungi differ from other organisms only by some exotic character. I concur with Sasata that most high school students should be well acquainted with "eukaryotic". Looking at an FA such as Genetics, I note that it also contains some technical language (e.g., heredity) that are not part of common vernacular. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, I think the lead is accessible. This topic can be jargon-y/technical, but I think overall the editors have made the subject accessible for general readers without loosing meaning in the process. ---kilbad (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graham! I've just left Tim a message to that effect. Malljaja (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose based on the prose - the article needs to be more accessible to the lay reader. I am a graduate student in the humanities with a strong interest in the sciences (I read popular science books for fun), but at times I was puzzled reading this article. I am one of those people who had their last science class ten years ago and doesn't use scientific terms every day. Let me show you what happens when I try to read the article (this is only a sample):
- A fungus (pronounced /ˈfʌŋɡəs/) is a eukaryotic (some specific kind of cell I remember learning about long ago - didn't click) organism that is a member of the kingdom Fungi (pronounced /ˈfʌndʒaɪ/ or /ˈfʌŋɡaɪ/).[3] Fungi are heterotrophic (clicked - "eat food to make energy" is how I interpreted that word) organisms that possess a chitinous (clicked - I still don't understand) cell wall, and most species grow as multicellular filaments called hyphae (clicked - long cells that grow?) that form a mycelium (clicked - "vegetative part of a fungus" - I don't understand that, really); some species grow as single cells. Fungi reproduce sexually or asexually via spores, which are often produced on specialized structures or in fruiting bodies (clicked - my initial guess that this was similar to regular fruit seems incorrect). Some fungi have lost the ability to form reproductive structures, and propagate solely by vegetative growth. Commonly known fungi include yeasts, molds, and mushrooms, which are general descriptions based on appearance and growth form that are often applied to groups of unrelated species. The fungi are a monophyletic (clicked - still don't understand term) group, also called the Eumycota (true fungi or Eumycetes), that is distinct from the structurally similar slime molds (myxomycetes) and water molds (oomycetes). The discipline of biology devoted to the study of fungi is known as mycology, which is often regarded as a branch of botany, but fungi are genetically more closely related to animals than to plants.
The problem with relying so extensively on links, as you can see, is that the leads of the linked articles are generally extremely poor, and therefore I was just as puzzled after I read the linked leads as before. Moreover, I had to click a lot during my reading. I persevered, but most readers will not. I am willing to put my ignorance on display here (!) and help the editors figure out solutions to these problems, if they so desire. Awadewit (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a bird author I can sympathise with the difficulties of writing the lead - balancing size with precisison. It is easier to keep the lead down to size when you use accurate terms, but these terms can be difficult to navigate for the uninitiated. With regards to the above comments, I would suggest that the lead explains what hyphae (multicelular filaments) are, and most people could take a stab at what a fruiting body means, even if they aren't right about the details. It might be good to say that form the main body or mycelium or something to that effect, and I would certainly explain what monophyly means - perhaps The fungi are an evolutionary discrete group (monophyletic) or something along those lines. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To try to make this a bit more concrete, here is a sketch of a rewrite of the first paragraph -- the rest of the lead is more readable. No doubt I've screwed up something or other here, but the point is to give an illustration of how to get ideas across without either being vague or bombarding the reader with too much terminology:
A fungus (pronounced /ˈfʌŋɡəs/) is a member of a large group of organisms that includes yeast, molds, and mushrooms. Although they were once considered to be plants, modern biologists classify the Fungi (pronounced /ˈfʌndʒaɪ/ or /ˈfʌŋɡaɪ/) as a separate kingdom, on the same level as the kingdoms of plants and animals. Fungal cells have cell walls, but unlike the cell walls of plants which are made of cellulose, the cell walls of fungi are made of chitin, the material that makes up the shells of insects. Fungi can be unicellular or multicellular. They reproduce via spores, which are often produced on specialized structures or in fruiting bodies, such as the head of a mushroom. In evolutionary terms, the fungi form a monophyletic group called the Eumycota (true fungi or Eumycetes), that is distinct from the structurally similar slime molds (myxomycetes) and water molds (oomycetes). The discipline of biology devoted to the study of fungi is known as mycology, which is often regarded as a branch of botany, even though genetic studies have shown that fungi are actually more closely related to animals than to plants.
Does that help at all? Looie496 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - that is an enormous help (and you are right that the rest of the lead is better). Again, if the editors are willing, I can point out other such sections in the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your suggested changes Looie496, I think they are an excellent template for improving accessibility of the lead and other sections. Before we do so, I'd like to voice some concerns that I hope will inform the debate on how to proceed with this. Awadewit, many thanks for your input, but I do not agree with your assertion "...that the leads of the linked articles are generally extremely poor..." I've just visited ~10 of the first entries linked from the lead, such as eukaryote, hypha, mycelium, and while they may not be at GA level, to characterize them as "extremely poor" is misleading, as they describe the terms sufficiently well within the first few sentences. To get an idea of the level of technical language in FA articles dealing with some "arcane" areas, such as, for example, Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector, White dwarf, and Proteasome, I find that these all require some level of prior knowledge, repeated reading, and perusing of linked articles to fully grasp the topics discussed. I trust that a lay reader genuinely interested in learning more about fungi (which are an extremely complex group of organisms) would also take that leap. Moreover, I'd be wary of calibrating the lead entirely to a presumptive lay audience, seeing that many readers of this entry may be students or even experts of other fields of biology who may not bother to go beyond the lead if they find it to be too simplistic. So these are my thoughts on this admittedly somewhat thorny issue. Many thanks again for both your input, and I hope we can reach a good consensus for further improvement of this entry. Malljaja (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to echo Malljaja's sentiments about "aiming too low", but I do like Looie496's revised lead. Awadewit, thanks for your opinion, it is very valuable, and I was waiting for a "non-science type" to chime in about accessibility. If you could kindly make a list of sentences in the article (perhaps on the talk page) you think need rewording or simplifying, then we can deal with them on a case by case basis. Sasata (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I can do that. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the revised lead is good, except I don't think it is necessary t spell out what chitin is, that is one thing I think a link does much better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I too want to praise Looie496's lead, and say that for the first time, it actually registered in my mind what "chitin" is. For the non-expert like me, even if the links are relatively informative, it gets exhausting clicking ever few words, as Awadewit has pointed out, and there is only so much information one retains after so much clicking in just a few sentences. Even after reading many fungi articles, this is the first time I have realized that they belong to a third kingdom, not animal nor vegetable, and that their cell walls are made of the same substance as insect shells. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One small problem with Looie's new lead: currently it says Although they were once considered to be plants, modern biologists... As far as I know, modern biologists were never considered to be plants! :) Please be sure to fix that misplaced modifier... MeegsC | Talk 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catch — now fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I too want to praise Looie496's lead, and say that for the first time, it actually registered in my mind what "chitin" is. For the non-expert like me, even if the links are relatively informative, it gets exhausting clicking ever few words, as Awadewit has pointed out, and there is only so much information one retains after so much clicking in just a few sentences. Even after reading many fungi articles, this is the first time I have realized that they belong to a third kingdom, not animal nor vegetable, and that their cell walls are made of the same substance as insect shells. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the revised lead is good, except I don't think it is necessary t spell out what chitin is, that is one thing I think a link does much better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your suggested changes Looie496, I think they are an excellent template for improving accessibility of the lead and other sections. Before we do so, I'd like to voice some concerns that I hope will inform the debate on how to proceed with this. Awadewit, many thanks for your input, but I do not agree with your assertion "...that the leads of the linked articles are generally extremely poor..." I've just visited ~10 of the first entries linked from the lead, such as eukaryote, hypha, mycelium, and while they may not be at GA level, to characterize them as "extremely poor" is misleading, as they describe the terms sufficiently well within the first few sentences. To get an idea of the level of technical language in FA articles dealing with some "arcane" areas, such as, for example, Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector, White dwarf, and Proteasome, I find that these all require some level of prior knowledge, repeated reading, and perusing of linked articles to fully grasp the topics discussed. I trust that a lay reader genuinely interested in learning more about fungi (which are an extremely complex group of organisms) would also take that leap. Moreover, I'd be wary of calibrating the lead entirely to a presumptive lay audience, seeing that many readers of this entry may be students or even experts of other fields of biology who may not bother to go beyond the lead if they find it to be too simplistic. So these are my thoughts on this admittedly somewhat thorny issue. Many thanks again for both your input, and I hope we can reach a good consensus for further improvement of this entry. Malljaja (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My issues with the prose have now been addressed. I think an evolutionary timeline would be a nice addition whenever the authors have time to make one. I cannot speak to this article's comprehensiveness or accuracy, but I do feel that it is well-written and accessible. I've been spouting interesting fungus facts ever since I started reviewing this article, so I think the authors have also done an excellent job of presenting the information in a way that engages readers. Awadewit (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
and commentsThis is a mammoth undertaking, well done for taking it on. I have no background in mycology, but I found the article interesting and readable. Although the text is a little dense in places, I think it must be accepted that an article like this has to use technical terms or become submerged in glosses or misleading substitutions. Now the nitpicks:
- please check for padding words, notably “however”. Is it always needed? Worst offender is Moreover, both plants and fungi possess a cell wall, a feature absent in the Animal Kingdom. However, the fungi are now considered a separate kingdom, distinct from both plants and animals, from which they appear to have diverged around one billion years ago. Perhaps better as Both plants and fungi possess a cell wall, a feature absent in the Animal Kingdom, although the fungi are now considered a separate kingdom, distinct from both plants and animals, from which they appear to have diverged around one billion years ago.
- I've removed multiple instances of "however", including the example you gave. I left the two-sentence structure to avoid an overly long sentence. Does this now read better? Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Peach caption. I would prefer Mold covering a decaying peach. The frames were taken approximately 12 hours apart over a period of six days.
- Done. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current classification of Kingdom Fungi, published in 2007..., better The 2007 classification of Kingdom Fungi...
- Done. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-known types of fungi are the edible and the poisonous mushrooms. Many species are commercially raised, but others must be harvested from the wild. This is nonsensical. Well-known types? Are there any that are not edible or poisonous. The second sentence is obviously dealing with edible forms, but the first suggests that it should refer to poisonous as well. I would split this section in two, Edible species and Poisonous species
- Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done; I also re-worked some parts of this section, which have not been rigorously edited previously. I retained edible and poisonous species in one section to avoid too many subsections, but am open to slicing of the two topics if further requested. Many thanks for your support and your very helpful comments and suggestions. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly OK with me Well-known fungi are the edible mushrooms. might be better as Some edible mushrooms are well-known examples of fungi. but no big deal, I leave it to your judgement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done; I also re-worked some parts of this section, which have not been rigorously edited previously. I retained edible and poisonous species in one section to avoid too many subsections, but am open to slicing of the two topics if further requested. Many thanks for your support and your very helpful comments and suggestions. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "Edible mushrooms are well-known examples of fungi." I left out the ubiquitous "Some", because some[sic] editors take issue with that. Thanks again. Malljaja (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The line one of the lead kind of suggests that yeast, molds and mushrooms are something different from Fungi but in fact they are also fungi. So, shouldn't it be changed to 'A fungus is any member...' rather than 'A fungus is a member...'. I am not happy with line one and it seems it should belong to 'Simple English' wiki rather than here. - DSachan (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To elevate the first sentence above simple English Wiki and accommodate your suggested changes, I've borrowed a phrasing as used in line one of the Bacteria entry. Does this improve the lead now? Many thanks for your comments and valuable input. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A picture of a plant pathogen would be nice. There's a nice mix of different sorts of fungi (rather than just mushrooms) but there doesn't seem to be a pathogen. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a pic of the cool rust fungus Aecidium magellanicum. If there's no objections to its inclusion, I'll add alt text in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've been thinking this for ages - we could really do with a diagram of a typical fungal cell as we currently have for plant and animal cells. I think that this would really improve the article. Smartse (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the article there's several pictures that show a variety of fungal cell types: 1) a chytrid cell in the taxobox; 2) light microscopy of fungal hyphae growing in A. thaiana; 3) phase contrast microscopy of Morchella elata asci 4) microscopic view of arbuscular mycorrhizae 5) microscopic view of hyphae of the endophytic fungus Neotyphodium coenophialum 6) DIC microscopy of S. cerevisiae. Is there something specific you wanted to see? I checked the plant and animal articles and am not sure which pics there represent the "typical" cells of those kingdoms. Sasata (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article needs to be reviewed for WP:OVERLINKing ... I found words like animal linked. See WP:LAYOUT, is all of that "See also" needed, or can those terms be linked within the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that in biology "animal" is a technical term, with a precise meaning that doesn't correspond exactly to its ordinary-language meaning. In distinguishing the kingdoms of plants, animals, and fungi, linking to an explanation of the technical definition could be quite valid. Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello SandyGeorgia. I agree that the linking issue is one that deserves serious attention to balance the need for providing quick links to relevant information with that of non-distracted readability. Following your suggestion, I've moved most links from the "SA" section into the text, and I'll soon endeavour on cleaning up/re-ordering links as much as possible. As Looie pointed out, some of the links here direct the reader to technical descriptions, which they may wish to peruse. I'll have a look at this to see which ones are really needed, and which ones may be merely distraction. Many thanks for your input. Malljaja (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an unusual article for bluelink review and unusually dense in concepts which benefit from bluelinkage. I have taken out a few which are somewhat tangential or general, but left most in. Agree with Looie about a specific concept of plants and animals as kingdoms necessitating leaving their bluelinks. Tricky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello SandyGeorgia. I agree that the linking issue is one that deserves serious attention to balance the need for providing quick links to relevant information with that of non-distracted readability. Following your suggestion, I've moved most links from the "SA" section into the text, and I'll soon endeavour on cleaning up/re-ordering links as much as possible. As Looie pointed out, some of the links here direct the reader to technical descriptions, which they may wish to peruse. I'll have a look at this to see which ones are really needed, and which ones may be merely distraction. Many thanks for your input. Malljaja (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources analysis - There are multiple paragraphs without any citation, which is problematic. Three paragraphs without any citations. Seven paragraphs lacking citations for their final sentences. Multiple sections have extremely tiny paragraphs, which makes it seem like there might be a weight concern.
- 1. Wiki - "Fungi are used extensively to produce industrial chemicals like citric, gluconic, lactic, and malic acids, antibiotics, and even to make stonewashed jeans"
- 1. Source to this - The source lacks the word "citric", "gluconic", "lactic", "malic", "acid", etc.
- 2. I am concerned about sourcing. I would like someone to compare the language on the page on the paragraph beginning "The Ascomycota, commonly known as sac fungi" with this source (I lack current access). The grouping of technical terms seems like a place that would need to be checked thoroughly. Why? The article is only about one specific item and the paragraph lists many types.
- 3. This is one of three sources that is used to source this "Phylogenetic analysis has demonstrated conclusively that the Microsporidia, unicellular parasites of animals and protists, are fairly recent and highly derived endobiotic fungi (living within the tissue of another species)," I do not feel confident in the source verifying that information. I believe that it is cited to the sentence inappropriately. (the only lines that come close is the the section starting with "Early phylogenetic studies, using sequences of microsporidial 18S rDNA [50], EF-1α and EF-2 [51,52] also seemed consistent with a very early divergence of this taxon." and ending with "The results we have obtained show definitively that Microsporidia occupy a phylogenetic position outside Kingdom Fungi." This would mean that they are -not- Fungi at all).
- 4. Also cited for the above paragraph is this, but the source contradicts any certainty in the sentence: "but the nature of the microsporidian–fungal relationship has yet to be determined"
- - There are other problems, but the sources are difficult to attain and the technical terms used are giving me a headache. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi OR, thanks for joining the fungus party! I have made a series of edits which I hope will address some of your concerns. Specifically, I read through the article again and added several references to support sentences that might have been considered "weaselly", or reworded them to sound less so. I've added some citations to end-of-paragraph sentences, and the ones that remain uncited are those I think are non-contentious, or common-knowledge (IMO); please let me know of any specific instances where you disagree. Re: (1) the source was given to support the latter part of that sentence; I have now added another source for the production of acids (didn't think it was necessary to give a source for fungi making antibiotics). Re: (2) I've added more citations to the paragraph on the ascomycota. Re: (3) and (4) Very nice analysis, I overlooked this previously. I have now refactored that statement to clarify the uncertainty about the phylogenetic placement of the Microsporidia, and rearranged the citations to that effect. Please let us know about anything else you think needs improvement. Sasata (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the FA director: All my comments above have been resolved nicely. Just clarifying as the threads above have become a little interwoven and messy. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is so special about Fungi in California that warrants an external link but can't be included in the article (See WP:EL). Also, is the {{main}} template used correctly everywhere? Main is used when this article is a summary of that article; otherwise, seealso or further or another template should be used. Citations go after punctuation except for dashes (see WP:FN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fungi in California link was non-essential, so I removed it. I've replaced all of the "Main" templates with either "See also" or wikilinks. I couldn't find any other misplaced puncs; I assume you fixed the one offender. Sasata (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:57, 18 August 2009 [2].
Lisa the Vegetarian
- Nominator(s): Theleftorium 19:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I've been working on it since December 2008 and I think it meets the FA criteria. I know it's a bit short (this is the only information available), but it's comprehensive. Theleftorium 19:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I did a copyedit for this article and found it to be well-written (there wasn't much to edit) and thoroughly researched. A fine piece of work by the editors involved. Scartol • Tok 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question why doesn't this episode have any picture from the episode itself (unlike all the other Simpsons episodes)? 18.60.2.34 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's non-free content criteria is very strict. I don't think there's any image from the episode that significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (see "8. Significance"). Theleftorium 10:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is mention at one point in the article about how Paul & Linda are drawn. Maybe include something like this? Scartol • Tok 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, there used to be an image of them in the article before. I'm not sure that passes the NFCC, though.. Theleftorium 09:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this image, you can see the colors of their eyes (well, Linda's, at least.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's actually the exact image that used to be in the article. Would you say it meets the NFCC? Theleftorium 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that for non-free images, significant critical commentaries are needed to qualify their inclusion; for the frames suggested above, the article should have certain comments on how the McCartneys were drawn or what sort of reactions were elicited by their caricatures, and would be helped with illustrations instead of words to qualify for fair-use. "The designs for Paul and Linda McCartney are unusual for The Simpsons in that the characters have brown and blue irises, respectively." does not seem substantial enough for this. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's actually the exact image that used to be in the article. Would you say it meets the NFCC? Theleftorium 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is mention at one point in the article about how Paul & Linda are drawn. Maybe include something like this? Scartol • Tok 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor (throughout); it's no disaster, though. Here are random examples.
- "October 9 to October 15, 1995" -> "October 9–15, 1995"—See MOSNUM?
- Why is "lighter fluid" linked? "Theme song" is a debatable link. Is it an obscure item? "Movie soundtrack" is definitely a common term and should not be linked here.
- Here, you could link accurately rather than distorting the info in the pipe: "The episode features several references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career." —> "The episode features several references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career.
- "But rather than simply punctuating the episode with an iconic image of the porker soaring through the air, the writers actually develop a story into which the joke fits." Consider "However,..." at the start of a sentence. Remove "actually". Slightly awkward syntax at the end. Tony (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That last one is a quote from IGN. [3] Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken care of the comments above except for the last one. Do you want me alter the quote with brackets? Theleftorium 10:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That last one is a quote from IGN. [3] Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one thing that had bothered me while I was reading the article weeks ago, but for some reason, I never pursued the issue. I'm talking about this part:
"In one scene of the episode, Homer fills his grill with two bottles of lighter fluid, causing viewers to anticipate an explosion when Homer throws a match on it. When he does release the match, however, it barely ignites. A similar joke appeared in an older episode of The Simpsons, "Treehouse of Horror", and Mirkin enjoyed it enough to reuse it."
An important thing to note is that there is an explosion after Homer sprays the lighter fluid in the earlier episode. I think we need to add or reword something in the passage above, because it's misleading to say that Mirkin "reused" the scene. Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some changes. Is it better now? (if not, please excuse my bad English) :-) Theleftorium 10:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A little bit. I made a few changes of my own. I'm still not 100% satisfied, but I'll think about it a little more. Zagalejo^^^ 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess it's good enough now. Of course, if anyone has suggestions for improvement, they're welcome to comment. Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; looks ready; in near-perfect shape. Good work. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Another excellent episode article from WP:DOH. But, however, I think a promotional image for the episode would follow the Fairuse guidelines as it better illustrates the episode in questions. As well, the Paul and Linda image might be best on the left to give it a more organized look, as all of the images on one direction makes it looked clumped, IMO. Anyways, great work. The Flash {talk} 23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: the three images are appropriately licensed; note that the Flickr source for File:Davidmirkin.jpg has a non-commercial license, but User:EPO says it was CC-BY-2.0 without restrictions on 5 August 2007. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New comments I looked at the article again, and I think the critical reviews section might benefit from a trimming. It's a bit difficult to read through, and some of the quotes are more insightful than others. Is there anything that you think we could get rid of? For starters, we should probably drop the Daily Bruin reference, since that is a college newspaper. I'd also remove the Martyn & Wood quote, which is pretty dull. Zagalejo^^^ 08:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've trimmed it down quite a bit now (removed around 1,000 bytes). Please take a look again. Theleftorium 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a little bit better. It's still a bit tough to read through, because the text rapidly jumps from one reviewer's comment to another. There's no real paragraph development, just groups of loosely related blurbs. However, I don't know if there's much more we could do with that material. If I had my way, I'd present the reviewers' comments as bullet points, rather than forcing them into paragraphs, but I realize that goes against the consensus for writing fiction articles. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this better? Theleftorium 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'd prefer that to what's in the article now. Topic sentences are good. :) There are still a few rough patches, but that's definitely an improvement. Zagalejo^^^ 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, done. :) Theleftorium 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you could split up the section into four focused paragraphs: Simpsons staff reaction, humor, character development, McCartneys (in that order). I'd move the MSNBC blurb into the paragraph that focuses on humor, and look for another quote from the DVD commentary to flesh out the staff reaction paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do that tomorrow. Theleftorium 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Do you think it's better now? Theleftorium 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that looks pretty good. I came up with something similar in my sandbox. Zagalejo^^^ 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you could split up the section into four focused paragraphs: Simpsons staff reaction, humor, character development, McCartneys (in that order). I'd move the MSNBC blurb into the paragraph that focuses on humor, and look for another quote from the DVD commentary to flesh out the staff reaction paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, done. :) Theleftorium 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'd prefer that to what's in the article now. Topic sentences are good. :) There are still a few rough patches, but that's definitely an improvement. Zagalejo^^^ 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this better? Theleftorium 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a little bit better. It's still a bit tough to read through, because the text rapidly jumps from one reviewer's comment to another. There's no real paragraph development, just groups of loosely related blurbs. However, I don't know if there's much more we could do with that material. If I had my way, I'd present the reviewers' comments as bullet points, rather than forcing them into paragraphs, but I realize that goes against the consensus for writing fiction articles. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Wiki - "The Simpson family rushes in as outlines, and gets filled in by robotic paint guns"
- 1. Source - "The Simpsons rush in as outlines - and get filled in by robotic paint guns."
- Reworded.
- 2. The source cannot verify this statement "was the first full-length episode" as it only mentions him as a writer and nothing else.
- That is verified by ref 3, do you want me to remove ref 2?
- 3. The source cannot verify this statement as it merely mentions her appearing in the episode - "Mirkin also recruited McCartney's wife Linda to appear in the episode.".
- I think this has been fixed, but please check again.
- 4. The source cannot be used to verify this statement, especially when it only mentions the lentil soup recipe in reference to the end credits: "The episode features several references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career. For instance, McCartney tells Lisa that playing his 1970 song "Maybe I'm Amazed" backwards will reveal a secret recipe for lentil soup."
- Added ref from commentary, which discusses the references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career.
- 5. Wiki - "One of the backwards snippets says, "Oh, and by the way, I'm alive," a reference to the Paul is dead theory."
- 5. Source does not specify this - "The reference to hidden messages in reversed Beatles songs refers to the (mistaken) belief that 'Paul Is Dead' was spoken backwards on the Sergeant Pepper album."
- That was verified by ref 5, but I moved them around to make it more clear.
- 6. Wiki - 'and Linda says that she enjoys visiting "Apu's garden in the shade", alluding to a line in the Beatles' 1969 song "Octopus's Garden"'
- 6. Source does not specify this - "Linda McCartney quotes, appropriately, a line from the Beatles' song Octopus's Garden."
- Done.
- 7. Source does not verify these claims "His most prominent work for the show to that point had been the "Nightmare Cafeteria" segment in the season six episode "Treehouse of Horror V"."
- That is verified by ref 5, do you want me to remove ref 4?
- 8. Neither this or this source can verify the wording - "The Simpsons staff wanted to bring McCartney onto the show, and David Mirkin thought "Lisa the Vegetarian" would be an attractive story, since McCartney is a vegetarian himself"
- The "attractive" part comes from the DVD commentary.
- 9. This source cannot verify this statement - "resulting in one of the few permanent character changes made in the show"
- That is verified by ref 10, do yo want me to remove ref 11, or move it to after the "would remain a vegetarian" part?
- 10. This source does not verify this wording - "Mirkin also recruited"
- You already brought this up in #3.
- 11. Many of the papers like The Denver Post and The Hamilton Spectator are missing online links.
- These articles are (most likely) not available online. They have been access with NewsBank. I can send them to you via email, if you want to.
- 12. This source cannot verify Apu saying "I learned long ago to tolerate...". It only has '"It's like Paul's song 'Live and Let Live.' " Paul McCartney: "Actually, it was 'Live and Let Die.' " Apu: "Well, whatever, whatever. It's got a good rhythm." ("Lisa the Vegetarian")' The line is also followed by an off-topic explanation of the song.
- That is verified by ref 1, do you want me to remove ref 22? Also, I removed the off-topic explanation.
- - Many of the sources are offline and cannot be checked. The spot checking ended about 2/3s of the way through. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote this article before you brought up the sourcing issues at my RfA, so I'm very sorry for not checking on this before the FAC nomination. I'll go through the article as soon as possible, and I can provide the offline sources to you via email. Theleftorium 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even realize that or that you wrote it. I've just been going through all of the articles from the bottom and putting in sourcing critics. It is starting to become a blur right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that it is a serious problem, and I've begun to improve my edits. Theleftorium 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of the above is important. If there is another ref that verifies the comment and I did not mention it, chances are I could not access it to determine where it comes from. However, if you have two sources saying the same thing and one leaves out an important statement, it is best to drop the reuse of the weaker source. Anyway, I will not oppose on sourcing issues, as I will just be going through and finding what I can and put it forth in as neutral as a manner as possible. Others can determine if the problems are fixed to their satisfaction so I will not be wrapped up in judgment calls or subjectivity. Good luck with the rest of the FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for reviewing the sources (I actually appreciate that you spend so much time on this). I'll remove the "weaker" sources as you suggested and check the rest of the sources tonight. Theleftorium 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of the above is important. If there is another ref that verifies the comment and I did not mention it, chances are I could not access it to determine where it comes from. However, if you have two sources saying the same thing and one leaves out an important statement, it is best to drop the reuse of the weaker source. Anyway, I will not oppose on sourcing issues, as I will just be going through and finding what I can and put it forth in as neutral as a manner as possible. Others can determine if the problems are fixed to their satisfaction so I will not be wrapped up in judgment calls or subjectivity. Good luck with the rest of the FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that it is a serious problem, and I've begun to improve my edits. Theleftorium 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even realize that or that you wrote it. I've just been going through all of the articles from the bottom and putting in sourcing critics. It is starting to become a blur right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote this article before you brought up the sourcing issues at my RfA, so I'm very sorry for not checking on this before the FAC nomination. I'll go through the article as soon as possible, and I can provide the offline sources to you via email. Theleftorium 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question—why are the people who contributed to the DVD commentary listed in the infobox? That seems highly unnecessary—listing out the key creative contributors of an episode is logical, but the listing out the commentators on the DVD is trivial. indopug (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. They're listed in the Merchandising section, anyway. Theleftorium 09:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I believe I have addressed all the sourcing issues now, including the offline sources. Theleftorium 15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 00:39, 5 August 2009 [4].
Victoria Cross for Australia
- Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a while since I graced these pages... This had a previous nomination in 2007 which failed due to a number of concerns, mainly that there was not much separate information; now we have had a recipient and all of the publicity that goes with that. I believe that this is the most comprehensive resource on this medal and I have scoured the web and books for anything else that could be added and I have come up with nothing to add. In that sense I think this meets all FA criteria: comprehensive, reliably sourced, MOS compliant etc. Thanks for your time, Woody (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is well done, except it's missing for File:Victoria Cross (UK) ribbon.png. Eubulides (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done now thanks. Woody (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1a looks good.
- Can you check the commas in this quote, please? The one after "enemy" is ... eccentric if it's official! The others aren't stunning either as a flowing package.
The Victoria Cross for Australia is the "decoration for according recognition to persons who in the presence of the enemy, perform acts of the most conspicuous gallantry, or daring or pre-eminent acts of valour or self-sacrifice or display extreme devotion to duty."
- "they are highly prized"—please clarify "they".
- pp. with space is normal for page ranges, I think. Can you check them all?
- Why is information lost in this pipe? "Siege of Sevastopol (1854-1855)"
- I removed "It is estimated that", since the citation is there, and to state the fact of the estimation seems redundant. I hope this still works.
- "last" --> "most recent"? Unsure.
- If common country-names must be linked, better to pipe them to a more specific article. They're fine in plain text, I believe, here.
- A$—I'd link first time only, and A is enough (once it was AU, once AUD). Unless it's unclear, after the first time, you don't need the letter: it's assumed. Tony (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per Tony's suggestion, I went through and put spaces between "p."/"pp." and the page numbers (there were inconsistencies). I also made the date format in the references DMY. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of the quote see the actual gazette (PDF). The commas are in the original quote, eccentric or not! ;) I think I have clarified "they", pp. was dealt with by Dabomb and I dealt with A/AU/AUD/$.
- In terms of the Sevastopol link, the (1854-1855) is a disambiguator as there was another battle in WWII. It is already stated in the previous sentence that it was backdated to 1854 to include the Crimean War, do you think the dates of the battle need to be explicit in the text?
- I think that "estimated" is needed in the sentence as nobody is certain how many medals can be made. I don't think "About 80 to 85 more Victoria Crosses could be cast from this source" makes it explicit enough that this is a complete guess on Hancock's part.
- I don't understand your "last"/most recent comment. I couldn't find most recent in the article, and the only "last" is in reference to Keith Payne. He was the last VC recipient as no more Imperial VCs will be awarded to Australians so "most recent" would be inaccurate.
- Thanks for your review Tony, regards. Woody (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All clear, Woody. Pity the gazetted text is so appalling, but I guess everyone is stuck with it. Who is paid to do it? Tony (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thanks Tony. I have re-added estimated in there now and left out about and approximately so I think it works without having any redundant words in there. In terms of the gazette, you would hope that they consulted historians and text experts but you never know, it was probably a bored civil servant! Thanks again for your review, regards. Woody (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Commonwealth citizens Australians can join the British Armed Forces so arguably the possibility does remain open (or a British VC could be awarded to an Austrlaian on attachment to British Forces), though now it would be considered a foreign decoration by the Australian authorities. David Underdown (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, hadn't thought of that, though I don't envisage it happening anytime soon, and in my opinion the wording is still valid as is. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All clear, Woody. Pity the gazetted text is so appalling, but I guess everyone is stuck with it. Who is paid to do it? Tony (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets the FA criteria - well done. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review – The three images are quite fine. Good work. NW (Talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - have previously made a few tweaks to the article, but nothing major. This is a well composed and presented article that fully meets the criteria. I do, however, have a few minor comments, but my support is not reliant on them:
- "Both the Australian and New Zealand Victoria Crosses are to be made from the same gunmetal as the originals." - considering that both the Australian and New Zealand varients have been awarded, shouldn't this sentence be updated to reflacted that they are awarded from the same source?
- "The Australian War Memorial in Canberra currently holds 61 Victoria Crosses, 59 awarded to Australians and two to British soldiers" - one of the 59 Australian VCs is actually Donaldson's VC for Australia, which he loaned to the museum soon after receiving it. This should probably be added in.
- The presentation of dates in the citations is slightly inconsistent.
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made edits regarding the AWM and the metal, but are you sure about the dates? I can't seem to find any inconsistency (Dabomb run a script over it earlier.) Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Woody; they look good. I think it was only ref no. 29 that appears inconsistent. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks again. Woody (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Woody; they look good. I think it was only ref no. 29 that appears inconsistent. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made edits regarding the AWM and the metal, but are you sure about the dates? I can't seem to find any inconsistency (Dabomb run a script over it earlier.) Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paperhttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24920258-31477,00.html deadlinks
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got all of the newspapers, and I fixed the dead link thanks. Woody (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I support this for FA, but have the following comments that I feel should be addressed before it is promoted (nothing major, just style):
- Please check the numbering of the in line citations, in the first sentence of the Original medal subsection, they are out of order...I think it would be better visually speaking if they were in numerical order (e.g. currently 12, 10, 11, but they should be 10, 11, 12);
- There is some inconsistency in how numbers are treated. For example in the last paragraph of the Original medal subsection, you have "96 Australians" followed by "Ninety", should they not be both numbers e.g. 96 and 90;
- In the References section one of the titles is capitalised irregularly;{{Done}} (fixed it myself)
- In the Further reading section, the "Register of the Victoria Cross" doesn't quite follow the same format as the other entries;
Good work though and I hope to see it featured on the main page! Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review, I think I have got all of your issues. (Oh and use of the {{done}} templates is discouraged so I have disabled it. Thanks again, Woody (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:07, 8 August 2009 [5].
Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick
Alright. Coverage is pretty much full, and Malleus and I have given this thing the copy-edit going over quite a few times now. It has been reviewed quite thoroughly by User:Hamiltonstone too, and I can't think of any reason to delay any further presenting this as an FAC. A fascinating region and period, of which Donnchadh is as good a representative as any. Owing to to the topic's obscurity, it was a bit difficult to illustrate, so thanks especially to User:Notuncurious, who has made some very helpful images and helped alleviate that problem! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ProblemOppose Why is this article titled Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick, and not Duncan, Earl of Carrick? This is, after all English, not Gaelic Wikipedia, and it would seem that the name of the subject of this article was known by, even in his own time, was closer, in written form, to Duncan than this invented "modern Gaelic" formulation. Wikipedia naming guidance states that the English name of a subject should be that used by preference in articles. A quick check on Google turned up 7,960 hits for "Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick", and 58,300 for "Duncan, Earl of Carrick". This would seem to indicate that the Duncan form is around eight times more popular in English, and should therefore be the form used. Use of the term "Donnchadh", although perhaps preferred by some modern Celtic nationalists, is also problematic for two reasons. 1) The quaint neo-celtic spelling is indecipherable to most English-speakers in the UK, never mind elsewhere, and doesn't even hint at the word Duncan. 2) It is confusing. Most history books and other sources will use "Duncan", which most people will not correllate with Donnchadh. We should not be confusing the majority of WP users. Xandar 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This would seem to indicate that the Duncan form is around eight times more popular in English," - actually I think it suggests that the Duncan form is around eight times more popular in Google. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't regard the spelling as problematic, and it's certainly not an "invented modern Gaelic formulation". It's the way most historians would spell it in this century too (with or without the leniting "h"). It would be, in any case a matter for WP:RM rather than FAC. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this major history text book, written in 2000 and published by Cambridge University Press, and this one published by Edinburgh University press use "Duncan" and "Gilbert", for the subject and his father respectively , rather than "Donnchadh" and "Gille-Brighde" as used in this article. In the text of the article "Gille-Brighde" and other gaelicisations have also been used constantly and without the more normal English language equivalents. I am sure these are not the spellings that appear in the historical documents either, therefore they ARE newly-derived. I do feel the article is in danger of putting politics or PC ahead of the interests of the the average reader. Apart from being a breach of WP guidelines, this is making the article impenetrable to most readers with a mass of unpronouncable, similar-looking and newly-devised "alphabet soup" names. If the article is confusing, or of little use to the average reader because of this, it cannot meet the FA criteria. Xandar 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this major history text book, written in 2000 and published by Cambridge University Press, and this one published by Edinburgh University press use "Duncan" and "Gilbert", for the subject and his father respectively , rather than "Donnchadh" and "Gille-Brighde" as used in this article. In the text of the article "Gille-Brighde" and other gaelicisations have also been used constantly and without the more normal English language equivalents. I am sure these are not the spellings that appear in the historical documents either, therefore they ARE newly-derived. I do feel the article is in danger of putting politics or PC ahead of the interests of the the average reader. Apart from being a breach of WP guidelines, this is making the article impenetrable to most readers with a mass of unpronouncable, similar-looking and newly-devised "alphabet soup" names. If the article is confusing, or of little use to the average reader because of this, it cannot meet the FA criteria. Xandar 19:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well examples such as these [6][7][8][9] would show use of the other spelling. I researched the article and am aware of when spellings are used. The text book in question specialises in a later period. No matter. Duncan was not his name, and is anachronistic. If you want to change the spelling, take it to RM. It's been at this name since it was created a few years ago,; if you want to use its FACing to force your own POV about spellings on the article, that's not particularly dignified, but I can't stop you. It would be disappointing for all of my own and Malleus' work to go nowhere because of this, but I can't do anything about the existence of this kind of objection, as I firmly disagree with its merit. I also don't believe that the article's likely readers are so culturally inexperienced that they won't be able to handle such names. But there you go. What's does my opinion matter?! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This issue has really been done to death. The "this is the English language wikipedia" argument is not relevant. The body of the text is in English, as it should be, while the article topic is in the language relevant to it - as are tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of other articles on the English language wikipedia. As for google searches - these might occasionally be useful as a sort of guide when deciding the notability of an article but for revealing the type of orthography used in modern academic scholarship? Not so much.
- Use of the term "Donnchadh", although perhaps preferred by some modern Celtic nationalists, is also problematic for two reasons. 1) The quaint neo-celtic spelling is indecipherable to most English-speakers in the UK, never mind elsewhere, and doesn't even hint at the word Duncan.
- This just doesn't hold water to be honest. First of all the idea that there is some kind of mythical 'Celtic nationalism' which insists that historical personalities have their names written in the relevant language rather than use bastardised Anglicised forms is absolute bunk and one that would be recognised as such by anyone familiar with the nature of Scottish nationalism and historiography. This may well (and i'm fairly sure is) an existant factor in Ireland and possibly Wales but certainly not in Scotland, where the Celtic/Gaelic origin of the nation has been largely divorced from Scottish nationalism and Scottish ideas of history for centuries. As for the Gaelic forms being incomprehensible, perhaps you might like to take a second and ask yourself how anglicised forms of Gaelic presonal names like Duncan, Donald, Malcolm or place names like Glasgow, Inverness, Kilmarnock came into existence if the original Gaelic forms from which they are derived were, and are, "indecipherable". The reality is that an English monoglot coming into contact with "Donnchadh" or "Dun Dè" will decipher them just as easily as their predecessors did centuries ago when they corrupted/converted them to the English forms of "Duncan" and "Dundee". Anyway all that aside, the question of whether or not the one form is dominant over the other amongst the relevant modern scholars is not something i am qualified to comment upon. Deacon, however, is more than qualified to comment upon it and given his background in the topic and his record on Wikipedia you should have a fairly good reason to try and derail an article en route to Featured status when you don't seem to have any arguments beyond the old ones which have been covered before, many times, and in great detail, on other articles of this nature. siarach (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Siarach. Yes, in wikipedia practice these names (Gaelic or otherwise) are not normally anglicized for the sake of it, and are so only when there is a considerable body of popular writing on the topic, such as for most monarchs. That's the practice normally followed (e.g. Gruffydd ap Rhys, not Griffin son of Rees). If there was lots of popular stuff on this Donnchadh calling him Duncan, I'd be able to overlook academic usage and quite frankly accuracy, but there isn't. And yes, google-ization of books focuses on old books and maintream topics, and most of the works likely to be used for this kind of article to make it decent aren't online. This would be a very short article indeed if I were relying on internet books. Most of the works in English written fairly recently used for this article preferred the name Donnchad(h), as you would expect if you know the mentality of insularist historians. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not concerned about the politics but the readability and intelligbility of the article. Of the Links that Deacon alleges support "Donnchadh" as the spelling, the first, when searched, mentions no "Donnchadh"s but three "Donnchad"s - none of them the person in question. The second example doesn't use Donnchadh. His third example, Melrose Abbey actually uses Duncan, on pages 232 and 243. Professor G.W.S. Barrow, one of the article's chief sources, also uses Duncan in his books: in the title I quoted earlier, in The Anglo-Norman era in Scottish history, and in Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland. These are heavily referenced in the article, and do not use Donnchadh.
- As far as I can see, very few books use the name Donnchadh - which this article is titled. A few use "Donnchad", without the "h", but the vast majority use "Duncan", and this is the form found 8 times to 1 ahead of Donnchadh in Google. And it's not just a matter of the title. Many other names in the article are transposed into neo Gaellic or Irish. (For which no pronunciation guide is given.) I have already mentioned "Gilbert," who becomes "Gille-Brighde". The article speaks of a king of "Tir Eoghain", which again is puzzling, until you discover that this redirects to County Tyrone. Why not just say Tyrone? "Gall-Gaidhil" redirects to Lords of Galloway. Why not just say this, and help the reader understand, instead of creating confusion? These usages are unhelpfully obscurantist. There is also "Gofraidh, King of Mann," who, although named here in Gaellic, is actually of Norse origin, and is listed in Wikipedia as Godred II Olafsson!
- Duncan/Donnchadh himself is not as purely Gaelic as the article treatment would suggest. He is heavily linked with the anglo-Normans. Even his seal, reads "DUNCANI", which shows that HE used this name. So, for many reasons, we are not talking about "anglicizing" names that have always been recorded in Celtic, we are talking about preserving the standard names of important people and places as used currently in English and in the major academic literature. Wikipedia should not be introducing new minority naming systems. Someone reading this article and then looking for some of the related people or places in other books and reference sources will generally draw a blank because of the terms used. For this reason, Wikipedia guidance states to use the most common version of a name name in English, and in reliable reference sources. This hasn't been done in the article, and instead it has been made unnecesarily confusing and even misleading, by the use of obscure naming and terminology. Xandar 01:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't take offence, but your post is riddled with historical misunderstandings. I let stuff like "Celtic nationalism" and other stuff go above, but "Neo-Gaelic"? What? Gilbert "becomes" Gille-Brighde? For goodness sake. What is "Duncan/Donnchadh himself is not as purely Gaelic" meant to mean?
- But yeah, you got me on the Melrose book ... here's another to replace it.[10] The "h" is there to indicate it is lenited (it occurs alternatively in the texts with a dot above); I'm agreeable to moving it to h-lessness if you want, but that'd take it out of sync with the images, and really there's no reason to other than google popularity. Spellings are synchronised for reasons of cognitive dissonance.
- Listen, if you want to give the article a serious review on sentence structure, and the things you're good at, do so. If you wanna talk spellings, go to the talk page. You've already heard my opinion on it, and posts like that aren't gonna change my mind. It is a community decision in any case, and it's not my article. But if you want me [to agree] to change the spelling because of that kind of historical nonsense, then you're gonna be disappointed. I follow conventions of modern historical writing, and I don't agree that dumbing down for some fantasy stupid reader when it will damage the article's quality is good practice. I mean, do you want me to change all the spellings, wait for this to pass and then change them back? To appease your POV, this would be really the most sensible thing. Determining names based on google hits is not an FA criterion. No more needs to be said on this topic I don't think. FAC is not WP:RM. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, as [Insular] Medievalist wikipedians aren't numerous or interested enough to come up with a relevant MoS that improves the encyclopedia, for good histiographil practice the recommendations outline in the Scottish Historical Review MoS guideline (section ii) are relevant to this particular article, and they recommend the style used in this artcile. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a matter of "dumbing-down". The major historical works on the subject published by sources like the Cambridge and Edinburgh University presses are not "dumbing-down." It's about following wikipedia naming policy and using the standard, most accessible and popular English terms. These are matters which you have not addressed. And you have by no means proven, or even provided significant evidence that use of the Gaelic terms in the article is current academic or popular usage, while I have provided significant evidence from the sources of this article that standard English language terms are used. Wikipedia is not a specialist publication. It is aimed at the average English-speaking reader around the world, not a small coterie of Gaelic-users. And the problem lies in the article text as well as title. Using "Tir Eoghain", for Tyrone, and Gall-Gaidhil for Galloway is obscurantist and tends strongly towards jargon (see Wikipedia:OBVIOUS#Use_other_languages_sparingly). Nor is this a matter of a "Fantasy-stupid-reader". Wikipedia aims at a WORLDWIDE audience, 12 years and up. I would guess far less than 1% of these readers will be familiar with confusing Gaellic terms like Gall-Gaidhil and Gille-Brighde. This is not a specialist audience, and is why standard English terms are needed. As for attempting to read this article out to another person - with no attempt made to provide a useful or accessible pronunciation guide - would be impossible. As far as I'm concerned this article breaches WPguidance on Jargon, POV, use of English, use of standard terms and accessibility. It is therefore not FA until these matters are dealt with. Xandar 11:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can rest assured that neither the works using Duncan or Donnchadh followed wikipedia naming conventions, your interpretation or not. "Tir Eoghain" is not used for County Tyrone, it is used for a kingdom that doesn't have an article (and spelling it that way is normal English). County Tyrone is an administrative unit that is loosely based on that kingdom's borders as they were centuries later, but it is not the same thing. It redirects there because it has no article. Likewise, Gall-Gaidhil doesn't have an article either (I was planning to give it one shortly). It could equally redirect to Norse Gaels, but the choice of redirecion is certainly not based on "obscurantism". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duncan/Donnchadh himself is not as purely Gaelic as the article treatment would suggest. He is heavily linked with the anglo-Normans. Even his seal, reads "DUNCANI", which shows that HE used this name. So, for many reasons, we are not talking about "anglicizing" names that have always been recorded in Celtic, we are talking about preserving the standard names of important people and places as used currently in English and in the major academic literature. Wikipedia should not be introducing new minority naming systems. Someone reading this article and then looking for some of the related people or places in other books and reference sources will generally draw a blank because of the terms used. For this reason, Wikipedia guidance states to use the most common version of a name name in English, and in reliable reference sources. This hasn't been done in the article, and instead it has been made unnecesarily confusing and even misleading, by the use of obscure naming and terminology. Xandar 01:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent> Comment on name issue only. I find myself in a quandary here. I have recently used versions of Xandar's arguments here on the talk page at Talk:Scotland during the Roman Empire, arguing against a user who suggested it be moved to 'Caledonia during the Roman Empire', suggesting that Scotland was 'anachronistic' (see one of Deacon's points, above). My view then was that the naming should, firstly, be tied to the prevailing practice in the contemporary literature and, second, be whatever makes it easiest for a WP lay reader to find the article. Unfortunately, these two criteria do not appear to produce quite as clear-cut a result in the present discussion.
Having said that, can I make two pleas. First, is it not possible, given the varied use of the term in the literature, to simply create two or three redirects to the present article? And second, let's focus on the FAC for the content. I think Deacon's work is excellent, so if we can deal with other issues, the naming question really is secondary (though I accept it may be not only about the article title, but also treatment of the name(s) in the text), and can be resolved either here or at WP:RM, without getting in the way of a decent FAC discussion. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't just aboput the title though. The problem is throughout the article. And I would say that this issue is actually more extreme than the Caledonia one - since a much larger minority of potential users know that Caledonia means Scotland, than that Donnchadh means Duncan, Gall-Gaidhil means Galloway or Tir Eoghain means Tyrone. This is a matter of accessibility. The over-use of Gaellicisation, even of non-Gaelic entities (Anglo-Norman, Norse etc) also infers a false picture of a totally Gaelic region - which is untrue and therefore POV by implication. Anyway. I'm not a dictator here. That's my view, and we'll see if other editors disagree. I'm not insisting we have to change the headline name (though I would prefer it), but definitely the article text needs a LOT more use of standard English, and fewer obscure Gaelicised names and terms. Xandar 11:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. You are misunderstanding why Tir Eoghain and Gall-Gaidhil redirect to the places they do. If you believe that Ireland and south-western Scotland were not Gaelic in speech in this period, please publish an article on the topic and enlighten everyone.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (question to Xandar). I'm no expert in this field. However, do both parties (Xandar and Deacon) agree that the use of names such as Donnchadh and Gall-Gaidhil is "Gaellicisation"? I thought they represented the prevailing contemporaneous names in extant primary sources, not a retroactive Gaellicisation. I can see this whole issue is a minefield across WP. See Marc Antony, for example, where the modern English usage is used throughout - and then I note that it has fallen from former FA to humble C-class! I'm not sure where this debate ends up, but I don't have a good feeling about it. Might this be a discussion better taken elsewhere; and has it already been had somewhere of which any experienced editor is aware? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is part of this FAC because the over-use of scarcely-translated Gaelicisms is making the article very hard to understand, or to cross-reference with other sources. This applies even within WP. King Máel Coluim mac Donnchada for example, links to Malcolm III of Scotland, with nothing to indicate this in the article. Donnchadh and Gall-Gaidhil etc, may appear in some primary sources. I'm not sure. However Latin and ONF sources will be the majority, using Duncan and variants. The point is, however, that while these people and places may have had Gaelic names at the time 1)These were not universal, and 2) Wikipedia policy (for good reason) is to normally use English forms, especially so where these are better known popularly and better attested in the literature. So we use Turin instead of Torino, Munich rather than Munchen and Christopher Columbus rather than Christoffa Corombo or Cristóbal Colón. For significant figures with standard English names, we should use those names, to make things easier for the reader. Saying the "Lords of Galloway" is far less obscure and obfuscatory than saying the "Gall-Gaidhil" since the reader knows what a Lord is, and can find Galloway on a map or other reference source. The "Gall-Gaidhil" could be a three-toed cat as far as most casual readers will know. And it is no use saying that the borders have changed since then. The borders of Spain have changed too, but the entity that retains the core is still referred to as Spain. If Gelic forms must be used by the authors, they need to be amply and immediately translated in the text. Xandar 23:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gall-Gaidhil is not the same as "Lords of Galloway" ... one is a people and one is a title. The current redirection is just convenience pending an article. You are free to read the whole section devoted the Gall-Gaidhil, and to look at the maps made for this article, and in both you and any straw reader will discover they are not a three toed cat. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image at the top of the article shows quite clearly how Donnchadh himself liked to spell his name when it mattered most. Srnec (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deacon, You actually make my point for me, in that the article as currently constructed led me to the error about the "Lords of Galloway" - hence the need for terms like Gall-Gaidhil and other similar Gaelicisms to be properly translated in the article. Xandar 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image at the top of the article shows quite clearly how Donnchadh himself liked to spell his name when it mattered most. Srnec (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gall-Gaidhil is not the same as "Lords of Galloway" ... one is a people and one is a title. The current redirection is just convenience pending an article. You are free to read the whole section devoted the Gall-Gaidhil, and to look at the maps made for this article, and in both you and any straw reader will discover they are not a three toed cat. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is part of this FAC because the over-use of scarcely-translated Gaelicisms is making the article very hard to understand, or to cross-reference with other sources. This applies even within WP. King Máel Coluim mac Donnchada for example, links to Malcolm III of Scotland, with nothing to indicate this in the article. Donnchadh and Gall-Gaidhil etc, may appear in some primary sources. I'm not sure. However Latin and ONF sources will be the majority, using Duncan and variants. The point is, however, that while these people and places may have had Gaelic names at the time 1)These were not universal, and 2) Wikipedia policy (for good reason) is to normally use English forms, especially so where these are better known popularly and better attested in the literature. So we use Turin instead of Torino, Munich rather than Munchen and Christopher Columbus rather than Christoffa Corombo or Cristóbal Colón. For significant figures with standard English names, we should use those names, to make things easier for the reader. Saying the "Lords of Galloway" is far less obscure and obfuscatory than saying the "Gall-Gaidhil" since the reader knows what a Lord is, and can find Galloway on a map or other reference source. The "Gall-Gaidhil" could be a three-toed cat as far as most casual readers will know. And it is no use saying that the borders have changed since then. The borders of Spain have changed too, but the entity that retains the core is still referred to as Spain. If Gelic forms must be used by the authors, they need to be amply and immediately translated in the text. Xandar 23:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (question to Xandar). I'm no expert in this field. However, do both parties (Xandar and Deacon) agree that the use of names such as Donnchadh and Gall-Gaidhil is "Gaellicisation"? I thought they represented the prevailing contemporaneous names in extant primary sources, not a retroactive Gaellicisation. I can see this whole issue is a minefield across WP. See Marc Antony, for example, where the modern English usage is used throughout - and then I note that it has fallen from former FA to humble C-class! I'm not sure where this debate ends up, but I don't have a good feeling about it. Might this be a discussion better taken elsewhere; and has it already been had somewhere of which any experienced editor is aware? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. You are misunderstanding why Tir Eoghain and Gall-Gaidhil redirect to the places they do. If you believe that Ireland and south-western Scotland were not Gaelic in speech in this period, please publish an article on the topic and enlighten everyone.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't just aboput the title though. The problem is throughout the article. And I would say that this issue is actually more extreme than the Caledonia one - since a much larger minority of potential users know that Caledonia means Scotland, than that Donnchadh means Duncan, Gall-Gaidhil means Galloway or Tir Eoghain means Tyrone. This is a matter of accessibility. The over-use of Gaellicisation, even of non-Gaelic entities (Anglo-Norman, Norse etc) also infers a false picture of a totally Gaelic region - which is untrue and therefore POV by implication. Anyway. I'm not a dictator here. That's my view, and we'll see if other editors disagree. I'm not insisting we have to change the headline name (though I would prefer it), but definitely the article text needs a LOT more use of standard English, and fewer obscure Gaelicised names and terms. Xandar 11:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More work needed on the writing. Here are examples just from the top.
- Awkward piping: "As a result of his father's conflict with Uhtred and the Scottish king William the Lion, Donnchadh became a hostage of King Henry II of England." See the specific explanation here. There's another in "King John".
- Remove "comparatively"?
- "He married the daughter of Alan fitz Walter, a leading member of the family later known as the House of Stewart, future monarchs of Scotland and England."—it's OK, but the last comma might be better as a dash, since it has a quite different function to that of the previous commas (announces an explanation).
- "documented well"—reverse order?
- "Charters provide a little information about some of his activities, but overall their usefulness is limited. This is because no charter-collections (called cartularies) from the Gaelic south-west have survived the Middle Ages; the only surviving charters relevant to Donnchadh's career come from the heavily Normanised English-speaking area to the east." Possibly better relationships between the clauses thus: "Charters provide a little information about some of his activities, but overall their usefulness is limited; this is because no charter-collections (called cartularies) from the Gaelic south-west have survived the Middle Ages, and the only surviving charters relevant to Donnchadh's career come from the heavily Normanised English-speaking area to the east." See what you think.
- I wondered why "Ireland" was linked the first time; but twice within a minute?
- "late-12th century"—No hyphen, I think. Mid- yes. Am I right? (Unsure)
- "Historians are reliant"—Rephrase as two words?
- Check overlinking: for example, "ethnicity"—is that a stretch for most readers? Tony (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I implemented your suggestions. I delinked ethnicity and barony. The double linking, I thought it was the custom [at some stage] to start link counting separately in the lead and body? Ireland might be part of the overlinking in any case, I don't think there are many who would need to click on it. I tried to solve the nominal group/King problem, though not quite sure that I grasped it. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Query - any reason why you've got the Acta of Malcolm and William in the secondary sources instead of primary as I would expect them?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Well spotted. They are in the secondary section because they were used primarily (if not entirely, I can't remember) as secondary sources. I.e. the introduction sections were the parts of those works drawn upon. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying so in the article (which implies that the curious reader should find this edition, and not expect much in the primary source) would be a good thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Well spotted. They are in the secondary section because they were used primarily (if not entirely, I can't remember) as secondary sources. I.e. the introduction sections were the parts of those works drawn upon. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't returned to the article, but I guess you've visited the section at WT:MOS where the green/yellow map has been talked about. MASEM agrees it's not yet good. (Do you have control of the original? If so, can you remove the in-pic title? The "in" is missing from it, as well as its rather in-your-face presence. Tony (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also find it glarish, at least at the standard settings of my monitor - can we tone down the saturation a little? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't returned to the article, but I guess you've visited the section at WT:MOS where the green/yellow map has been talked about. MASEM agrees it's not yet good. (Do you have control of the original? If so, can you remove the in-pic title? The "in" is missing from it, as well as its rather in-your-face presence. Tony (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold I must join Xandar in my uneasiness on the naming. The Complete Peerage describes our subject as "Duncan, son of Gilbert, son of Fergus, the Celtic Lord of Galloway". That seems to me standard usage in English; what Deacon has done is like naming our article on Ovid P. Ouidius Naso. Such a title, contemporary spelling and all, has its uses - but they are uses for specialists, who have better resources than us. We are intended for lay readers. We are writing in English, not Gaelic; even this title is inconsistent, in not using mormaer and Carraig - or whatever the thirteenth century forms would be.
- When I get back from vacation, I will see what the sources actually use and what they mention. They may convince me to support on this issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:07, 8 August 2009 [11].
South Park (season 1)
- Nominator(s): user:TheLeftorium, Nergaal (talk), user:Hunter Kahn 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because, well, Eric Cartman looked in his mom's closet and saw what he was getting for Christmas, an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000. Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really missed the pointless bureaucracy here at FAC. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially thought the same, but you might have a different view if you were blind or partially sighted. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait I don't get the joke Nergaal posted above, it doesn't sound like a legitimate reason to nominate this for FAC. Also wasn't this article before nominated for FLC? —Terrence and Phillip 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- re: nominators put stuff at FAC if they think they are good for FA/fulfills the criteria => I write blurbs that might intrigue people enough to review the article + see the comments at FLC + I'll fix the alts also. Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait I don't get the joke Nergaal posted above, it doesn't sound like a legitimate reason to nominate this for FAC. Also wasn't this article before nominated for FLC? —Terrence and Phillip 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I initially thought the same, but you might have a different view if you were blind or partially sighted. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really missed the pointless bureaucracy here at FAC. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding some alt text. However, it could use some improvement. In "A depiction of the four boys", the "A depiction of" is redundant and should be removed; and "the" suggests that the reader should know which boys these are, which a non-expert reader would not. Also, more detail is needed: saying just "four boys" doesn't describe Image:SouthPark season1.jpg well. The alt text "Two guys sitting in a chair during an interview" is a bit better, but "during an interview" is not immediately verifiable merely by looking at the image and should therefore be removed, and the remainder is both not-quite-right ("a" chair?) and not enough detail. Can you please give it another try? Please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples for some ideas. Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I love FAC/FLC for all the reviewers typing ten times the text required to add to the article itself. Just a quick clarification: how would somebody "blind or partially sighted" be capable of reading the text but not comprehend an image?Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned in WP:ALT, visually impaired readers often use assistive technology such as JAWS and Orca, which read a web page out loud to you. When these readers come to an image without alt text, they're stuck and often simply read out the file name of the image, which is not that helpful.
- Thanks for adding some more alt text, but I'm afraid it still needs some work. The phrase "possibly answering a question" is not right, since it's speculation. Alt text should be immediately verifiable only from the image, and shouldn't speculate like that. The other alt text "Kenny, Stan, Cartman, and Kyle waiving their hands" (1) contains proper names that cannot be verified by a non-expert, (2) has a misspelling, and (3) doesn't describe the gist of the image well: for example, it completely ignores the large lettering in that image. Please give it another try.
- You're correct that I could write the alt text for this article, but I don't have time to write alt text for all Wikipedia articles, and I try to help others to learn how to do it. It's not that hard a skill to pick up, typically; and the more people that know how to do it, the more-accessible Wikipedia will become to the visually impaired.
- Eubulides (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this digression over now with the new entries? Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This thread is not a digression, as the article should conform to the WP:ALT guideline.
- Thanks for improving the alt text some more. However, the result still had a couple of the problems noted above: the first alt text contained the claim "main characters" that can't be verified by a non-expert reader only from the image, and the second alt text contained the misleading text "in his hands" (only one hand was used). Also, the alt text could have been a bit more descriptive.
- To try to help improve the article I changed:
- the alt text for Image:SouthPark season1.jpg as follows: 'A gray box
depicting the four main characters handwaving, and with the title of the show, South Park, typed in large fontcontains four crudely drawn cartoon children waving their hands. They have big round heads and wear colorful winter clothes. Behind them is "SOUTH PARK" in big letters, and below them is "THE COMPLETE FIRST SEASON".'; and - the alt text for Image:Trey Parker Matt Stone 2007.jpg as follows "Two
guys sitting down, one of them holdingseated men. One holds a microphone inhis handsone hand and gestures with the other.".
- the alt text for Image:SouthPark season1.jpg as follows: 'A gray box
- Eubulides (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this digression over now with the new entries? Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I love FAC/FLC for all the reviewers typing ten times the text required to add to the article itself. Just a quick clarification: how would somebody "blind or partially sighted" be capable of reading the text but not comprehend an image?Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—1a. Needs a thorough, independent copy-edit throughout. Here are random things I picked up as examples.
- "region 2 and 4" ... "Regions 2 and 4"?
- fixed. n
- "The first season was a ratings success for Comedy Central, receiving a Nielsen Rating rating of 1.3 for the first episode, to 6.4 by the tenth episode."—"rising to"?
- fixed. n
- Direct quotes in the lead need citations. Either move the direct quotes to below and express generically, or provide refs.
- wasn't aware of this requirement; fixed. Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Opening para in "Development" is VERY long. A turn-off. Can you audit paragraph lengths throughout?
- almost doubled the # of para. n
- "Cartman tells his friends about the odd dream he had of aliens abducting him and inserting things into his anus." Noun + -ing is usually inelegant. "that aliens ab....". "Odd" is ambiguous. See User:Tony1/Advanced_editing_exercises#A_common_problem.E2.80.94noun_plus_-ing Tony (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wouldn't switching the -ing change the meaning? Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried a new wording. Could you guys let me know if that's sufficient? Also, Tony, do you still feel a copy edit is necessary, or do you think it's minor enough of a problem that we can work it out here at the FAC? — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wouldn't switching the -ing change the meaning? Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
What makes http://animatedtv.about.com/cs/news/a/awards_2.htm a reliable source?- that was a weird slip. fixed. Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it normal to have nothing about the VHS releases, I realise it's pretty much a dead technology now but if the article's going to be truly comprehensive wouldn't it be worth including? Guest9999 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a bit about the VHS releases. Do you think this is sufficient? — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a good addition to me. Guest9999 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a bit about the VHS releases. Do you think this is sufficient? — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I see minor MOS fixes need throughout—the episodes in the plot synopsis bit need to be in quotes. Jesus vs. Frosty/Santa should also be in quotes as they are shorts. Also, since both shorts link to the same article, I don't think there is a need to link both.
- Infobox—Are all those DVD release dates necessary? I actually don't see how any are required for the infobox, but even so, only the original one seems necessary. The rest is mentioned in the table below anyway. Also, I suggest removing those citations as they cramp the infobox (it's all cited elsewhere anyway) indopug (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the quotes for the episodes and shorts; the shorts link to different places in the article so I left the links; I cleaned up the DVD release in the infobox. Any other issues? Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, despite the minor prose issues I think this article would qualify as a FA. There seems to be no serious breaching of the FA criteria. —Terrence and Phillip 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:25, 12 August 2009 [12].
Kaiser class battleship
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of my German battleship FACs, this article was significantly rewritten over the past couple of months. It passed GA in May and WP:MILHIST A-class review a few days ago. I think the article is at or close to FA standards; any comments that help me get all the way there are appreciated. I've added alt text to the images, though I'm still a little unsure of how that's supposed to be done, so if it needs work, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis good, as far as Cr. 1a goes.
- WP:LINK advises against the linking of common geographical locations (like Germany). Any reason to here? It's a very big article. I see that "German Imperial Navy" is linked a second later ...
- "Kaiser" is italicised at the opening, but not in the title. Is this correct?
- Minus sign for -8. It's in the edit tools under the edit window ("Insert" tab), before the multiplication sign.
- I think MOSNUM says to spell out 160 here: "160 99.9 lb shells".
- Avoid multihyphen bracket monster by inverting the order: "the ships had a 4 cm (1.6 in)-thick torpedo bulkhead" -> "the ships had a torpedo bulkhead 4 cm (1.6 in) thick".
- "yards"—do we provide metric equivalents for this situation?
- "caliber" is US spelling; I'd have thought this had enough reference to the UK to be otherwise, but maybe I'm wrong. Tony (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking this stuff, Tony. I'm not quite sure what you mean by your second bullet; do you mean the large bold title "Kaiser class battleship" at the top of the page. I am unfamiliar with any way of italicizing the actual title. I fixed the "160 -> one hundred and sixty", the bracket/hyphen issue you pointed out, and the missing conversion you mentioned. As for US/UK spelling, the way I see it, "national ties to a topic" only applies to British ships. Another issue is, I wrote my first FA, SMS Von der Tann, and I did try to stick with British English, since that was how it was originally written. I found this to be extremely difficult and time-consuming; I'm an American, and the time spent trawling the article for words I spelled out of habit in AE that needed to be switched to BE could have been more usefully spent elsewhere. I have since stopped doing this. Thanks again for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahoy there Good read but:
"30.5 m (100 ft)" would make those pretty long barreled guns, any chance that was 30.5mm calibre?- I'm not sure about "The ships lost speed up to 66 percent and heeled over 8 degrees" was that meant to be "The ships lost speed up to 66 percent when heeled over 8 degrees".
The lead describes the ships as "raised and broken up for scrap between 1930 and 1937" but later you give March 29 as the date for the raising of one of them.the lead mentions their involvement in operation Albion, but I could find no mention of this in the main article.could you check your sources re their having 88mm flak guns, my understanding was that flak guns came later, after aircraft had become dangerous.ϢereSpielChequers 23:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking the article. Yes, somehow the template got messed up (probably a copy-paste error on my part, I'd guess); it should have been 30.5cm (12in). The speed loss and heel figures were when the ship was turning at the tightest angle, I apparently didn't say that in the text. Kaiser wasn't actually broken up until 1930, which is probably what I was thinking when I wrote the lead. I changed it to 1929 to avoid any confusion. Thanks for catching my forgetting of Albion, I'll add an appropriate section tomorrow when I have the time. As for the flak guns, they were indeed added later in the war. Groner's states "four [two] 8.8 cm/45 AA guns (2,500 rounds)", the "[two]" indicates that two of the guns were later removed. Further information on the flak guns can be found here. It does seem a little odd that the Germans were fitting AA guns to their warships, but I'd wager a guess it had to do with the Cuxhaven Raid of 1914. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, may I suggest adding a note to the effect that they were originally built without flak guns but had later had .... installed.ϢereSpielChequers 08:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Alright, I've added the section on Operation Albion and reworded the sentence about the Flak guns to make clear that they were added to the ship later. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was interesting. Two minor points:
Four tubes on the broadside - unless they were on a turntable on the deck I'm assuming this was either two tubes on each side of the ship, or four on one side and none on the other?South America and South Africa, as Germany had a colony in what is now Namibia, I wonder if you might check whether that was South America and Southern Africa as it would be odd for them to go nearby and not visit their own colony.
- ϢereSpielChequers 17:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was interesting. Two minor points:
- Alright, I've added the section on Operation Albion and reworded the sentence about the Flak guns to make clear that they were added to the ship later. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there were two tubes on each side of the ship, which I have now clarified. Groner's states "These ships participated in the first major trial overseas of a detached division, to South America and South Africa in 1913–14, with the light cruiser Strassburg." It doesn't say anything more specific about which ports were visited. It is entirely possible that the ships never visited German South-West Africa, the German African colonies were a sort of useless backwater (Herwig's Luxury Fleet has an excellent chapter detailing the utterly deplorable conditions in the German overseas possessions, pp 95–110). Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking in to that, thats me done; But looking at the picture of the Prinzregent Luitpold I think its a photo rather than an illustration, and you might want to talk to user:Durova as to how those photos could be restored. ϢereSpielChequers 19:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there were two tubes on each side of the ship, which I have now clarified. Groner's states "These ships participated in the first major trial overseas of a detached division, to South America and South Africa in 1913–14, with the light cruiser Strassburg." It doesn't say anything more specific about which ports were visited. It is entirely possible that the ships never visited German South-West Africa, the German African colonies were a sort of useless backwater (Herwig's Luxury Fleet has an excellent chapter detailing the utterly deplorable conditions in the German overseas possessions, pp 95–110). Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with one picky comment. Shouldn't the notes be listed as [Note 1] etc instead of [Notes 1]? "notes" is plural. --Brad (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point. That's how I had been doing it in other articles, but at some point I randomly added the "s". Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wonderful job, no complaints from me Burningview (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Gave this one the tick in MILHIST ACR and it's only improved since then. One thing though in Operation Albion... You finish with the expression the German army held their objectives. First off, "the army" is singular, so you need "its", not "their". Secondly, I would say one "attains objectives", or "holds gains", but not "holds objectives" - suggest you substitute one of those alternatives I've mentioned... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing it again, Ian. I fixed the wording issue as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: Are we sure that File:SMS Kaiser steaming to Scapa.PNG is a work of the British government? It's an Imperial War Museum photograph, but does that mean that it was actually created by the British government? As well, the image's date needs to go on its description page. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really the only possibility; the German fleet was under British escort for majority of their trip from Germany to Scapa, which included observation blimps. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied with that (I'd missed that the photo was taken post-armistice, which is why it struck me as unlikely to be a British government photo). The date still needs to go on the description page, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the date and a short caption. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All quiet on the image front. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the date and a short caption. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied with that (I'd missed that the photo was taken post-armistice, which is why it struck me as unlikely to be a British government photo). The date still needs to go on the description page, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really the only possibility; the German fleet was under British escort for majority of their trip from Germany to Scapa, which included observation blimps. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The {{main}} templates appear to be incorrectly used in this article. "Main" is used when this article is a summary of that article. This article discusses one class of ships, so it's unlikely that it's a summary of a battle. The templates should be switched to a further information or see also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I didn't know that before. I guess I have some other articles to fix as well. I've changed them all here to {{detail}}. Thanks Sandy. Parsecboy (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [13].
Mary Toft
- Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who could resist the charms of an 18th-century woman who...erm...well, I'll leave it to you to read exactly what she did, only today she probably would be paid lots of money for doing it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment: Wonderful queasy subject. Just a few odd points at present:- Various smallish concerns have been addressed and I am happy to support. I'd love to see it on the front page! Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overuse of quoted material - I'm particularly concerned by the 180+ word blockquote near the beginning of the article. Most of this, I think, could be paraphrased with just the odd word or phrase quoted directly
The quote is well out of any copyright claim, but it exists as a contemporary introduction to Toft, and her story. Although the article would seem to be a biography, its more about the hoax and the subsequent scandal. I think quotes are important in this regard, certainly in my mind they help me to better understand the mindset of the day. Just as the public first read about the story 280-odd years ago, the modern viewer reads the same curious report. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]I am half-convinced by this reasoning. If no other editor is concerned about the extent of the direct quotes, I'll say no more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caption for the Cuniculari image is way, way too long, and contrary to WP:CAPTION
I've reduced it slightly. The caption contains text that I could find no other place for in the article, I thought it better in the caption as the reader can compare it with Hogarth's illustration. I can also remove the 'blasphemous parody' bit, but I need the descriptions of the Tofts to remain there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]The reduction isn't really apparent. I find the overblown caption distracting – why exactly can't you find a place in the text for this material? According to WP:CAPTION, a caption is "a short text message"; also: "More than three lines in a caption may be distracting". We are further told: "Do not tell the whole story in the caption." I really think that this needs addressing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]The only real place I can put a physical description of Toft is at the point where she is introduced as the protagonist, in 'Account'. The problem for me is that if I do so, I have to use St. Andre's description - and he hasn't yet been introduced. I feel its better to use that description once St. Andre has been introduced to the reader, and especially so alongside an image of both her, and her husband (and St. Andre for that matter, who is also in the image). There are three sentences in the caption, and I don't believe that anything is lost by having that information there - in fact I think it being there makes the article easier to read. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]Have a look now - I've shortened it considerably. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw several sentences that could be interpreted as editorial opinion, for example: "The timing of Toft's confession could hardly have been worse for St. André, ..."
St. André had staked his professional reputation on the affair, the subsequent disgrace I feel removes any hint of editorial opinion here - if he had waited a few days, and not published his account, he could very well have escaped relatively unscathed as several other surgeons did (Manningham escaped by the skin of his teeth). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]Something like "The timing of Toft's confession was very awkward for St. André, who had staked his professional reputation on the affair" would, in my view, be neutral. "Could hardly have been worse" reads like POV. I can live with other slightly POV-ish wording, but I believe this one has to be softened. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]How about this? I've tried to keep it short (the 'more fanciful' part refers partly to Maubray's The Female Physician and his Sooterkin theory). Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it more attention later, but thanks for brightening my day. Oh, and there is a dablink that needs fixing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the link - I'd left it there as I don't know which Henry Fox it is. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no other issues with the article other than the above, and will be happy to support when these are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent choice! I myself considered writing this article, and one on another person of interest, George Psalmanazar, but I never got around to it. Glad someone put the time and effort into this! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present
but needs to be rewritten. The current alt text basically just copies the captions, which isn't right. There should be little overlap between alt text and caption: the former should only describe the visual appearance, and the latter should assume you can see the image and should not waste its time describing visual appearance. See WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few minor changes but the pages you link give no guidance for the description of drawings and paintings. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, that's much betterPhrases that should be removed from the alt text, because they can't be verified simply by looking at the images: "Toft", "Methodist", "satirise the story", "Frenchman", "of the doctor's earlier life". Phrases that could be removed in the interest of brevity (see 2nd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples): "A coloured portrait of a", "An portrait of a", "An engraving showing", "A drawing of a". Typos: "An sequence". Eubulides (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply], but a bit more work is needed still. Drawings and paintings use the same rules as other illustrations typically (unless the art itself is the topic).- How about now? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's better, and I struck the phrases you fixed.
How about the remaining phrases?Also, it might help to give a few more details of some of these delightful illustrations, e.g., something like this for St. André, "Three-quarters portrait of a middle-aged man in an 18th century red and blue frock coat with a black tricorn hat under an arm. He wears a white wig and ruffled shirt, and gazes sadly downwards with his hands slightly raised." Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- How about this? I'm afraid I can't go into too much detail on the second Hogarth image, that would require an article of its own (as many of Hogarth's illustrations do). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better and better. I agree about the detail.
I still see two phrases that cannot easily be verified by a non-expert who can see only the image, and which therefore need rephrasing or removal: "the State Crown of George I", "Methodist".Less importantly, perhaps "Frenchman" should be "French surgeon" (since the visible caption in the image says that)? Eubulides (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I removed them Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, and thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed 'Frenchman' to 'French surgeon' Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, and thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed them Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better and better. I agree about the detail.
- How about this? I'm afraid I can't go into too much detail on the second Hogarth image, that would require an article of its own (as many of Hogarth's illustrations do). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's better, and I struck the phrases you fixed.
- How about now? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review File:Nathaniel st andre.jpg - I couldn't get the source on this to work. Notice that the license says "This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years" but the author is unknown. If we can't locate the author, we should change the license to PD-1923 and establish that the image was published before 1923. (I've worked on the rest of the images and they are all fine now.) Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Click the edit button on the image description and use the url there - for some reason it won't work if you click it. No idea why. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I also fixed the licensing. Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsToft is always a fun story! I'm excited we have such a good article on her!
Prose, part 1 - The lead and "Account" section need to be copyedited. Here are some examples of why:
I think the lead can be better - it is weighted down with detail right now - just tell us the essentials of the story. Not who sent letters to whom.
Local surgeon John Howard was called to investigate, and upon delivering several pieces of rabbits wrote letters to several people, some of which came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, surgeon to the Royal Household of King George I of Great Britain. - This sentence is awkward.
- Ok, how does this read? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already a mother, several months earlier she had become pregnant, but as a peasant in 18th-century England she had no choice but to continue working in the fields. - Is the clause about her already being a mother necessary? It seems a bit awkwardly attached.
- I think so - (IMO) some readers might assume that motherhood was unknown to her. I think its important people understand the modern perception that she did it for money and attention, and not because she was mentally scarred by the miscarriage. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Toft complained of painful complications early on, including in August the expulsion from her body of various pieces of flesh, one "as big as my arm" (possibly an abnormality of the developing placenta causing the embryo to stop developing, and the ejection of clots and flesh). - Almost a run-on.
- This has been edited down a few times, but I'm no physician and am not certain which parts of the medical description I can remove. Can you offer any help? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the version I rewrote: Early in August, she expelled several pieces of flesh, one "as big as my arm". This may have been the result of an abnormality of the developing placenta, which caused the embryo to stop developing and blood clots and flesh to be ejected. - I just don't like "expelled" - any thoughts on that? Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about discharged or egested? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if that is much better. Choose what you think is best. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about discharged or egested? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the version I rewrote: Early in August, she expelled several pieces of flesh, one "as big as my arm". This may have been the result of an abnormality of the developing placenta, which caused the embryo to stop developing and blood clots and flesh to be ejected. - I just don't like "expelled" - any thoughts on that? Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She sent the pieces to John Howard, a man-midwife of thirty years experience, who lived in Guildford - Is this "she" Ann Toft?
- Replaced 'she' with 'Ann Toft' Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote several letters to Davenant, notifying him of progress in the case, some of which came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, since 1723 a Swiss surgeon to the Royal Household. - Almost a run-on
- How about this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "investigate" recurs throughout the article. Could another word occasionally be used?
- I never notice these things until they're pointed out to me. You're quite right, so I've replaced several. Some uses weren't quite correct anyway. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose, part 2 - There are a few places that need further explanation.
The pictorial satirist and social critic William Hogarth was notably critical of the gullibility of both the Methodist Church, and the medical profession. - The Methodist Church is suddenly introduced at this point in the lead and the point is never explained in the article.
- Hogarths criticism of the Church isn't directly related to this story (more to the Cock Lane ghost) so I've deleted that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maubray was a proponent of Maternal impression, and also warned pregnant women that over-familiarity with household pets could cause their children to resemble those pets. - I think the article should explain what maternal impression is, as the idea is really bound up with this story.
- How about if I re-word the sentence to remove the 'and also', to join the theory and his warning? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think we need to explain the theory. Clearly, Toft was relying on this theory when she made up her story. Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we can say that. None of the sources I used state in certain terms exactly how Toft's story matured. Bondeson goes furthest, giving possible explanations, but then casting doubt on each. Toft was an illiterate 18th-century woman, I doubt she or her peers would have known of The Female Physician. I think it more likely that Maubray latched onto the story as proof of his own crackpot theories. The best I could do would probably be to paraphrase Bondeson's work, but I'm slightly uncomfortable doing that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't suggest adding that explicit connection to the article. However, this idea (not necessarily Maubray's specific theory) was widely available and known during the 18th century - it was actually quite influential. It turns up in a lot of literature, particularly in chapbooks for the poor, for example. Anyway, I really think that we should not allude to theories like this, which are clearly relevant to the topic of the article, without explaining them. All it would take is a sentence. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this? You can change 'widely held' to 'common' or 'popular' if you like. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St. André therefore desperately wanted the two to attend Toft; their Whig affiliations and medical knowledge would elevate his status as both doctor, and philosopher - The Whig reference is not really explained to a reader unfamiliar with 18th-century politics.
- I'll see what I can do about that Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I added a note on this. What do you think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you add something into the article itself about the Whigs being the ruling party and that is why his status would have been improved? Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this look? Its short and perhaps slightly clumsy, but I think that to expand further on politics would be straying off topic for this article (I have included a link elsewhere to Grub Street, another I'm working on, that article contains quite a lot of relevant political info). Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you add something into the article itself about the Whigs being the ruling party and that is why his status would have been improved? Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I added a note on this. What do you think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can do about that Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness and/or structure:
This article is ostensibly a biography - should it have sections about what is known of Mary Toft's life? Right now, everything is about the hoax.
- I'll address the above points later, but the story of Mary Toft is pretty much the hoax - she was a peasant woman in 18th century England, little else is known about her. I do recall some information on a family tree, but the only salient information I think I could add is her illiteracy (her confessions are like text-speak). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wanted to make sure. Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - (of course, there will be things) Third paragraph of "Aftermath" could be split into two. The first, second, and third sentences of the fourth paragraph in that section seem not to go together. Perhaps put together a linking sentence at the beginning and then list events that happened to her. The page kinda just dies with Pope. It seems a little odd that Pope ends it although his is dated earlier than the others. You need to find some kind of conclusion or way to summarize to end it at the last piece of contemporary statement. I don't know how, but I am sure someone like Malleus can come up with an idea if you can't think of one. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this look re the three sentences? Unfortunately I'm not sure how to end it quite as you suggest - I'd like to write something like "Pope aptly summarised the affair with the following verse" but I'm unsure if that's suitable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find a critic who praises Pope's lines, then you could end like that. Be glad I like you - "a rudimentary answer to this question is suggested by one of the most brilliant and witty satires of the Mary Toft affair" from here. Also, here are some other sources I found: 1 and 2. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a think about how to do this, and decided the best way would be to add a short section detailing the general piss-taking that Toft received. I've integrated the ballad into that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No idea how much of it is accurate, but it on good faith. This was a fun read, and educated me. Would be good to have on the front page for pure novelty if nothing else. If there's a snag I don't much like all the red links, and not sure how many of them are likely ever to get an article. Otherwise, great job! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I intend to create articles for each - Sooterkin will most certainly be one. Nearly everything in the article is verifiable online, you can see much of the original documentation here Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting; I'm going to put this in Culture and society, but if others think it belongs in Health and medicine, it can be moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:03, 12 August 2009 [14].
Howie Morenz
- Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had this article nominated a few weeks ago, and it didn't pass because I missed some grammatical problems. Those are all cleared up, so I don't see why it shouldn't pass this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After working on it with you, this should now be all taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I just did a little copy-editing in the early part of the article, and I plan to look at the rest at a later time. Please check that I didn't make any mistakes. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks good from the copy-edit. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just finished making some minor prose tweaks to the rest of the article. Again, please check to ensure quality. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Born in Mitchell, Ontario, Howie Morenz was the son of William Morenz, who also had three daughters and another son." - I know from the reference they're sisters, but could you clarify this text? It looks right now as though the father was married previously. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the way it was written, but it may need further work. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The prose is more than a couple of copyedits away from being of FA quality. Some general observations:
- There is repetitive use of present participles after a sentence's main clause. Examples from the lead:
- "Morenz excelled in the junior Ontario Hockey Association, winning the Memorial Cup..."
- "he became one of the most dominant players in the league, setting several league scoring records."
- "Morenz consistently finished near the top of league scoring, placing in the top 10 leading scorers..."
- Morenz's name is overused (for example, seven times in the relatively brief second paragraph of the lead, despite there being no other people mentioned in it who might make the use of pronouns ambiguous).
- The prose is often choppy.
I'm willing to work with the nominator to address these issues, but I believe that this article requires more work than is reasonable to expect during a nomination. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed the comments made here, and left a note on your talk page in regards to the general wording of the article for continued discussion. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:25, 12 August 2009 [15].
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks
- Nominator(s): Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
TheEubulides (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]two threetwo images need alt text as per WP:ALT.
- Thanks
, but they still need work. The Gygax image says "Gary Gygax" in the alt text, which isn't right; most readers don't know what Gygax looked like. The isocahedron is purely decorative and should not have. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify. Eubulides (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]neither alt text nora link
- I tweaked the Gygax one again. What's the third image, if the Icosahedron isn't it? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my remark wasn't right and I've changed the "three" back to "two". Like all images, the icosahedron either needs alt text, or it needs to be marked with "|link=" (it's OK to do both). But after I looked at it more carefully I noticed that it is purely decorative. So it should be marked with "|link=". It can keep the alt text if you like. Eubulides (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the link=, and left the alt text. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing the alt text. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks
- Comments -
Current ref 5 (Schick...) lacks a page number. As it's 448 pages, we need something a bit more specific to satisfy WP:VCurrent ref 8 (D&D Alumni..) Current ref 9 (Design..) and 10 (Spotlight..) need last access dates. Also, can we format these like the other website refs? (remove the "from"?)
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some adjustments. I've asked at the wikiproject if someone know the page for the Schick book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the page # using Amazon.com's book search. It may be 1 or 2 off because of how that tool is setup, but that's probably the best that can be done (the user who added the link hasn't been around for quite awhile, IIRC, and I don't think that any of the remaining project members have a copy of the book). Is that good enough? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some adjustments. I've asked at the wikiproject if someone know the page for the Schick book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—It appears to meet the FA criteria. Thank you for your work on this article.
Comment—Reading the text left some issues unresolved in my mind, so I'm not fully convinced it is comprehensive. Thus:What would the characters be doing up in the Barrier Peaks in the first place? How does the plot draw them to that location?The text describes this mission as the character's job. Are they hired to resolve this situation?Why would it matter that a stream of monsters have been appearing from a cave in the mountains? Are there settlements nearby that are being impacted?What are the secrets that are revealed by the cover illustration? (Note that the image is reduced in size, so some of the details are fuzzy.)
Could these questions be answered by the article?Thank you. :-) —RJH (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I will try to get to these questions tonight if no one beats me to it. :) BOZ (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this answers the first three questions. I can add more detail if you feel it's needed. I've been trying to keep the Plot part short, since the whole article isn't that large.
- The last question is a bit harder. Here's the source sentence: "An A4 book of 32 pages describes the environment in detail, with a cover that reveals the secret of the creatures." I think the "A4" part is a typo, or introduced by a bad scan. The main cover, File:S3ModuleCover.jpg, shows a party of three adventurers fighting a plant/octopus creature. One of the main creatures in the module is the "cute little bunnyoid on the stump" which turns into a multi-armed creature, although the interior illustration of it is by a different artist and looks quite different. Not sure what to do exactly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The secrets part has been removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I didn't think it was necessary to remove it; I just wondered whether that could be clarified. I would have no heartburn about leaving that quote in place.
- I suspect that at least one of the secrets being revealed by the cover is the use of the plasma beam weapon, in contrast to the usual D&D weaponry.—RJH (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The secrets part has been removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right, but I don't want to commit WP:OR if I can help it. I figured out that the A4 thing is a reference to paper size, thank goodness. Now, the secret of the module is that the creatures coming from the mountains are coming out of a downed spaceship. The review says the module has a "cover that reveals the secret of the creatures." I also believe it's based on the blaster gun and the high tech gas mask that one of the party members is waring (here's a bigger image of the cover). I'll think about how to best word it, or if someone has an idea, I'm all ears. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what I came up with. I tried to sidestep the OR issue by putting the relevant info in, and people can put two and two together if they wish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good :) bring on the froghemoth and vegepygmies ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what I came up with. I tried to sidestep the OR issue by putting the relevant info in, and people can put two and two together if they wish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (moral or otherwise as sometime D&D contributor) I have read this a couple of times over, and nothing jumps out as neding improving. The prose is clear, succinct and flows well, and it is about as comprehensive as I can think of. The secret revealed on the front cover is the use of a space gun/pistol by one of the adventurers. I remember this as being a talking point. I remember when I bought it in 1980 or 1981 I had no idea about the space concept until I opened it. Thing is, players playing a module spend alot of time staring at the cover (itching to open it :))) ), hence the allusion to picking up clues looking at it. Not sure where this is going, but I would think working the secret back in is good if it can be done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Most of the writing looks quite reasonable. I went through it and found only a handful of picky things to complain about.
"It included a seperate booklet of illustrations, both color and black and white." Should it be "in both color and black and white", or is my proposal just wordy?Watch for overlinking. I doubt many of our readers need a further explanation for virus or robot, and they have little to do with the topic.Publication history: It could be made clearer that the "What could be more logical" quote was from Gygax (assuming that it was).Reception: I assume that reference 11 is citing all these quotes from judges? Not a problem per se, but be careful if someone adds content in the middle of this paragraph; some of the early quotes could be left uncited.I would like to see a comma after "on both sides of the same sheet.""(This a visual barrier...)". Missing word.Giants2008 (17–14) 14:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thank you for the review. I delinked what you mentioned, as well as Extraterrestrials in fiction, video game, Baltimore, Maryland and a few others. Hopefully that's about right. I clarified the Gygax quote, and reused the refs in the body. For "(This a visual barrier...)", I removed "This" instead of adding "is", hopefully that works. I also fixed the other stuff you mentioned. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional support – Prose seems up to scratch, but on a second look, I noticed one of those over-referencing clumps that Tony refers to. In the second paragraph of Publication history, three straight sentences are cited by reference 9. Nothing in those sentences strikes me as controversial in the least, so I recommend taking out two of the three, and leaving the one after "version 3.5 rules." Giants2008 (17–14) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review. I delinked what you mentioned, as well as Extraterrestrials in fiction, video game, Baltimore, Maryland and a few others. Hopefully that's about right. I clarified the Gygax quote, and reused the refs in the body. For "(This a visual barrier...)", I removed "This" instead of adding "is", hopefully that works. I also fixed the other stuff you mentioned. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-enough written. But needs an over-referencing audit.
- Deceptive piped link, first line: "Adventure" goes to somewhere quite different. Can you work out how to change the piping or relocate the link so readers will know what they're going to? No one will click on "adventure" in that context.
- "Stream of monsters" ... "succession"?
- Ref. number formatting: "[6]:29" etc. Is this within the guidelines? I've not seen it before. It's a logical formatting, if we can get people used to it.
- Over-referencing: BUT, I see [6]:2 EIGHT TIMES in a row; please remove the first four and have one at para's end, and one after "game"—two should be enough, unless there's something contentious that needs marking. Then six 13s in a row. Please audit throughout. Tony (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still thinking about the deceptive dab.
- "succession" done.
- I don't know if they're allowed. I've asked at the FAC talk page.
- I thought the latest trend was a ref for every sentence, but I guess not. ;-) I've cut down on the duplicated refs. I left the ones after quotes, and when the text switches from one ref to another, then back again. I can remove more if needed.
- "(a visual barrier that allows dice rolls and other activities to be conducted without the players knowing the outcome)" and "(Wizards of the Coast periodically alters the rules of Dungeons & Dragons and releases a new version)" are not associated with any reference, I just added them in as explanations. I can add refs for them, or I can remove the ref right before them. Whatever people think is best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "[6]:29" format is a good way to use citations to specific pages if a source contains content from multiple pages and there are only a few such sources (between, say, one and five, since then using Harvard refs would look weird for such a small number of different sources). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the deceptive piped link to "adventure module". Hopefully that works. The problem is that in the old days they were called "modules" and now their called "adventures" and sometimes "adventure modules". Hopefully the two word name will allow old, new, and non-gamers to understand the link. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked about using the {{rp} template for page numbers, and apparently its OK.[16] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the deceptive piped link to "adventure module". Hopefully that works. The problem is that in the old days they were called "modules" and now their called "adventures" and sometimes "adventure modules". Hopefully the two word name will allow old, new, and non-gamers to understand the link. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "[6]:29" format is a good way to use citations to specific pages if a source contains content from multiple pages and there are only a few such sources (between, say, one and five, since then using Harvard refs would look weird for such a small number of different sources). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: Everything looks good. File:Gary Gygax Gen Con 2007.JPG is verifiably free, and File:S3ModuleCover.jpg is well within normal application of the WP:NFCC. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:23, 9 August 2009 [17].
Joel Selwood
- Nominator(s): Aaroncrick talk and Boomtish (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first attempt at the FA process, so any help would be greatly appreciated. The article has been greatly improved from its GAN a while back and I believe this meets the FA criteria. It recently underwent a peer review and seeing there are no FA's on Australian Football League topics it would be great to base other AFL articles on this one. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- YM fixed this. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment: I assisted in the peer review process, and agree that the article has improved markedly from its GAN format. I would love to see this make FA as the first AFL article. One thing I've noticed, however, which I obviously missed at PR: the final paragraph of the lead is a bit too detailed in regard to Selwood's commercial activities, and contains rather more information on this topic than is within the main article. The opposite should be the case, with the lead briefly summarising the article's detailed contents. I wonder if some transfer of material could be made to remedy this? Subject to this, plus a final read-through and validation of images and sources, I'd say the article looks strong, and I'd be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry it wasn't there when you did the PR. I've started trimming it down. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I've restored the old revision and tweaked those areas. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I've just noticed that a couple of dablinks need fixing, and there's one dead link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Link seems to have perished today. I'll look for another. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give it a while although it seems as if "Selwood has stated his career intention to work really hard on the basics. Despite admitting not (being) the fastest player, or most skillful", will have to be removed as I can't find another source. Hopefully something will pop up or the link starts to work again. Maybe another AFL fan with a book might have something. I've also emailed the Bendigo Advertiser but I'm not expecting a reply or anything to happen. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the two dablinks as they don't have a relevant articles on wikipedia. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: If The Advertiser story also appeared in the print edition, and not just online, then there's no need to remove it as a source; the url is just a courtesy link in that case. Steve T • C 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter in any case, as The Advertiser emailed me the new link. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Joel was forced to wear splints on his leg to help overcome a walking disability.[3] - You have linked the incorrect article at shin splints, please check that.
- Thanks, Ceranthor, I'll have a look through. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Selwood displayed his talents as an athlete from an early age. - displayed talent...
- Fixed this Aaroncrick (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and had kicked three goals as a half forward.[3] - I might be wrong, but shouldn't it be scored three goals?
I would like to keep this as is rare that Selwood every plays half-foward. The only positions I've really ever seen him play are midfield positions. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Sorry, I now think it's non notable as he was only 8. I removed it. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Selwood played his junior football with the Sandhurst Football Club - remove his
- More later, ceranthor 12:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What section is this in? As I can't seem to find it. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What section is this in? As I can't seem to find it. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/sport/afl/superb-run/1280492.aspx deadlinks
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. Link died yesterday unfortunately. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated the link as it moved to a new page. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. Link died yesterday unfortunately. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I removed the links altogether.... Aaroncrick (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I did so. Mustn't have saved properly, removed now in any case. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- swaps between using his first name or surname in the article specifically in the section Early Life
- Removed use of first name within article body, and replaced with surname for consistency. Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Honours section - Other Achievements are these really notable achievements, unlike the other two subsection this list doesnt indicate when the achievement occurred.
- I would argue yes, they are. These achievements are notable historical achievements. They are not merely season relevant, but achievements on a larger scale (the Australian Football League's history etc). Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Youngest premiership player since 1993 (19 years, 126 days) realy this more a commentator line rather than an achievement, also none of the ones in this list say when it occured . Gnangarra 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since removed the premiership achievement, and date-stamped others. Boomtish (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Youngest premiership player since 1993 (19 years, 126 days) realy this more a commentator line rather than an achievement, also none of the ones in this list say when it occured . Gnangarra 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue yes, they are. These achievements are notable historical achievements. They are not merely season relevant, but achievements on a larger scale (the Australian Football League's history etc). Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This two points are items that stand out and need to/can be addressed. What really hits as an issue is that Selwood is only 21yrs old playing in his third season for a total of just 61 games, just starting out as a player. Is this really going to be a stable article that we can tag as our best work, will it not be back at WP:FAR in 2 months? All things being normal this person has at least 7 years of his playing career to go though more likely it'll exceed 10 years, during that time he'll add another 200 possibly even as many 300 games. Gnangarra 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a fair point, there are obviously going to be additional edits made still. But I would argue that this hurdle didn't stop other articles from being presented with FA status. See Karmichael Hunt and Kevin Pieterson articles; both are similarly young athletes with the majority of their career still in front of them. Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The stability criterion relates more to edit wars than to updates that are required over time. Are no active athletes/singers/movie stars/politicians to even be considered at FAC? I remember John McCain passing FAC last year, in the months before the election. If that can become featured, surely an article on an athlete is a viable candidate. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Gnangarra makes a fair point but I know of many FA on sports personalities. You can add Paul Collingwood to that list. I think Ian Thorpe was a FA when still competitive. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The stability criterion relates more to edit wars than to updates that are required over time. Are no active athletes/singers/movie stars/politicians to even be considered at FAC? I remember John McCain passing FAC last year, in the months before the election. If that can become featured, surely an article on an athlete is a viable candidate. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments – Actually, I believe Aaron was here once before, with a stadium article that had some problems and wound up failing. Nice to see the nominator back at FAC. I assume you've been working with Boomtish, the nominator at the first Selwood FAC?
- Your infact right. Forgot all about that, good memory! :) I don't think I was too familiar with FAC/FAR processes back then. Aaroncrick (talk)
The first sentence of the lead's third paragraph feels like it's jamming too much into a single sentence. Either chop it or add
"and" before "becoming" to simply improve the flow.
- Added "and" Aaroncrick (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Early life: "with his performances in the championship games earning him end-of-year All-Australian honours and the Most Valuable Player award for Victoria Country." The with+-ing sentence structure is often clumsy, and the sentence is overlong to begin with. Again, I recommend chopping it in two.
- Chopped. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"in the annual under under-18s International Rules Series in Ireland." Are the two "under"s both supposed to be here?"However, a knee injury occured only six rounds into the competition forced him to undergo surgery". Lacking a "that" after "competition"; "which" also works.
- Done. Changed to "forcing", is that ok? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFL career: What is the home and away period? Is that supposed to mean the regular season?
- Yes, that's what It means. I'll change that so it's easier for non AFL followers. Aaroncrick (talk)
"with former Brisbane coach Leigh Matthews noting...". Another awkward structure.From the beginning, Selwood showed an ability to influence games," Comma after this should be a semi-colon. It may seem picky, but proper punctuation is a vital part of compelling prose.- What is a disposal? A link should be provided for jargon like this. Also, the tackle link could be moved up.
- A disposal is the same as a possession. There is no current article, but I may be able to scratch up a stub. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Coaching staff had a highlights package made of this performance". Should it be "The Geelong coaching staff..."?
- Correct, fixed this. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of these may have to do with my lack of AFL knowledge, but I'll have to come back for another round later. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another hyphen needed for "18-year old".
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone once told me that references should be placed inside dashes, not outside as is done normally with citations. Even though I don't understand why dashes should be treated differently from other punctuation marks, the Manual of Style should still be followed in featured articles.
- Found one section where this is relevant, and fixed it. Reference is now inside the dash. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation fix needed after "Club champion award".
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2008: "Selwood also polled 19 votes in the Brownlow Medal". Sounds like a person is polling votes in a prize, instead of a vote count. Is this used often in Australia? There are a couple of other similar sentences before and after this one.
- I belive the term "polling" is used regularly in regards to these awards. Nonetheless, made some adjustments. Let me know if this is better. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"citing 'club success and future opportunities' as his reason for accepting the reduced salary." That's actually two reasons, not one.
- Fixed. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009: Capitalize Grand Final and change "ending" to "ended" in the second sentence.
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there normally a space in "per cent" in Australia? Us Americans need to check these things.
- Not sure, but changed all to "percent". Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
En dash for 1999-2001.
- Fixed. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life: Remove comma after Maree in the third sentence. It has no reason to be there.
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check capitalization of Organisation and Seeing Eye Dogs (not the one in the charity name).Also grammar fix needed for "who are being trained as a Seeing Eye Dogs".
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and cites the clubs own Hall of Fame member Gary Abbet as a childhood idol". Apostrophe needed in "club's".
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Period after "childhood friends". How two nominators and a great copy-editor missed that one, I will never know, but it needs fixing to make for a professional look. These errors cause me the most concern, as they always leave me wondering if I missed something elsewhere.
- Minor slip-up, but fixed. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Single-page references should be presented as p. and not pp.
- Fixed. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think Selwood's first name is needed in the last two photo captions. The one in the infobox is fine for identification purposes, but it's a bit much to have them in all three. Also, I keep hearing that names shouldn't be in alt text, although I'm no expert on the subject.Giants2008 (17–14) 00:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed use of first name in captions. Also removed use of name in alt text and replaced with "young male athlete". Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The three images in the article looked good, though one had to be moved to commons. I have done that for you, but could you take care of it next time? Thanks :) NW (Talk) 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WRT Cr. 1a.
- Some readers might be irritated to find that "inside" and "outside" (both epithets separately linked) go to the same place. Perhaps make it a single link of three words?
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "winning percentage" a couplet in that large noun? If so, it might help unfamiliar readers to hyphenate the two words.
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "currently holds"—violates the MoS "vague chronological terms" guidelines, I think it is. "As of 2009"? This should also do for the claim at the end of that sentence.
- Fixed. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox: could you pipe link "2006 draft", the second word to clarify that it's not a plain year article?
- Done. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is "sportspeople" linked? Same for "runner" and "tennis"—these unnecessarily dilute the high-value links in the vicinity.
- Removed them. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind "kicked three goals" (someone above had qualms).
- I don't think this was changed in the end. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You wouldn't consider swapping the "leaves the ground" pic with the one in the infobox? I think the former is better, without the effects of the mouthguard. Or perhaps it's too narrow for an infobox ...
- "instant success" as a pipe for "child prodigy"? Both the linked article and the pipe are inappropriate, I think.
- Removed. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "resulted in him becoming"—the old noun +-ing issue. Consider "his becoming"; and, oh look, the last exercise seems to have exactly this wording. And hyphen for "first-year player". Some would hyphenate "debut-year achievements", but I could live without that hyphen if you're more comfortable without it.
- Fixed. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've recast the "not (being) the ..." quote. Square brackets were required, anyway. Tony (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Any reason the piped years are italicised in the table? Straighter, easier-to-read, more authoritative as plain roman face, I think. Tony (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and fixed the table issues. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My comments at the start of this review have been adequately answered, and there have been some useful tweaks since. I think the article now meets the FA criteria. I've been following it since the early stages of its peer review, and it has developed wonderfully well – and given me some insight into the mysterious lingo of Australian football. It's always good to see the FA range expanding, so I really hope this makes it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, however, why are only the initials displayed in the notes? That seems odd. Also, I think the wording about winning a premiership medal can be confusing and roundabout, as people may not know that only people who play in the grand final get one, whereas the guy might win the Brownlow and kick the most goals and then break their leg in the second last match and not get a medal. I think Tony Modra was teh top goal kicker for the crows in one year and got injured in the prelim f and didn't get a medal when they won the final. It's easier to simply say "youngest person to play in a grand final winning team" or seomthing YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – There were a few issues remaining after my review, which I fixed myself to expedite things. The article has seen substantial improvements since the previous FAC and looks FA-worthy now. Be sure to keep it up-to-date as his career progresses. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:40, 25 August 2009 [18].
Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins
- Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it fully meets the featured article criteria. It failed its last FAC solely because of prose issues. The article has now been copyedited to correct the indicating issues and others found by the copy editor. Therefore, it should now meet that criteria. As noted in the last FAC, the article is currently a GA, and it is fully comprehensive, containing all relevant and available information found in reliable sources, and all content within the article is cited. The article properly follows the suggested structure from the Film MoS with only minor modifications, as is allowed, to account for the semi-documentary nature of the work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Image needs alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments language, writing: Very good. A few problems with wordiness. For example, while Yossarian steps aside and leaves the group. Yossarian leaves the group...? Some one holds the camera and holds the camera steady....that sort of thing. It's highly readable, with paced sentence structure. A few sentences might be a bit long (24-30 words) for the younger teens who might look for this, but they should be able to read them. There are also some verb disagreements: . Some of its scenes were shot at a wildlife park in the United Kingdom, while others are reenactments of events, created using cameratricks and trained film animals. Some events were shot...while others are (should be were)....etc.
*Content There are several things I like about this article. First, it covers the warts and all, the critique was fairly consistent after the film came out, especially regarding the young meercat that died of snakebite. This article covers the problems of filming wild animals, the simplistic script. It seems well sourced, not overly cited nor under cited, and not overly wikified, which I find distracting. Coverage is more than adequate,too, for the subject. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) Yossarian "steps aside" is included to clarify that he did not fight/challenge Zaphod's taking over leadership, where one might normally expect him to have to be driven off he was the standing dominant male. It could be changed to Yossarian leaves the group without a fight, but I think the current one is a little better sounding. "Were/are" is accurate tense in this situation. The scenes "were shot" - an action that happened in the past. They "are reenactments" in a descriptive sense - they exist so they "are" reenactments. Beyond these two items, do you feel the article meets the featured article criteria? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Yossarian "steps aside" ...how about Zaphod joins the group to be her mate, as dominant male, unchallenged by Yossarian, who returns to life of the roving male. Yes, actually, I do think it meets, generally, the writing and especially the content criteria. I would make the verbs agree, although the "are" reenactments, they "were" reenactments for the purposes of the film, and they "are" only in the existential sense. If you follow my meaning there...clear as mud I expect, but...so I should say support :) I'm a fan of the kids at the Manor, in case you hadn't guessed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPPORT I like the way the editor dealt with the various critiques the movie raised, I've spot checked the sources, reviewed grammar and style, and it looks like a nicely written, interesting article. It meets, in my mind, the requirements for the Featured Article status, so I support it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now.EDIT: Struck. Steve T • C Don't worry about that !vote too much; I don't think there's anything here that can't be cleared up. I suppose the first thing to comment on is the size; are you sure you've included everything you can? Take a look at these results to see if there's anything else to add; the first hit, for example, seems to include a little bit more about the impact Flower's death had on the production. The other main point I have concerns the lead paragraph; it doesn't make clear what The Story Begins is exactly. I guess what I'm looking for is some shorthand way of saying it's a dramatized (scripted) prequel to the events that occurred before the real life documentary series (that's what it is, right?) This only becomes clear in the second paragraph. On the writing, I recommend another quick pass to see what you can make more concise. Too many words to say something simple means the reader gets bogged down in a sentence that's already imparted its full meaningbefore getting to the end of it(you get the idea). Examples follow, along with other miscellaneous issues:- Lead
- "Shot over
the span oftwo years" - "It documents the life of Flower, the former leader of a meerkat group known as the Whiskers, from her birth to her becoming the group's leader"—here, the information about Flower's leadership is presented twice. A little rejigging would make that unnecessary, e.g. "... to her becoming the leader of a meerkat group known as the Whiskers" while eliminating the first instance of the phrase.
- "the film uses a full-sized featured film crew and features footage of untrained, unknown meerkat "actors" used to represent the meerkats in the story."—is there such thing as a "full size" feature film crew? There isn't enough context here; the crew of a major production would be much larger than that of an indie film. And should that be "feature
dfilm"? Not sure that "unknown" provides enough context to use it in the lead; unknown to whom? - "The film's narration received mix reviews"
- "some reviewers criticized it for not offering anything new to viewers of the television series"—one reviewer.
- "and noted that the film was not completely accurate"—attributed to "critics", when it was the view of one, the Friends of the Kalahari Meerkat Project.
- "but the
actualscript was considered too simple for adult viewers"—considered by whom? Switching to the active voice would resolve this, but it still leaves the odd statement "too simple for adult viewers"—as if they wouldn't understand it.
- Production
- "Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins is a prequel biography to the documentary Meerkat Manor series"—the last four words don't work in that order. Consider "documentary series".
- "Caroline Hawkins wrote the script, basing it on the notes taken by Tim Clutton-Brock."—no indication who Tim Clutton-Brook is and why he's important.
- "In a 'Making of' feature, Hawkins notes that"—probably unnecessary to say that it's in the "Making of".
- "The film was directed by Chris Barker and Mike Slee, and Whoopi Goldberg, a known Meerkat Manor fan, provided the narration."—I think that would read more smoothly if you replaced "[comma] and" with a semi-colon, or split the statements entirely if you don't think there's enough of a link.
- "For the film, a typically sized feature film crew was utilized,"—see the comments above about what constitutes "full size". Any reason why the less ornamental "used" wouldn't work just as well at the end there?
- "with the crew working independently from the crew of the television series."—using "with" as a connector between two statements is a little clumsy, especially with the gerund. Consider a semi-colon (e.g. "... film crew was used; the crew worked independently from ...")
- Hmm. Thinking about that last statement, could it read as if the television crew worked a little on the film too? (I assume they didn't.)
- "Breaking from the series pure documentary format"—possessive apostrophe on "series".
- "the film does not include any footage of the meerkats being depicted in the film"—the gerund means that should be "meerkats' being" (you wouldn't say "me being", but "my being"), but if you think that sounds odd, recast the sentence to avoid either. Not sure if "in the film" is necessary given the first words of the statement.
- "Flower
herselfis depicted by" - "
In order to create the scenes needed for the film,the camera crew sought out meerkats of the approximate age needed, thencontinuouslyfilmed them untilthe meerkatsthey displayed the appropriate behaviors needed for the scene."—removing half the words seems not to compromise readers' understanding of the idea. - "the cinematographers had to be
morecareful in their movements to avoid scaring the animals."—more careful than what? It could also be rendered more concisely as: "the cinematographers had to move carefully to avoid scaring the animals." - "Though the park normally has flight restrictions, prohibiting low flying aircraft, the production crew was able to get permission to use a helicopter for low-filming flights for three days."—if low flying craft are the only types of flights the park restricts, this could be made more concise: "Though the park prohibits low-flying aircraft, the production crew got permission to film for three days from a low-flying helicopter." Even that could be made more concise, perhaps by doubling up on the use of "low-flying", eliminating one.
- "They mounted a new kind of camera to the front underside of the helicopter that was capable of filming without being affected by the shaking of the helicopter."—makes it sound as if they used a helicopter, not a camera, that was capable of filming without being affected by the shaking of the helicopter.
- "With the backlash Animal Planet received for allowing the meerkats to die from snakebites"—introduced without preamble. Is this something Animal Planet was criticised for in the TV series?
- "They questioned whether viewers would understand that the meerkats were wild animals and so they could not interfere."—I know that non-interference is the established stance for wildlife documentarians, but do you think it's known to everyone who might read this? For some it might beg the question, "why couldn't they interfere?"
- "Robin Smith, the film and series' main cinematographer,
rode hanging partiallyhung partway out of the truck to holdon tothe cameraand hold itsteady, giving thevisualimpression of a truck bearing down on a meerkat,without a meerkat actually being harmed."—the use of "giving the impression of", and the fact that you've already said that all the other meerkat deaths were re-enactments, makes the last statement implicit. Also, "truck bearing down" should use the possessive (see "meerkat's being" example, above) or be recast if the result sounds odd. - "due to Flower's death before the film was finished"—ambiguous, could mean within the plot of the film. Better to make it clear by saying "before filming completed" or similar.
- "the ending of the film needed to be "bigger" than originally planned"—is there any indication what he means by "bigger"? Or does it simply refer to the addition of a coda?
- Distribution
- "
wasfirst premiered" - Was "Wildscreen Festival Bristol" its official name that year, or should that be "in Bristol"?
- Reception
- "Variety magazine's Ronnie Scheib"—probably OK to dispense with "magazine".
- "felt the script
itselfwas written more for kids"—redundant word; plus, do you think that "kids" is too informal a term? - "Both critics praised the film's cinematography and for maintaining the in-depth coverage of the meerkats that the television series is known for."—the syntax is off, around "and for maintaining", which doesn't attach to any of the preceding statements.
- "felt the film was accessible to
bothnewcomers to the series andcurrentfans" - "Tribeca Film Festival reviewer Genna Terranova felt [lots of nice things]"—is there a neutrality question here, given this is a "review" by someone who works for the organisation that showed the film? Does the organisation's website contain any negative reviews of the films it screens?
- And that's all the weather. All the best, Steve T • C 22:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thorough review! I think I've addressed everything except going through those Google UK sources (darn you Google News for not combining those in one search!) and the Tribeca Review. In quick scanning, I'm not seeing anything negative from them on any of their spotlight films (though I'd guess they wouldn't be spotlights if they disliked them ;-) ). I can see the neutrality issue, though, so it can be removed without much impact. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the Tribeca review and added some content from the new sources from that Google News link. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, especially given your speedy response. Most of these issues seem to have been taken care of, so I've struck the oppose; I'll have another in-depth look tomorrow, but I've a feeling that all it will need is a minor prose massage (including to remedy a couple of tense inconsistencies I spotted). Nice work, Steve T • C 22:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I still think there's a bit of a problem over saying in the lead that "critics" praised the film for its cinematography, etc. Two critics praised the cinematography, and I'm not sure that's enough to go with the sweeping nature of that term. Similarly, that the narration "received mixed reviews" is cited to the same two critics. It's technically accurate, but do you think that what it implies is greater than what the "Reception" section actually says? Consider "mostly applauded, but some critics" to have the same concern. There's no pressure to alter it right away; a good solution might need a little contemplation first. If you do think of something, great; if not, I'll sleep on it and see if an idea presents itself tomorrow. Steve T • C 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think all of the reviewers praised the cinematography, I just didn't quote them all. I'll go back through all the reviews and double check. I really can't think of any other way to summarize its reception section, as required by lead, without repeating it though. Re your edit summary question - group is used in both the series and by the researchers, not "clan" so I have changed that back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough on the "clan" vs. "group" thing—though someone should really take the makers to task on use of the appropriate term. :-) If most of the reviewers praised the cinematography, etc. that's fair enough, though that should probably be made clear in the article body. One last, very minor inconsistency in the lead for now then: the opening statement says the film was "created by" Animal Planet and Oxford Scientific Films, whereas the body merely says Oxford Scientific Films. Steve T • C 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops, technically it was Discovery Films rather than Animal Planet itself, so fixed that. Did some more tweaking on the issue of the lead and the reception...how does that work? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough on the "clan" vs. "group" thing—though someone should really take the makers to task on use of the appropriate term. :-) If most of the reviewers praised the cinematography, etc. that's fair enough, though that should probably be made clear in the article body. One last, very minor inconsistency in the lead for now then: the opening statement says the film was "created by" Animal Planet and Oxford Scientific Films, whereas the body merely says Oxford Scientific Films. Steve T • C 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think all of the reviewers praised the cinematography, I just didn't quote them all. I'll go back through all the reviews and double check. I really can't think of any other way to summarize its reception section, as required by lead, without repeating it though. Re your edit summary question - group is used in both the series and by the researchers, not "clan" so I have changed that back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I still think there's a bit of a problem over saying in the lead that "critics" praised the film for its cinematography, etc. Two critics praised the cinematography, and I'm not sure that's enough to go with the sweeping nature of that term. Similarly, that the narration "received mixed reviews" is cited to the same two critics. It's technically accurate, but do you think that what it implies is greater than what the "Reception" section actually says? Consider "mostly applauded, but some critics" to have the same concern. There's no pressure to alter it right away; a good solution might need a little contemplation first. If you do think of something, great; if not, I'll sleep on it and see if an idea presents itself tomorrow. Steve T • C 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, especially given your speedy response. Most of these issues seem to have been taken care of, so I've struck the oppose; I'll have another in-depth look tomorrow, but I've a feeling that all it will need is a minor prose massage (including to remedy a couple of tense inconsistencies I spotted). Nice work, Steve T • C 22:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you don't mind, but to save time, I made some further tweaks myself instead of listing them here. See the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales behind each, and feel free to disagree with any I've made! There are only a few minor points I couldn't resolve during copy-editing:
- "[She] chooses the Lazuli-roving male Yossarian as her mate."—what does "Lazuli-roving" mean?
- "Viale kills the resulting pups and temporarily banishes Flower from the group."—the timeline is slightly unclear. The section immediately goes on to explain that Viale is killed on a road before Flower kills a snake and becomes leader. Did Flower returned before Viale's death, or only afterwards when she became leader?
- "the cinematographers had to move carefully to avoid scaring the animals."—while technically correct, as a cinematographer can be used as a synonym for "camera operator", isn't the term more generally used to refer to the director of photography? It might be better to remove the ambiguity by using the more targeted "camera operators" or similar.
- "With the backlash Animal Planet received"—does the Making of... documentary say whether this was a fan, critical or animal rights group backlash?
- "During filming of the third series of Meerkat Manor in 2007, the real Flower was killed by a snake bite before filming was completed."—filming of the series or the film? If it's the series, then the statement is unnecessary, as the sentence already says "during filming". Actually, that brings up a good point: the article doesn't say when the film was shot; 2007 is implied, but not explicitly stated.
- I might take another look at the lead a bit later, but the above pretty much covers everything else I've spotted. All the best, Steve T • C 09:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoroughness! Its always amazing to me how what seems like a small wording change makes a big difference in how a sentence reads. :) I did make two minor changes to those. The pup birth scenes were noted to be in color because in the series they have all been a kind of blue-gray scale (see its main article for a picture) due to their only being seen through underground cameras. In the film and by going to captive meerkats, they were able to shoot with normal cameras above ground in a birthing box or the like. I also changed the group name back to Friends of the Kalahari Meerkat Project. It is a separate legal entity (and they have gotten picky about it before), that is a sponsoring group of the researchers but should not be said to be the researchers. I tweaked the wording to make that clearer. For the questions above:
- "Lazuli-roving" = roving male from the Lazuli group. I've reworded it.
- Flower is allowed to return before Viale is killed, as I recall.
- Normally, yes, but AP has been using cinematographer to refer to all of its film crew, at least with the series. With the film having the larger crew, they may have used more general camera operators as well...rechecking one of the interviews, they do use cameraman as well, so that term should be fine to (or camera operator to be more politically correct :-) )
- It was all viewer/fan backlash. Critics seemed to scoff at the fans for being upset, and animal rights group have filed no complaints. :)
- Both She died in January 2007. The FKMP article notes the two year time, from 2006-2008, on the film.
- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the last concern I have is with the "Reception" section; having read a couple of the reviews, our representation of the coverage seems a little light. Scheib of Variety, for example, goes into a lot more detail than the section's two-line summary leads one to believe, and pays special regard to the way in which the film simplified the Project's research notes. Do you think there's scope for a minor expansion of the section? Steve T • C 11:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it could be. I think I did such a short section there out of concern I'd give his review undue weight. Will work on that this evening if not sooner. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments-I am beginning a look-over now. I will change any minor straightforward fixes and note others below. Please revert any sentence I inadvertently change the meaning of.one hyphen thingy to fix but that is a no-brainer. Over the line.Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though the park normally prohibits low flying aircraft, the production crew was given permission to film for three days using a low-flying helicopter. - got low flying with and without connecting hyphens. I think our MOS suggests without...
While the majority of the meerkats filmed - normally I'd covert to the more succinct "While most of the meerkats filmed.." - but musing on whether that changes the meaning.ok, happy with explanation.
I am a little surprised that there was only little criticism of the contrived nature of the documentary mentioned - I would have thought this was more noteworthy...or does it acutally occur alot in these sort of documentaries? If so, this is an important piece of information worth including for context.Meh, if you've looked and it ain't there, then it ain't there I guess.
Overall, very nearly there. I am intrigued by any answers to the last point above and think this should pass this time round. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually surprised by it as well, though it may have received less due to the general series already being well known for being a soap opera-style documentary, so perhaps it was just considered part for the course for the franchise as a whole? For majority versus most, I'm inclined to stay with majority because the only fully tamed ones mentioned as being used were for the birthing scenes in the zoo, while there are probably few non-habituated ones left in the research area except newcomers and passers through. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Maybe a little shorter than the usual film article, nevertheless it seems comprehensive, with all the reliable sources mined. I've taken a look through the last FAC and the prose issues that were raised over there seem to have been fixed, in addition to the concerns I listed above. The only non-free image has an appropriate license and its rationale matches that of other poster or DVD covers in featured articles. If a free image of one of the filming locations could be sourced, that might useful—though not essential. Nice work, Steve T • C 08:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, there are no free ones because the research project is very strict about access to area outside of their own researchers, and it seems like even the students do not post pictures anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Source "2" does not verify this sentence except for the statement "two years" - "Meerkat Manor normally films episodes using a crew of only two or three people to avoid disturbing the meerkats; the film was shot over two years and employed a much larger crew".
- 2. Source "2" does not verify this statement - "The producers ultimately included the scene, but the meerkat's cries for help as it lay dying were edited out"
- 3. Source "2" does not verify this statement - "ensuring the meerkats were not deliberately put in danger"
- 4. Source "3" does not verify this statement - "Breaking from the series' pure documentary format, the film does not include footage of the project meerkats depicted in the story. Instead, wild meerkat "actors" represented Flower and her family; Flower was depicted by approximately eight female meerkats. The camera crew sought out appropriately aged meerkats for each scene, then filmed them until they behaved in ways the script required."
- 5. Source "5" does not verify this statement - "Whoopi Goldberg, a known Meerkat Manor fan"
- 6. Source "8", the SunTimes article, does not work.
- 7. Wiki - "While he found Goldberg's narration to be higher quality than in most documentaries of this type, he thought it grew monotonous as the film moved on."
- 7. Source differs factually - "Goldberg's narration, though a cut above the usual cutesy animal pic voiceover, pales after a while."
- 8. Source "16" does not verify this statement - "as of 2009, Animal Planet International has not announced an air date for the American-made Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins. "
- 9. The source ("16") is in French yet it was translated without marking it as a translation: "French critic Vincent Julé gave the film a rating of two out of five, stating that it was "boring and tedious" for fans of the series, and that he found its "fictionalization" of Flower's story to be regrettable"
- 9. A more appropriate translation of sans intérêt et ennuyeuse is "lacking interest and boring" or annoying. The source also mentions "Paul Newman's voice". Newman is not mentioned on the article at all, which means that the source is either wrong or it is talking about something else than the specific movie in question.
- - Sources were spot checked and the above is an incomplete analysis. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement 1 is clearly sourced from three sources. Other sources source that part of the statement. 2 & 3 fixed. 4 is also clearly sourced from three sources which together source entire statement. Will check 5, must be from another source and got moved around during CE. Don't understand 7? Will check rest later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OR:Synthesis says not to take information from two sources and merge it together. If a source only provides half of a statement, mark it appropriately or do not use it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no OR nor synthesis going on. OR does not say source a sentence from multiple sources. The sources are marked appropriately. Many of your other problems seem to be similar issues, which are not issues. The content is validly an dproperly sourced, nor is there any requirement at all to mark a foreign source as translated. Obviously it was translated to give an English sumamry. #8 isn't sourced to source 16, its just a statement and can be removed (proving a negative). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OR Synthesis says that you cannot take two statements to say what a source does not say. In that sentence, the one source is cited but only covers half of the information. Therefore, it cannot be used as a citation for the whole sentence. If you have one source that says it all, then citing other sources is inappropriate. So either split the sentence up and cite each part separately or use only the source that covers all of the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is NOT BEING USED AS A SOURCE FOR THE WHOLE SENTENCE! Putting all sources at the end of the sentence is common, allowed, and does NOT make it OR. Its the recommended way of dealing with multiple cites being used in a sentence and it is perfectly valid method, unless you plan on deleting every last FA out there which all do the same thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot put a source at the end of a sentence unless it covers a whole sentence. It is that simple. A source denotes that it covers -all- information that precedes it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can and no it does not. Stacked sources at the end of a sentence show that the whole sentence is sourced from those sources. This is basic readability and one of first things an artile is ping from in prepping for FA/FL: having refs in the middle of a sentence.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot put a source at the end of a sentence unless it covers a whole sentence. It is that simple. A source denotes that it covers -all- information that precedes it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is NOT BEING USED AS A SOURCE FOR THE WHOLE SENTENCE! Putting all sources at the end of the sentence is common, allowed, and does NOT make it OR. Its the recommended way of dealing with multiple cites being used in a sentence and it is perfectly valid method, unless you plan on deleting every last FA out there which all do the same thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OR Synthesis says that you cannot take two statements to say what a source does not say. In that sentence, the one source is cited but only covers half of the information. Therefore, it cannot be used as a citation for the whole sentence. If you have one source that says it all, then citing other sources is inappropriate. So either split the sentence up and cite each part separately or use only the source that covers all of the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no OR nor synthesis going on. OR does not say source a sentence from multiple sources. The sources are marked appropriately. Many of your other problems seem to be similar issues, which are not issues. The content is validly an dproperly sourced, nor is there any requirement at all to mark a foreign source as translated. Obviously it was translated to give an English sumamry. #8 isn't sourced to source 16, its just a statement and can be removed (proving a negative). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OR:Synthesis says not to take information from two sources and merge it together. If a source only provides half of a statement, mark it appropriately or do not use it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement 1 is clearly sourced from three sources. Other sources source that part of the statement. 2 & 3 fixed. 4 is also clearly sourced from three sources which together source entire statement. Will check 5, must be from another source and got moved around during CE. Don't understand 7? Will check rest later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tightrope between plagiarism and straying from a source's meaning can be tricky, as number 7 above highlights, would someone consider the meaning unchanged from "pales" to "monotonous" in the context provided. I'd say it was pretty borderline and am inclined to let it pass. I am trying to think of an alternative without success. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of examples where we've had two references at the end of a sentence as we couldn't place them in the middle. If one has "Bird X has been recorded from location Y and Z" and a different ref for each. I have had this issue in several biology articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the issues raised above:
- Issues 1–5 on the face of it seem less about the accuracy the article in comparison to the sources, and more about perceived incorrect citation positions—and that's a completely legitimate concern, even if a lot of editors I know are happy to do it for enhanced readability. A swift resolution would be to simply move the citations adjacent to the facts being referenced. A less swift resolution would be to garner community consensus one way or the other on whether planting all the citations at the end of a sentence or paragraph is acceptable, but that's outside the scope of this page. In the meantime, it might be a good idea to at least try a couple of statements to see how it looks.
- Issue 6, the deadlink to this piece shouldn't be an issue if the article also appeared in the Sun-Times' print edition; simply update the template accordingly.
- Issue 7 concerns slightly inaccurate paraphrasing. The first part is generally OK, as "higher quality than in most documentaries of this type" seems an adequate paraphrase of "a cut above the usual cutesy animal pic voiceover" (though it might be worth changing "documentaries" to "films"). The second part, "Goldberg's narration ... grew monotonous as the film moved on", doesn't quite match the source's "Goldberg's narration ... pales after a while." As Casliber says, maybe it's borderline, but there are alternatives (diminished, made less of an impact, etc.)
- Issue 8 is proving a negative, so maybe it just needs moving to make clear that it's not cited to that source. The better option would be to find a page somewhere that explicitly says this.
- Issue 9, I agree that "uninteresting and boring" is a slightly better translation. However, the Paul Newman mention has tipped me off: this review is about a completely different film, The Meerkats, so it needs to be killed. Interestingly, it appears that The Weinstein Company may have bought The Story Begins simply to kill it to avoid competition for the Newman-narrated pic, so if a reliable source for that could be found, it might be something useful to include.
- Nothing here is irresolvable, IMO. Oh, and see if this article is of any use too; it has some interesting tidbits about the film's development. All the best, Steve T • C 10:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is community consensus re citations at the end. Was just discussed recently in one of the citing areas (I think the WP:CITE talk page, but would have to look to be sure and short on time). Its been tried before and it is ugly and reduces readability for no profit in terms of accuracy. Fixed #7 to use a direct quote instead. Removed #9 (and that is a rather interesting way to avoid competition...) #8 I've removed since a non-existent thing can not be sourced and the only place its been noted that it hasn't been announced is in fan forums. If the Sun Times one appeared in the print edition, I'm not aware of it, and unfortunately the link was not archived. *sigh* Will have to remove all that it cites or find replacements. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AnmaFinotera - my source reviews aren't going to have opposes connected to them. I am only analyzing the sources as they are. So, don't worry. Those like Steve can interpret if they think there is a problem enough to warrant an oppose or, if there aren't, to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the Sun Times one in LexisNexis and it did indeed appear in the print version too, so I've fixed that citation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AnmaFinotera - my source reviews aren't going to have opposes connected to them. I am only analyzing the sources as they are. So, don't worry. Those like Steve can interpret if they think there is a problem enough to warrant an oppose or, if there aren't, to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is community consensus re citations at the end. Was just discussed recently in one of the citing areas (I think the WP:CITE talk page, but would have to look to be sure and short on time). Its been tried before and it is ugly and reduces readability for no profit in terms of accuracy. Fixed #7 to use a direct quote instead. Removed #9 (and that is a rather interesting way to avoid competition...) #8 I've removed since a non-existent thing can not be sourced and the only place its been noted that it hasn't been announced is in fan forums. If the Sun Times one appeared in the print edition, I'm not aware of it, and unfortunately the link was not archived. *sigh* Will have to remove all that it cites or find replacements. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: A very good article with only the most minor of issues for me.
- Is there any way you could get another picture in there? It's not a major concern, and you've probably already looked, but I think it would be effective towards the end of the article.
- In Reception: Does Common Sense Media need to be wiki-linked in the text? As a publisher parameter too, for ref 22, I would consider linking CSM to its home page (Common Sense Media) appropriate.
- In Reception: "calling it a "captivating journey" that did not avoid depicting the harsh realities of the meerkats' lives". Personally the text outside of quotes feels as if it should be in them, due to the way it's worded. I'm trying to think of an alternative. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked CSM because I wasn't sure if it might be notable enough to eventually have its own article, but for now I've removed the links. I changed the sentence to make it a quote to avoid it being too close a paraphrase. The only available pictures would be non-free ones, which could not really be justified by the text as no one really critically analyzed any particular scene. Could maybe throw in a shot from the making of, but none of the techniques were very innovative.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Okay thought something similar might be the case for images. My small issues have been resolved, so I give my support for an excellent article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meta-comment: The length of the nomination page here suggests that this was underprepared. And it's on the short side, too, which makes me wonder whether it hasn't been completely rewritten using scarce reviewer time. Tony (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe it was underprepared at all. It is already a GA, and this is its second FAC. After the first, which only pointed grammar issues, the article was worked on and a copyeditor went through it as well. None of the concerns above came up in the first review, and obviously despite the CE, there were still some minor grammar problems. A very simple diff shows that the article has NOT been "completely rewritten". The only semi-major rewrites were to the lead, the removal of one sourced statement as it was felt to not meet FAC requirements and not to be neutral, and the addition of one call out quote in light of reviewer concerns. It was not "underprepared" and its length can not be helped. There is not that much out there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Comments by Mm40 Lead:
- Should "Animal Planet" be linked in the first sentence?
- I suggest the last two sentences of the first paragraph be switched; The last is on the subject of the "actors", as is the sentence third-to-last.
- "The film"/"the film" is used in the first four sentences of the second paragraph, and overall too often in the article. Look for replacements.
Synopsis:
- "During an attack..." Is "during" the right word?
- Are there really no references available for the plot?
Production:
- "...the highly rated documentary series Meerkat Manor." I would link "Meerkat Manor", as it hasn't been linked since the first sentence of the article.
- "...script using the notes taken by the Kalahari Meerkat Project researchers..." It seems that both "the"s in this sentence can be removed.
- "...the park normally prohibits low flying aircraft..." I think "low flying" should be hyphenated as it is later in the sentence.
- "Full color scenes depicting..." "Full color" should be hyphenated.
- "With the viewer backlash Animal Planet..." "With" -> "Because of" or something similar
- "...professional handlers were also employed..." Take out "also"
- "...and the coda added." I think "coda" should be changed for clarity.
Distribution:
- "...released to Region 1 DVD in..." Shouldn't that be "released to Region 1 on DVD"?
Reception:
- Link to Cinema Audio Society Awards or a related article somewhere in the first sentence.
- The last paragraph uses "felt" three times; I suggest changing the second use to "thought". Mm40 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot summaries do not require references - the film itself is the reference. Lead reworded to reduce use of film. Not sure what other words there are - film/it/movie/Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins - four options there is going to be some repetition. Links to AP and MM added. Hyphens added. Region 1 DVD is an accurate label - it is a type of DVD. Minor wording tweaks done. Left coda, but linked it. Link to Cinema Audio Society Awards added (weird that the awards have an article but not CAS itself). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job; I could find no other issues, so I'm supporting this article. Congratulations. Mm40 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:26, 25 August 2009 [19].
Tawfiq Canaan
- Nominator(s): Tiamuttalk 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it received a very good review when it was promoted to good article status and though it failed its first FAC nom, it has been expanded and refined since, and has enjoyed longstanding stability in its current form. I would have re-nominated it earlier, but one major stumbling block to a successful FAC nom was the lack of a photo of Canaan. After returning from a short absence from Wikipedia, I am overjoyed to see that a resourceful editor has found one. I look forward to hearing your comments on this second-try at my first real FAC nom. Tiamuttalk 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for bringing my attention to that. Had never seen it before. Tiamuttalk 23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking into that. That alt text is pretty good
, but it could still stand some improvement. Phrases like "Black-and-white photograph of" should be removed, as they're not that helpful. Also, phrases like "Old City of Jerusalem", "Dome of the Rock", and "Tawfiq Canaan" should be removed, as they are details that are not immediately obvious to a non-expert who can see only the images themselves. I suggest altering the book cover alt text to just say "Book cover saying" and then giving the text of the book cover, rather than all the details about the fonts and so forth, which are not that important. Finally, the template-derived image whose alt text is "Early 20th-century Palestinian family" needs to be greatly reworded, as it's not obvious from the image that it is early 20th-century, or that it is Palestinian, or that it is a family. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being so patient with your explanations. I tried to do what you have outlined above. The template gave me a bit of trouble, since there is no alt field. I hope I put the info in the right place. If not, let me know and I'll try to find a way to fix it. It may also need a bit of copy edit since I may have gotten carried away. Anyway, thanks again. Tiamuttalk 02:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the template is working fine. The alt text for the template's image is a bit long for my taste, but other tastes differ and anyway it's FA quality. I tweaked the other alt text a bit. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Tiamuttalk 03:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Four deadlinks with the link checker tool. Once they are fixed, I'll be able to check them for reliablity.Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. (Specifically, AWG)
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found replacement links for two of the dead links. One of them was a citation for work that turned out not to be authored by Canaan, so I removed it altogether.
- Unfortunately, the full text of the Baha' al-Ju'beh source is no longer available online. It is cited on the page of the publisher here, but I cannot access the article itself. A copy of the synopsis or introduction is available for viewing here, but the link to the full text opens up in a unrelated page. I will keep looking, but if I can't find it, should I be looking for another source that supports the info taken from it? Tiamuttalk 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be online, but yes, you need to source the information from something. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the information in the Ju'beh source is accurate and sourced to a journal though not available online. Less accurate is the ICS-Jericho source which I am finding substitutes for as we speak (It's mostly used to cite the listing of his medical publications, barring one or two exceptions.) I'm updating everything as we speak and I'll let you know as soon as it is all done, which I hope will be some time tonight. Tiamuttalk 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then, I think I've sorted things out. You can take a look now. There are only a couple of medical texts lacking a citation right now in the publications section and I'm willing to remove them off course, if none are found. I've also reformatted the cites to have a separate biblio section. Let me know what you think and where we go from here. Thanks for all your feedback. Tiamuttalk 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I missed that. Fixed all four. Tiamuttalk 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Should the names of journals be italicized? Tiamuttalk 14:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying. It's already been done. I just wanted to make sure. Tiamut 09:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Should the names of journals be italicized? Tiamuttalk 14:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to reference formatting, there is a separate "issue" parameter in {{cite journal}}. So if you a volume number and issue number, just type something like "volume=8|issue=1" instead of "volume=Vol. 8, no. 1|". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for alerting me to that. I'll jump to the article right now and sort any refs missing that parameter. Tiamuttalk 15:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I did it. Hope its okay now. Tiamuttalk 15:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a few more corrections. There is still some inconsistent reference formatting. I'll try to run through the article again later today or tomorrow. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your fixes. I'll try to catch any missing ones myself too. I just don't seem to have your eagle eyes for that type of thing. Thanks again. Tiamuttalk 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some more fixes to the page. For consistency, can I recommend that you move the Nashef reference to the bibliography and then use <ref> to cite individual pages? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem doing that. Just wondering though, isn't the bibliography for books only? Nashef's work was published in a journal which is why I formatted it the way I did. If its okay to put journals in the bibliography, then I will go ahead and do that now. Tiamuttalk 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bibliography can be used for all sources. I converted the templates in the bibliography from {{citation}} to {{cite book}} for consistency. Just add Nashef as {{Cite journal}} and you should be fine. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll do it right now. Tiamuttalk 14:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll also need to format all his publications into {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, etc. for consistency. I'll help with this. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help. Tiamuttalk 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll also need to format all his publications into {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, etc. for consistency. I'll help with this. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll do it right now. Tiamuttalk 14:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bibliography can be used for all sources. I converted the templates in the bibliography from {{citation}} to {{cite book}} for consistency. Just add Nashef as {{Cite journal}} and you should be fine. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem doing that. Just wondering though, isn't the bibliography for books only? Nashef's work was published in a journal which is why I formatted it the way I did. If its okay to put journals in the bibliography, then I will go ahead and do that now. Tiamuttalk 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some more fixes to the page. For consistency, can I recommend that you move the Nashef reference to the bibliography and then use <ref> to cite individual pages? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your fixes. I'll try to catch any missing ones myself too. I just don't seem to have your eagle eyes for that type of thing. Thanks again. Tiamuttalk 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a few more corrections. There is still some inconsistent reference formatting. I'll try to run through the article again later today or tomorrow. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Overall, a well-written, well sourced, article about an interesting person. A few longer sentences than I am used to, but I do not think they are gramatically incorrect (those that were, I broke into two). I am going through the article making minor spelling and grammar copyedits, but that shouldn't prevent the article from passing. I'd normally wait until I was done, but there seems to be a movement towards quicker closings than in the past, so I did not want this archived before I was done. -- Avi (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and your edits Avi (both now and earlier). I appreciate it. Tiamuttalk 01:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After reading through this article now, with all the tiny mistakes fixed, and most of the MoS issues addressed, I don't see anything else holding back the article's ascension to Featured status. Great job with this article Tiamut. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Al Ameer son. Much appreciated. I just caught another inconsistency in the formatting (fixed it). I'm sure there's no such thing as perfection, but I'm happy with the way its shaped up. Great to have new eyes look at it too. Tiamuttalk 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment West Jerusalem is a disambiguation link. Either delink it or link it to a relevant article. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its the information on the dab page itself that is relevant. Strangely, both links lead to Jerusalem (It's a weird dab!). So I'll just delink it now. Tiamuttalk 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, delinked. Question though, a redink was created out of dismbiguating Musrara to Musrara, Jerusalem. Should I remove it? What's the thinking on redlinks in FAs? Tiamuttalk 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its the information on the dab page itself that is relevant. Strangely, both links lead to Jerusalem (It's a weird dab!). So I'll just delink it now. Tiamuttalk 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review:
- File:1900s Jerusalem old city.jpg is listed as being in the public domain because the author has been deceased for at least 70 years, but no author information is provided, and it was not taken at least 120 years ago (which would allow us to presume that the author has been deceased for at least 70 years).
- About this picture, I replaced its license with the one for Mandate Palestine/Israel which allows for an image's release 50 years after publication i.e. anything published before 1959. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I don't see any change to the file page. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, how about now? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I don't see any change to the file page. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Costumes, characters, etc. Native jewellery -i.e., jewelry- shop..jpg The source link is dead. Public domain is claimed because the image was published pre-1923, but there is no information as to where/when this was published.
- File:Khamsa pendant.jpg The uploader released this info the public domain, but there is no information about the copyright status of the underlying pendant. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how to deal with these issues. I'm not against removing the pics if their presence is a problem to the FAC. Does anyone else know how to correct the problem? Forgive my ignorance. Tiamuttalk 22:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For this picture: File:Costumes, characters, etc. Native jewellery -i.e., jewelry- shop..jpg ..I asked FunkMonk to upload it; (see [20]) ..it is from the Mathson Collection, just go to the Library of Congress search page, then type in Jewellery Jerusalem. This is a "stable" link, I think: [21] -Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the info provided by Huldra (thanks my dear) to the Glass shop picture. With Al Ameer son's additions to the other one, the only remaining issue is the Khamsa pendant picture. Should we remove it? Tiamuttalk 11:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For this picture: File:Costumes, characters, etc. Native jewellery -i.e., jewelry- shop..jpg ..I asked FunkMonk to upload it; (see [20]) ..it is from the Mathson Collection, just go to the Library of Congress search page, then type in Jewellery Jerusalem. This is a "stable" link, I think: [21] -Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how to deal with these issues. I'm not against removing the pics if their presence is a problem to the FAC. Does anyone else know how to correct the problem? Forgive my ignorance. Tiamuttalk 22:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing issues - Wording at the beginning is awkward - "a physician and pioneer in the field of medicine in Palestine, also well-known for".
- Changed the opening sentence to be less flowery, and moved some of the information down into the pararaphs that follow.
- 1. Wiki - "pioneer in the field of medicine in Palestine, also well-known for being one of the foremost researchers of Palestinian popular heritage."
- 1. Source - "pioneers of medicine in Palestine [...] Well-known as one of the foremost researchers of Palestinian popular heritage,"
- See above.
- 2. Wiki - "more than 1,400 amulets and other objects related to popular medicine and folk practices [...]various Palestinian cities and villages, and other Arab countries including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen"
- 2. Source - "more than 1,400 amulets, talismans and other objects, all related to popular medicine and folk practices [...] various Palestinian cities and villages; other items came from Arab countries including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen."
- This information is not in the Nashef source. Its from Jubeh. Could you link me to where you got it? Because that link is now dead. In any case, its also been changed.
- 3. Wiki - "was facilitated by the interviews he conducted with individuals who wore them, though he also drew upon specialized sources and references on sorcery and witchcraft. He deciphered some of the symbols and wrote about the meanings of the shapes, writings, letters and numbers used, publishing one such article on the subject in a journal produced by Antiquities Museum of the American University in Beirut in 1937."
- 3. Source - "were facilitated by interviews with individuals who actually wrote amulets, as well as specialized sources and references in sorcery and witchcraft [...] decipher some talismanic symbols and learn the meanings of the shapes, writings, letters and numbers used in this realm of popular beliefs and medicine and magic. He wrote an article on the subject which appeared in 1937 in an antiquity studies journal published by Antiquities Museum of the American University in Beirut."
- Also not in Nashef, but in Jubeh. I've rewritten it to read: "Interviews he conducted with the individuals who wore talismans constituted an important part of his analysis, which was complemented by consulting specialized sources on sorcery and witchcraft. He wrote about the meanings of the shapes, writings, letters and numbers used in his attempts at deciphering some of the symbols, and published an article on his findings in a journal produced by Antiquities Museum of the American University in Beirut in 1937."
- 4. Wiki - "Ceramic dishes inscribed with talismans for curing diseases and facilitating childbirth"
- 4. Source - "Ceramic dishes on which are written talismans for curing diseases and facilitating birth."
- Also not in Nashef, but in Jubeh. It's part of a list. Do you have a suggestion on how to make it better?
- 5. Wiki - "provide valuable information on folk medicine and the manifestations of magic in the popular beliefs and practices of Palestinian and neighboring Arab societies – practices that exist to this day."
- 5. Source - "provides valuable information on [...] namely folk medicine and the manifestations of magic in the popular beliefs and practices of Palestinian and neighboring Arab societies - practices that exist to this day."
- Also not in Nashef, but in Jubeh. I've changed it to read: "The collection is considered a valuable resource for those interested in the manifestations of magic in the popular beliefs underpinning folk medicine practices in Palestinian and Arab societies."
- - All taken from this source, used as the first source in the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've relied heavily on the Nashef source, given that it is one of the only sources to provide biographical information on Canaan. Many of the other sources are focused on his work and its relationship to different academic fields today. But please do note that most of your examples come from another source; that by Jubeh.
- Is there a problem with paraphrasing from a source when it is cited? I tend not to stray too far from the original for fear of misrepresenting the sources (when you write in a contentious subject area, as I do, sticking as close as possible to the source is a way to avoid accusations of POV and editorializing). Would you like me to alter the wording further? Tiamuttalk 09:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some changes as indicated above. You can review them in to to, in this diff. Tiamuttalk 10:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll let others respond to the changes - I wont oppose on these reviews in order to stay neutral about them. I am merely digging through and providing information for reviewers who might not have the time to go through it. Cheers on the changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some changes as indicated above. You can review them in to to, in this diff. Tiamuttalk 10:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and happy reviewing and editing. Tiamuttalk 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and contributed to research that led to the finding of a cure for malaria"—can we do without three of these words?
- removed "the finding of". Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " Other topics covered in his medical studies included leprosy, tuberculosis, and health conditions in Palestine."—So these were a subset of all of the topics he studied? If not, use "comprised" rather than "included".
- Not sure if those topics cover the totality of his work or not. He wrote many studies that I don't have access to, so I cannot be sure. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "have served as" could be just "were".
- It could be, but they continue to serve that function, so I didn't want to use past tense. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Arrested by the British authorities in 1939 – his family home and clinic in Jerusalem destroyed during the 1948 Palestine war – he nevertheless managed to re-establish his life and career." Is the parenthetical bit between the dashes connected with the main sentence (enough)? It shunts forward and backwards in time.
- Actually, its pretty much a chronology: 1939, 1948, post-1948. If you think the ideas are not connected, I can rephrase. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rephrased here. Tiamuttalk 09:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, its pretty much a chronology: 1939, 1948, post-1948. If you think the ideas are not connected, I can rephrase. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Arab" "Lutheran" Church: "Arab" has occurred before, unlinked. Is there a more specific link target (a section?) to Lutheranism? Otherwise, why link it again (it's linked in the infobox). WP:LINK says to try to avoid juxtaposed links like this.
- Okay, linked to Arab Lutheran instead, linking Arab just before that, since it is not wikilinked elsewhere. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, nice one (although that target article desperately needs your attention too!). Tony (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's so many in need of attention I sometimes feel like I'm going to drown. But thanks for thinking I could help improve it. Tiamuttalk 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, nice one (although that target article desperately needs your attention too!). Tony (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, linked to Arab Lutheran instead, linking Arab just before that, since it is not wikilinked elsewhere. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why link "Beirut" when half a second later the "American University of Beirut" is linked (this target starts with a link to the city, yes?).
- Delinked Beirut. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pneumonia" is barely worth linking. It's a dictionary word, and it's only his dad who got it.
- Delinked pneumonia. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comma after "X-rays".
- comma added. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The German-Jewish Hospital (Shaare Zedek) also sought out his services as a manager at this time."—So did he agree to work for them?
- As far as I can understand from the source, yes. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Much. Much"—Pronounced differently, too.
- Added ü for pronunciation, and change second Much to "The latter". Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Canaan married Margot Eilender, the daughter of a German importer, in January 1912, and the following year they moved into the family home which they built in the al-Musrarah district of Jerusalem. Three of their four children (Theo, Nada, and Leila) were born in that house." How can we avoid the "in that house" repetition? Possibly: "Canaan married Margot Eilender, the daughter of a German importer in January 1912. The following year they moved into the family home they built in the al-Musrarah district of Jerusalem, where three of their four children (Theo, Nada, and Leila) were born." Neater?
- Thank you for the alternate suggestion. Replaced it with yours. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled with the prose. This is down to halfway through "Medical career". Needs sifting and improving. Tony (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look through the prose again from there on down with your suggestions in mind. And make some upgrades where necessary. Tiamuttalk 08:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've done a little sifting and improving as suggested here. I found some periods and commas in the wrong place too and fixed those. I hope you find that the changes have improved the prose accordingly. Tiamuttalk 09:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC) PS. There is also this, which I just linked above too. Tiamuttalk 09:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:36, 22 August 2009 [22].
Hurricane Bob (1985)
- Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | Talk 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC), Hurricanehink[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because either I have FAcountitis, or I genuinely believe this is among Wikipedia's best work. That's up to you to decide.
In all seriousness, I've been copyediting this article bit-by-bit for a few months with the intention of eventually nominating it, so here we are. Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) wrote most of the initial content, and I've re-organized it, cleaned it up, updated the references, and improved the overall prose. That this article has been steadily improving for three years through loose and informal collaborative effort is why I believe Wikipedia is such a worthwhile project, but enough of this rant. Happy reading! –Juliancolton | Talk 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Images need alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, forgot about that. Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, the alt text is present
, but it needs a bit of work. "Track map of hurricane" should describe where the hurricane went, since that's the key point of the image. Likewise for "Satellite image of tropical storm making landfall." (landfall where?). The "Map of rainfall totals from hurricane." should say where the rain fell, and should not bother with unimportant details like "bright blue" or the map background. "A peninsula is depicted at the center." is less helpful than mentioning "Florida" directly: more readers will know what Florida is, than will know what a peninsula is. Can you please take another crack at it? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- If I'm not mistaken, this seems to contradict that. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that here, we are talking about maps of the southeastern U.S. where we can expect a typical reader to know where Florida is and where the point of the image is to say "the hurricane went over northern Florida and into southern Georgia" (or whatever); whereas there, we were talking about relatively obscure islands whose visual appearance is not known to most readers and where the point of the image was to show them what the islands looked like. Admittedly this is a judgment call and reasonable editors can differ in boundary cases; but the general rule of thumb is: what would work better as a description read aloud over a telephone to a non-expert reader? Eubulides (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see; thanks for the clarification. Should be fixed now. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it looks good now. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it looks good now. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see; thanks for the clarification. Should be fixed now. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that here, we are talking about maps of the southeastern U.S. where we can expect a typical reader to know where Florida is and where the point of the image is to say "the hurricane went over northern Florida and into southern Georgia" (or whatever); whereas there, we were talking about relatively obscure islands whose visual appearance is not known to most readers and where the point of the image was to show them what the islands looked like. Admittedly this is a judgment call and reasonable editors can differ in boundary cases; but the general rule of thumb is: what would work better as a description read aloud over a telephone to a non-expert reader? Eubulides (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm not mistaken, this seems to contradict that. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, the alt text is present
- Comments -
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1851to2005_atl.txt deadlinksPlease spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.- What makes http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/allhurricanes.htm a reliable source?
- [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] all refer to the Tornado Project. Also, as far as I know, they get their info directly from the Storm Prediction Center. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the HURDAT link Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrote out NOAA. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave the last out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you considered the Tornado Project to be a reliable source at this FAC, for what it's worth. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The MH seems rather short.Jason Rees (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no advisories archived for Bob. Advisory archives for the ATL start in 1991. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Some notes: I would prefer if this was cited "and as such it was re-used during the 1991 season.". The fourth paragraph of "Carolinas, Mid-Atlantic, and New England" starts to list items with little connection. You could fix it by mixing up the language a bit (such as changing "Rough seas capsized a few boats along the Potomac River" to "Along the Potomac River, rough seas capsized a few boats", and you could remove the period and put "while ____ happened" to connect to the next sentence). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with a bit of copyediting. Thanks for the review and support! –Juliancolton | Talk 22:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I trust the editors' assessment above of the quality of the referencing. I do not find this FAC reaches sufficiently high standards of writing or breadth. The writing is not engaging (let alone "brilliant") and feels rather narrow and unpolished: while in places the language is vivid, in most places the article is a lifeless recital of facts, with a rather Boys' Own feel when talking of the effects of the hurricane, e.g., "In Virginia, the storm spawned three tornadoes, one of which destroyed two houses," but little that gave this reader a general sense of what was going on. Possibilities for improvement:
- Broader account of the effects of the hurricane: non-meteorological photographs, quotes from eyewitness accounts of the hurricance, more substance in the account of the evacuation.
- Better writing, communicating more of the sense of a narrative. We have too many unfortunate sentences, such as "Bob began moving eastward, striking southwestern Florida as a minimal tropical storm": the verb striking connects the two parts of the sentences, and jars against both, if you "begin moving", you are not "striking"; one says something like "then struck" , or starts the sentence with just "moved"; then, "striking" sounds dramatic, at odds with "minimal"; last, what is a "nimimal tropical storm"? Is it a technical term? Is it one I should hav e ever encountered before reading this article?
- Even with all this fixed, I am not sure that I would find this article all that more rewarding to read: the article conveys the sense that the hurricance was not very interesting in the context of the much more interesting hurricanes that it shared a season with. I recommend listing at GA User:Chalst (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2009
- It was a fairly boring and straightforward storm, certainly not a Camille or Katrina. This, combined with the fact that 1985 was quite a long time ago, makes me extremely doubtful I'd be able to find "non-meteorological photos" and such. Perhaps I could justify a fair-use rationale, but it wouldn't add much in my opinion. The article's not meant to convey a special feeling or describe people's experiences; its purpose is to provide general information about the hurricane itself, boring as it may seem. That said, I'm not sure I understand your concerns with the prose. Some examples of problematic writing would be greatly appreciated, but again, asking that it communicates more of the sense of a narrative is an unactionable objection. It's an encyclopedic article, not a narrative.
- And for what it's worth, it is already a GA. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And "minimal tropical storm" seems more-or-less self-explanatory... –Juliancolton | Talk 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to withdraw my oppose, not because I've changed my mind, but because I won't have enough time to discuss the criticism, and I think it is unfair to make oppose !votes without evaluating efforts made to meet the criticism. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but please don't hesitate to re-review the article should you find the time. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added Hurricanehink to the FA nom list, as you said he wrote a great deal of the prose. Feel free to remove it if I made a mistake of some kind. NW (Talk) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that works. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
- File:Hurricane Bob (1985).JPG - I am not sure if this is possible, but could you add the .html link as well as the .jpg link?
- File:Bob1985rain.gif - Same as above image
- File:TS Bob (1985).JPG - Same as above image
- File:Bob 1985 track.png - Looks good.
- NW (Talk) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Since Juliancolton is on vacation for the time being, he has asked me to take care of this nomination during his absence. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmed. Thanks for the help CB. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too short to be an FA in my opinion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This oppose is not actionable. Please review the article in accordance with WP:WIAFA. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actionable by expanding the article, and using more sources. This article simply isn't long enough. Now if an expert in the subject comes and tells me that the article covers the matter exhaustively (and reading the article makes this look unlikely) and that all the sources used constitute most of the sources available and they are used exhaustively, then fair enough. It would pass b, but no reason it should have a star (Taran is an article that passes b too; Galam Cennalath is not far off either). Otherwise the FA system and its criteria can be gamed to chunk up a huge list of stars, which is not the spirit of the system. And spirit trumps the letter. As for the letter, we have WP:IAR for this purpose. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blindly asking for more info without any evidence that the article is not comprehensive is not in the least bit helpful, I'm afraid. The length of an article is irrelevant to its quality (indeed, we have several hundred FAs that are shorter than this, including Tropical Depression Ten (2005) and Tropical Storm Erick (2007). When is an article "long enough" to be featured? I'm sorry, but I don't think there is anything I can do to reasonably satisfy your objection. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blindly? Why blindly? Incidentally, I would object to Tropical Storm Erick (2007) and Tropical Depression Ten (2005) if I had seen it. I'm not a robot, and spirit trumps letter, otherwise there's no reason Taran with a minor c/e can't get featured. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, with all due respect, you've not provided any evidence to suggest that the article is not comprehensive, and requires more info. I believe all valuable, encyclopedic info has been exhausted. I'd be happy to continue searching if you can point out any areas that are lacking. What's missing? Have you found any major details that are currently omitted? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And FWIW, I'd likely support Taran of the Picts at FAC. If it's comprehensive, there's no reason to oppose based on its length. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I hope you wouldn't support with op. cit. in the citations ;-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's pretty clear the article can be expanded using more (more coverage of local effects) and better sources (journals, and so on). I am seasoned enough in editing articles with few sources to know exactly how much one can get out of it. So length is a good indicator of comprehensiveness, which does vaguely bring in one FA criterion. FAs should be there for those articles ... and that I believe is what most Wikipedians probably expect from the process, irrespective of any current "gameable" flaw in the wording. I'm not as familiar with FAs now as I was 2 years ago, but then this article would not have passed. Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jordanhill railway station/archive1 (3 years ago), which failed largely (though not entirely) due to its length. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You say that the article "can be expanded using more ... and better sources". It seems that all available sources have been used, and no additional ones have been pointed out. If there are more sources that can (but haven't) been used, then they should be mentioned. "too short" is not an actionable oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) See this comment from SandyGeorgia. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, look through the FAC talk archives for numerous discussions on "short FAs". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't buy that. It's actionable by expanding it. This "not actionable" argument resembles an attempted exploit. But we are not computers, thank you. ;) It's obvious from reading it that the article could go into lots more detail in various places, in the science, in the local effects, and so on. A google scholar search is enough to tell its source use is far from comprehensive let alone exhaustive [29], and goodness knows what a search on a geoscience bibliographic database would show (if someone can recommend one, that'd be great). Anyways, if it is the case that the closer won't use discretion to enforce the spirit of the FA process, then they can take my oppose as a fail on comprehensiveness. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources all relate to Hurricane Bob of 1991, a much more significant storm. This is the Hurricane Bob of 1985. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I think the objector has the initial burden of pointing out exactly where the gaps are at present, if they exist, in at least some detail, and it may help him to point out where he thinks gaps could be filled (I think you have to show both gaps, and that they are capable of being filled." Once that is done, the burden shifts to the nominator, to prove him wrong or fill the gaps as desired. Right now, I don't see that Deacon has met the initial burden, and thus there is nothing to act on.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now, as I have pointed out usable sources that have not been integrated into the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1c. Deacon's oppose just became actionable. For example, this New York Times source. There's also a Globe & Mail article I can email you. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At first glance it seems the NYT article more-or-less duplicates existing info, but I'd appreciate if you could send me a copy of the Globe & Mail one. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has someone checked Google news for the month of the hurricane in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked there (link) before I nominated the article, and whilst I could add a few more footnotes, there's really no more useful info as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT does mostly repeat, but there are a few details that could be used (time of coming ashore in South Carolina, tides, etc.) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if Julian's touched all the bases (or the equivalent cricket analogy), this is just a tempest in a teapot, then!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think I was a bit hasty in opposing. There's no point in sending you the Globe & Mail article, as it doesn't say much except "The storm was classified as a hurricane at 5:30 p.m. yesterday when sustained winds within it exceeded 120 kilometres an hour." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if Julian's touched all the bases (or the equivalent cricket analogy), this is just a tempest in a teapot, then!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has someone checked Google news for the month of the hurricane in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ← I was able to scrape a couple more sentences out of an offline source. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems up to snuff for me, not lacking anywhere for the time of the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Hurricane Bob was a minimal hurricane that affected the" I've never heard of a "minimal" hurricane, what is that? Perhaps "weak"? I don't know though; you're the expert.
- "Bob began moving eastward, striking southwestern Florida as a minimal tropical storm." And here's the "minimal" word again.
- "Damage was minimal in South Carolina where the hurricane made its final landfall." Comma after "Carolina".
- "Throughout its path, Hurricane Bob inflicted $20 million in damages" "Throughout its path" is unnecessary.
- "
located105 miles (165 km) northeast of where the storm made landfall" - "Much of North Carolina also received over 1 inch (25 mm) of rain, amounting to as much as 7 inches (180 mm) in Beaufort County"-->Much of North Carolina also received over 1 inch (25 mm) of rain; as much as 7 inches (180 mm) fell in Beaufort County Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 1 is Greek to anyone who doesn't understand meteorology. Wasn't there some article that explained how to interpret HURDAT? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "An area of low pressure formed developed into a tropical depression" Missing word between "formed" and "developed"? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The remnants of a tropical wave entered the southeastern Gulf of Mexico on July 20." The source says "eastern". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "while located 200 miles (320 km) west-northwest of Naples, Florida." Not in the source. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "the tropical depression drifted southeastward" "southeast" will do.
- "turned to the northeast and later to the east." "to the" can be removed (both occurences) without affecting the sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These have been fixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "entering the Atlantic Ocean near Vero Beach early on July 24 ." The source does not say anything about entering the ocean at that point. Also, there's a rogue space before the period.
- The source says it was moving northward at Vero Beach and then subsequently mentions it making another landfall in South Carolina; so while it does not explicitly say this, the source still supports it. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and made landfall near Beaufort, South Carolina early on July 25 while maintaining winds of 75 mph (120 km/h)." The source does not say anything about the wind speed at the time of landfall.
- "Bob quickly weakened over land, decaying into a tropical storm three hours after landfall." I don't know where you got "three hours" from.
- "North Carolina/Virginia" Spaced slash per MOS.
- "Bob's remnants turned north-northeastward" Unnecessary "-ward".
- "and continued northeastward " Ditto the comment above. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until the above issues are resolved, I oppose Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything else is resolved. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Good article --Anhamirak 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written and sourced. Meets FA criteria. A very good article. Warrior4321 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:03, 12 August 2009 [30].
Anniemal
- Nominator(s): PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA since September, with a peer review not long after that. I was hoping to get some actual sales figures in, and luckily Billboard finally mentioned them this year. Some of the citations aren't online, so please let me know if you need text from the original. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
The lead (infobox) image needs alt text as per WP:ALT;it's another argument to {{Infobox Album}}. Later alt text assumes that a visually-impaired reader knows what Annie looks like, which is unlikely for the typical reader; I suggest that this problem be addressed by describing her appearance in the lead infobox image. Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for that. I hadn't realized they'd updated {{Infobox Album}} with that. To save anyone else the time, the other two images did also have alt text. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first one, see my reply when you mentioned it at the peer review (in short, the statement is by Annie herself). The second is the Norwegian equivalent of the American Music Center, and both are members of the International Association of Music Centres. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the problem is that how do we know that the interview was reported reliably? Newspapers and magazine interviews rely on their reputation to make their interviews trusted, we need to consider the reliability of the site itself even when it's an interview. As for the other, I'll leave it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe a publication's reputation has much to do with its reliability, but since you don't think the site is reliable enough to report the interview accurately, I've reworked that part with other sources. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the problem is that how do we know that the interview was reported reliably? Newspapers and magazine interviews rely on their reputation to make their interviews trusted, we need to consider the reliability of the site itself even when it's an interview. As for the other, I'll leave it out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first one, see my reply when you mentioned it at the peer review (in short, the statement is by Annie herself). The second is the Norwegian equivalent of the American Music Center, and both are members of the International Association of Music Centres. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Anniemal is the debut album of Norwegian electropop singer Annie, first released by 679 Recordings in September 2004 (see 2004 in music)." Almost sounds like Annie was released in September 2004. Suggest "Anniemal is the debut album of Norwegian electropop singer Annie that was first released by 679 Recordings in September 2004 (see 2004 in music)."
- "Upon release, the album was successful in Norway. Blogs leaked tracks from the album before it was released internationally, and publications from other countries soon praised the album for its blissful but melancholic sound." I think it would make more chronological sense if these sentences were switched.
- The chronology is correct here. It was released in Norway, the tracks were spread outside Norway via the Internet, at which point it received publicity outside Norway. Should a word other than leaked be used? PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The label did not heavily promote Anniemal for its international releases in 2005, and the album eventually sold over 100,000 copies worldwide." The connector "and" makes this confusing, as you say that the album was not heavily promoted, then go on to say that it did well anyway (IMO, 100,000 copies sold = doing well). Perhaps "but" makes more sense here?
- "He died eighteen months later, in April 2001." Numbers over nine are spelled out.
- Numbers "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words" according to WP:MOSNUM. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "had a limited edition release in 1999, selling out in two days."-->had a limited edition release in 1999, which sold out in two days.
- Modified. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to "I Will Get On"? Was it released?
- Yes, clarified now. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "so Annie would record demos by asking to use" More straightforward as "so Annie recorded demos by asking to use"
- "The two had planned on writing a song titled "Anniemal", so she chose it as the album's title because she said "it just made sense. Anniemal is simple and easy and good."" It sounds like the title was chosen because she said those exact words.
That's all I have time for now; will definitely return. An interesting read. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:25, 12 August 2009 [31].
George Koval
- Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A short article on a spy that nobody really knew about until 2007. 'Nuff said, read and learn! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a cursory copyedit, and it reads smoothly for the most part. One sentence I was scratching my head about for a while was this: "As Koval built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union, the FBI launched an investigation into his activities in the 1950s". Was the FBI investigating Koval's 1950s activities, or did the investigation take place in the 1950s? If the former, I suggest: "As Koval built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union, the FBI launched an investigation into his 1950s activities"; if the latter, there's a deeper problem because you've got "As" and "1950s" disharmoniously co-existing, and I'd suggest a complete change around: "In the 1950s, the FBI launched an investigation into Koval's activities, while he built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union" (or some such; it's still slightly awkward). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dropped part of the sentence entirely, as its dealt with in the earlier paragraph, and reworded. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Query Interesting well written story. No mention of his wife after his return, did she predecease him? Did they have kids? Also did he ever renounce his US citizenship? ϢereSpielChequers 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I did not find any sources that discussed those matters. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK well we can't add what we can't source, but thanks for checking. ϢereSpielChequers 08:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind having another look at your sources for the sentence "According to Arnold Kramish, an American colleague he befriended, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU station." Perhaps the reference has been updated, but I would read this as implying that Kramish knew about the GRU section structure from Koval, whilst the reference implies that he learned it from the FBI.- Also "While other spies such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Klaus Fuchs were caught after the war, Koval apparently went unscrutinized for years. Among the reasons given for his maintained cover" implies that he maintained his cover after they had been caught, whilst the sources state that he had returned to Russia in 1948 - well before the other three were caught. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tweaked a mention in "later years". Kramish and everyone else didn't know anything originally, but he struck up a correspondence with Koval which is how he learned about the covert activities. As for the Rosenberg&Fuchs, there's not meant to be any connection besides that they were Soviet spies; it's just that in contrast to them being caught, Koval escaped and went uninvestigated for years. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them. I think that resolves my earlier query,
but in Jan 1941 "a year's deferment from service starting February 1942." Reads to me as a two year deferment or did it end in Feb 42?ϢereSpielChequers 11:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Good catch, I fixed that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them. I think that resolves my earlier query,
- I've tweaked a mention in "later years". Kramish and everyone else didn't know anything originally, but he struck up a correspondence with Koval which is how he learned about the covert activities. As for the Rosenberg&Fuchs, there's not meant to be any connection besides that they were Soviet spies; it's just that in contrast to them being caught, Koval escaped and went uninvestigated for years. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK well we can't add what we can't source, but thanks for checking. ϢereSpielChequers 08:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
The "President Putin.." ref in the references is thesame as the current ref 1 (Kremlin.ru)? If so, it should probably be listed in the notes as "President Putin" since that's the first part of the reference. Makes it easier to find.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, milady, I'm confused. You mean "President Putin" as referred to in the article text? In other words make it out as "Putin" in the named ref rather than Kremlin. ru? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah. The first footnote is presumably refering to the article in the references that's titled "President Vladimir Putin...". I'm just asking that they be consistently titled so that they are easy to find. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's just because {{cite web}} prioritizes the title if there's no author. I've tweaked it, thanks. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah. The first footnote is presumably refering to the article in the references that's titled "President Vladimir Putin...". I'm just asking that they be consistently titled so that they are easy to find. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, milady, I'm confused. You mean "President Putin" as referred to in the article text? In other words make it out as "Putin" in the named ref rather than Kremlin. ru? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - for now. Fascinating stuff and well-written. Quibbles: Where we have "sites producing" in the Lead, how about "sites that produce" or "sites that produced"? Is a "debate team" what we call over here in the UK a "debating society"? WRT the Jewish Autonomous Region(s), I got a little confused. Presumably the one "established by Stalin" had nothing to do with the one mentioned in the sentence above, or did it? I think "cell" might be better than "station" here, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU station. And, here, his motivation for leaving might have been because American counter-intelligence agents had discovered Soviet literature about his parents— why not just write "he might have left because..."? Lastly, I cannot see where the Doyle reference is used in the text. Graham Colm Talk 17:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some auxiliary Doyle citations, I forgot to add them in a while back with another edit, I guess... only a byte or two change. I've implemented your recommended changes, and cut out Stalin entirely and move the wikilink so it's clear the regions are the same... better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I don't envisage any problems with the image, so I a pleased to added my support. Graham Colm Talk 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some auxiliary Doyle citations, I forgot to add them in a while back with another edit, I guess... only a byte or two change. I've implemented your recommended changes, and cut out Stalin entirely and move the wikilink so it's clear the regions are the same... better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The sole image looks perfectly fine. NW (Talk) 04:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Steve T • C Looks good overall. I come bearing a list, but it's all quite minor:
- Lead
- "After the war, Koval left on a European vacation and never returned to the United States."—sounds like he left on a genuine holiday, rather than its being a ruse so he could get out of the country.
- Early life
- "The carpenter settled in Sioux City ..."—who, Jesus? :p At this point, saying "the carpenter" as a way of avoiding a second use of "Abram Koval" doesn't quite work, as his profession hasn’t been established at this point. Sure, it's implied, but the word still strikes up enough of a query that it interferes with the flow. Fowler: "The effect is to set readers wondering what the significance of the change is, only to conclude there is none."
- Reworded the starts of the sentences slightly. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "were profiled by an American Communist daily in New York City"—ambiguous; the meaning of "daily" (as in newspaper) only becomes clear in the next sentence with the mention of the journalist.
- Added "newspaper" after "daily". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "While Isaya became a champion tractor driver..."—a champion tractor driver? Can you confirm?
- The source says he became a "champion tractor driver". Not being in the ultra-competitive Soviet heavy farm machinery circuit, I have no idea what that entails beyond that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recruitment and espionage
- "Later, Koval was recruited by the Soviet Main Intelligence Directorate"—a pity the section has to start out without a scene-setting date. I presume that even an approximate date isn't known? Would the sources stretch to saying "Between 193[n] and 1939, Koval..."?
- unfortunately it would. The exact dates, or even a year range, is never specified. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to Arnold Kramish, an American colleague he befriended, and who contacted him over half a century later in 2000 and started corresponding, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU cell."—the mid-sentence digression is ungainly, makes the sentence too long and obscures its focus. Perhaps we can cull some of that without losing the intended meaning: "According to Arnold Kramish, an American colleague he befriended and with whom he re-established contact in 2000, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU cell."
- reworded to your suggestion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Inconsistent use of "US" / "United States".
- fixed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Later years
- "Eventually, Koval managed to obtain a teaching job there, where students laughed at his foreign pronunciations for technical terms."—seems to focus too much on the students' finding his pronunciations amusing, as if that's all that happened there, the teaching is considered almost an afterthought. Perhaps find some way of de-emphasising?
- I removed the "where" bit and replaced it with a semi colon to try and break it up, is that a bit better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ELLIPSES is a little unclear on what should be done with the last sentence. Spaced, as the guideline seems to recommend, looks very strange.
- Jiggered it (put punctuation outside). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor changes; see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each. Otherwise, a nice article on an interesting subject. All the best, Steve T • C 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I hit all your issues. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the top one. :-) Oh, and "On November 3, 2007, he received his last award"—wondering what "last" is doing there, as there were no previous awards. Steve T • C 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the award bit, and reworded the first one ever so slightly. Better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the top one. :-) Oh, and "On November 3, 2007, he received his last award"—wondering what "last" is doing there, as there were no previous awards. Steve T • C 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Not a lot more to say than that. :-) The prose is fine, the image correctly licensed and the article as seemingly comprehensive as it can be for the subject. The minor concerns I listed above have been dealt with speedily too. Nice work, Steve T • C 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but with comments - 1. 'This group, organized by American Jewish Communists in 1924, supported through money and publicity the development of the "Jewish Autonomous Region"' There is no verb. Put a "was" before "supported" and it can be a sentence. 2. Quote in the middle of the paragraph beginning "The Koval family" needs a citation directly following the quote per MoS. 3. "Though the United States was still neutral in World War II," Should be "during the beginning of World War II". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I implemented your other tweaks, but I'm pretty sure #1 is a sentence: "This group [...] supported [...] the development of the JAR." If it's a bit wordy I can try chunking it out. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Supported through" makes it not a verb. See: "I am supported". The verb is "to be" (i.e. "am"). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But then it reads "This group, organized by American Jewish Communists in 1924, was supported through money and publicity the development of the "Jewish Autonomous Region"—the Communist answer to the Palestine project then being undertaken by the Zionism movement"... it doesn't sound like "the development..." and what comes after it makes any sense with "was". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve seems to have fixed it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But then it reads "This group, organized by American Jewish Communists in 1924, was supported through money and publicity the development of the "Jewish Autonomous Region"—the Communist answer to the Palestine project then being undertaken by the Zionism movement"... it doesn't sound like "the development..." and what comes after it makes any sense with "was". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Supported through" makes it not a verb. See: "I am supported". The verb is "to be" (i.e. "am"). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I implemented your other tweaks, but I'm pretty sure #1 is a sentence: "This group [...] supported [...] the development of the JAR." If it's a bit wordy I can try chunking it out. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:03, 12 August 2009 [32].
Otto Julius Zobel
- Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it passed GA review a year ago and has been substantially stable since. Many of the inventions of Zobel are well known to engineers of a certain age, and in some cases are still used. Yet despite his circuits appearing in numerous textbooks, engineers often do not realise that they are due to Zobel, he does not seem to have been one to shout his own praises as the likes of Marconi, Edison or Tesla would have done. He fully deserves a prominent article on Wikipedia and I would like to help make it a featured article. SpinningSpark 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll review this more in the morning, but the mood and tone of sections like Otto Julius Zobel#Transmission line simulation do not bode well. Another comment: #Heat conduction looks very isolated and pithy; I suggest merging the two sentences there contained into a different section. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to address both those points, I hope I have understood what you are driving at. I've also altered the noise cancellation title for reasons I stated on the talk page (I didn't realise you were doing a review when I wrote there). One question, are you happy with the British English spelling style? Because if not, we will need to get another editor to copyedit it as I would not trust myself to convert it properly.
- I am going to be offline for most of the coming working week, but I will address further comments at the weekend. Please keep it on hold until I have had a chance to have a look. SpinningSpark 18:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. The signature image does have alt text, but it needs to be revised to give the text of the signature rather than be a copy of the caption. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont really see the point of either, beyond decoration, I would prefer the second was replaced by a modern diagram, however the main issue is the licencing of these images is ambiguious Fasach Nua (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text has been added. The point of showing the diagram is that this article is a biography, and work produced by the subject's own hand is relevant to such an article. Your comment would be valid in an article about the filter itself, but that is what m-derived filter is for, it is not appropriate to give all the technical details in the biography article. My understanding of the copyright issue is that US patents are in the public domain unless they specifically declare an identified portion of the patent to be copyright. There is no licence involved, they are declared to be public domain, I don't see where you think that is ambiguous. SpinningSpark 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont really see the point of either, beyond decoration, I would prefer the second was replaced by a modern diagram, however the main issue is the licencing of these images is ambiguious Fasach Nua (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
As there is only the one White reference, you don't need to use 2000 after it, as you don't do that with any of the other refs.- Done
Current ref 31 (Bray, 2002) first drop the 2002 and you need a page number. You give it elsewhere.- Done
Current ref 41 (Schwartz) is lacking a page number (which you give elsewhere)- Done
Alphabetize your references.- Done
Current ref 15 goes to a Wikipedia page. This is not reliable.- You misunderstand, the information came from the SSDI, not the Wikipedia article about the SSDI. It is wikilinked merely for the benefit of those who want to know what the SSDI is.
- So if the information comes from the SSDI, it needs a better reference to find the source of the information than a Wikipedia article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand, the information came from the SSDI, not the Wikipedia article about the SSDI. It is wikilinked merely for the benefit of those who want to know what the SSDI is.
What is with the "pp. p#" construction on a few of your refs?- I am not responsible for those edits but it appears to be an artefact of the cite template <rant>,which in my humble opinion should all be deleted, salted, and the server disk sectors sandpapered because they never do quite what you want them to do even after hours of tinkering and obstruct newbies who are afraid to edit because they don't understand them,</rant> used. I will convert them to plain text cites if you want.
Current ref 54 (Chakrabarti) lacks a page number- Done
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All comments addressed. SpinningSpark 23:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note that the two unstruck comments have been addressed in the article. I am assuming that Ealdgyth has simply overlooked this when the others were struck and that there is not still an outstanding issue here. SpinningSpark 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I read your replies as saying they were still awaiting work. Struck now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note that the two unstruck comments have been addressed in the article. I am assuming that Ealdgyth has simply overlooked this when the others were struck and that there is not still an outstanding issue here. SpinningSpark 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All comments addressed. SpinningSpark 23:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suggest adding persondata. Hekerui (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not clear what it is you require to be checked, nor what it is that might be in error. SpinningSpark 20:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh that toolbox, I was looking at the sidebar toolbox - done. SpinningSpark 07:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not clear what it is you require to be checked, nor what it is that might be in error. SpinningSpark 20:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Materialscientist. General impression is positive (that is support), but I would suggest where the article can be improved. I understand that some requests would be hard to cover (old and poorly covered topic).
Please add url links to references wherever appropriate. Google books or freely available copies at web sites could be an example. I might add some obvious links myself, but you probably know more.- Much better now. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article focuses on electronic filters. Please try to expand personal information. Another obvious expansion would be ref. 8, which is a book on Mathematical Theory of Heat Conduction co-authored by Zobel. The article says very little on his non-electronic work.Materialscientist (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, Zobel's work on heat conduction ceased with the completion of his PhD thesis. It should be no surprise that the article focuses on filters, this was the main, possibly sole, component of his career - he was "Mr. Filter" through the 1920s and into the 1930s. The book was in a sub-head of its own but was combined in the "early life" section in response to an earlier FA comment that it was too sparse, it also incidentally gets the material in a more historical order. Nevertheless, I will try and extract a couple of snippets from the book that seem to be relevant to Zobel's subsequent work and/or just interesting.
- None of the sources available to me have any usable personal information so I am currently unable to expand in that direction.
- SpinningSpark 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have provided links in references where I can. There are a few books which I have not because while they exist on Google books, they do not have preview so there seems to be little point in linking. There is also a problem with the Bell Journal references, I do not know of any online source for these. I got them as photocopies or e-mailed pdfs. I believe they are available through JSTOR but I do not know how to find the urls and you cannot read them without paying in any case. SpinningSpark 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [33].
The Lucy poems
- Nominator(s): Kafka Liz, Ottava Rima, Ceoil, Awadewit
Nominating on behalf of Kafka Liz, who is off wiki for a while. We nomed this article a few months back but it went down in flames for a number of reasons. It has recieved a few detailed reviews since then and benefited from several combs by all involved. Thanks to Ricardiana and Fowler&fowler especially for so much insight, time and effort. Other than that, looking forward to engaging with other editor's suggestions and comments. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- content moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ealdgyth. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know which River Dove it is, or is this one of the ambiguous place names in the poems? Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't know, better off not linking it. We shouldn't be intentionally linking to disambiguation pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that we don't know, it is that it is a deliberate ambiguity in the poem. Note the sentence in the article: "Similarly, no insight can be gained from determining the exact geographical location of the "springs of Dove"; in his youth, Wordsworth had visited springs of that name in Derbyshire, Patterdale and Yorkshire." Knowing this, what do you think we should do? Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The explanatory footnote is good, in my eyes. If you wish, you might unlink the amiguous link in prose, and link each specific River Dove mention to their respective article. See what I mean here. Of course, that raises its own issues. It's totally up to you. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the disamb link and added in two of the river links to the footnote. The Westmorland Dove river does not have a page, or one that I could find. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a good compromise. Thanks for the quick thinking! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an interesting post on the sub-article talk a while back[34], worth pondering. I might ping Wetman on this. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm very close to supporting this. It's well written and exhaustively researched. I have a few nitpicky items which I've posted on the article's talk page, because they don't seem important enough to oppose the FAC over.
There is, however, one exception: The tenses shift regularly, from "Wordsworth characterised..." to "Wordsworth complains...". (There are numerous other examples as well, involving critics and others.) I feel strongly that the tenses should be standardised before I can vote to support. Scartol • Tok 13:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost everything on this list has been resolved, the tense issue among them. Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Sorry for the delay in my response! Scartol • Tok 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question:
I am very close to supporting; I have a question - why doesn't A slumber did my spirit seal have it's own article yet? It is one of only 5 Lucy poems, the others all have short researched articles that are linked and are helpful to the readers understanding of the set....Modernist (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Support fine job all...Modernist (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created a stub. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ottava is helpfully expanding the stub as we write. Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this piece of beautifully crafted prose with just one comment:
- "The expiration of the lease in Alfoxton soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live even closer." The previous para talks of the two living within walking distance of each other; accordingly, we do not know who lived at Alfoxton (which has not previously been mentioned). Also, I expected Alfoxton to be a town or village and was surprised to discover it was a building. Suggest this read "The expiration of the Wordsworth's lease of Alfoxton House soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live even closer." hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "The expiration of Wordsworth's [[Alfoxton House]] lease soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live together." to clarify. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—very nicely written. Tony (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I've trimmed the length of the first caption, but it still winds and wraps awful bad. Can the pic be a little larger? Or can some of the information be relocated into the main text? Same for the other captions: tiny pics and one-to-three-word lines. Bad look. See the Palmer pic. I recommend possible combinations of three measures, as hinted at above: trim, relocate, enlarge. Why, for example, do we need "Wordworth's" in the Palmer caption? I'm trimming it now, but more needs to be done. Tony (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PPS I presume that in the title, lower-case "p" is appropriate. You don't immediately learn whether the title for the collection is Wordsworth's. My trimming of the Palmer caption neglected to insert "The". Should it be there? Tony (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the edits. I've trimmed the lead caption, and inserted a 'The' in the text for the Palmer image. Ceoil (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanatory note - "The Lucy poems" or "The Lucy Poems" is used by scholars when referring to the grouping. "Lucy poem" is a more casual reference to poetry about the Lucy themes. Rather subtle and the latter is mostly used in comparisons with other works. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've shortened some of the captions even further. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
- File:Benjamin Robert Haydon 002.jpg - National Portrait Gallery image. I assume these are still fine to use; I haven't looked into the legal threat business for a while.
- They are fine, yes. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Samuel Palmer Girl Standing.jpg - Categorize please?
- Added to category and gallery. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Margaret Oliphant Wilson Oliphant.jpg - Under FfD at the moment, but looks like it will be kept. If someone could close that discussion and move the image to commons and do everything there, that would be good.
- Deletion discussion initiated under an attempt to delete images from the NPG. All votes are for keep. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Dorothy Wordsworth 2.jpg - Categorize please?
- Done. Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SamuelTaylorColeridge.jpg - The image at the NPG has slightly different tones. Which do you think would be more suited for use?
- I'm not sure which scan is closer to the original. Has anyone seen the original painting? Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coleridge was not feverish nor was he purple. The first image is closer to the depiction of Coleridge in multiple books. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure which scan is closer to the original. Has anyone seen the original painting? Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Benjamin Robert Haydon 002.jpg - National Portrait Gallery image. I assume these are still fine to use; I haven't looked into the legal threat business for a while.
- To be clear, do you mean copies of the painting in books (as, of course, the painter could have chosen to represent Coleridge any way he wanted)? Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean reproductions of the portrait. They are slightly more brown than red, but they are closer to the Wiki coloration than the NPG. NPG images have also had some other problems, especially with shadowing and the rest. A rather curious situation that one would think would be corrected. Someone like Durova might be able to elaborate on that point, as she is big on restoration of images. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, do you mean copies of the painting in books (as, of course, the painter could have chosen to represent Coleridge any way he wanted)? Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lyrical Ballads.jpg - Categorize please?
- Done. Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:William Wordsworth at 28 by William Shuter2.jpg - Looks good
- NW (Talk) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look good, except for Margret Oliphant. I don't think that the issue with that image is sufficient to merit blocking promotion. NW (Talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to keep the pic of Oliphant, but I dont feel strongly about it. Thanks for the review NW. Ceoil (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. And in my opinion, you should be able to keep the Oliphant image; those FfDs should all eventually close as keep. NW (Talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to keep the pic of Oliphant, but I dont feel strongly about it. Thanks for the review NW. Ceoil (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look good, except for Margret Oliphant. I don't think that the issue with that image is sufficient to merit blocking promotion. NW (Talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOS#Ellipses: some ellipses are spaced, others not. Is that intentional? ("Strange fits ..." and "A slumber...") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a fix to this, I would suggest that all of the short titles be provided without ellipses. Many of the poems are known by the short titles, so it wouldn't be a problem to have them used after the first instance (with full titles in the subheadings, of course). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I'm on a really old computer though this weekend, and ctl F is not working for me. Can get to it about 15 hours, after my beauty sleep and a short drive. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust y'all can fix this minor issue later (don't have a brawl!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. I'm on a really old computer though this weekend, and ctl F is not working for me. Can get to it about 15 hours, after my beauty sleep and a short drive. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 09:08, 9 August 2009 [35].
Lexington class battlecruiser
- Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Four of six ships in the United States' first and only true class of battlecruisers were canceled due to the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty, though two were converted to aircraft carriers and fought in the Second World War. The article passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review back in December and a GAN in January. Any and all comments are welcome and encouraged; I do not expect this to be 100% ready because I wrote it seven months ago, before other FACs have taught me (somewhat) better prose. Thanks and cheers, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I've made my attempts at adding alts; could you double check them? Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 08:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that.
Some suggestions for further improvement, so that the alt text conforms better to WP:ALT: Remove phrases like "Painting of a" (these are duplicates of the caption, and are less important for alt text; see the 2nd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples). Do not use phrases like "seven funnels (though only five can be seen from this side angle)" because this strays from describing what the reader can easily verify by viewing the image (see WP:ALT #What not to specify). Similarly, avoid phrases like "design of the Lexington's" and "proposed", as this can't easily be verified by a non-expert reader who is merely looking at the image.It might not hurt to look at those examples in WP:ALT, if you haven't already. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I had already ;) I've made some additional tweaks, if you could take a look; is the alt for the image in the "Ships" section sufficent? I couldn't think of a good way to describe the structure(s) that is/are around the ship... —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither can I, so let's say it's done. I did tweak the alt text for the two models; hope that helps. Eubulides (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had already ;) I've made some additional tweaks, if you could take a look; is the alt for the image in the "Ships" section sufficent? I couldn't think of a good way to describe the structure(s) that is/are around the ship... —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that.
- I've made my attempts at adding alts; could you double check them? Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 08:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What was the disposition of the secondary armament going to be like? Turrets, casemates, or open mounts? And did it evolve over time? Linking some of the terms in the infobox to their wiki articles might be useful. I'm thinking about things like barbette, etc., that are a little more obscure than most. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I kept meaning to get back to this and evidently never did. The 6"/53 were to be in casemates, and I'll try to work on the linking tomorrow. Thanks for your comments! —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 04:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You mention twice in the article that in the original 1916 design the battlecruisers would have a main armament of "ten 14"/50 caliber guns in four turrets (two triple superfiring over two dual)." In other words, the triple turrets would fire over the twin turrets. Is this correct? Breyer shows dual turrets firing over triple turrets, the same as in the Nevada class battleships, and it seems as though having triple turrets on top would make the ships top-heavy. Jonyungk (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Throughout the article I keep seeing many "However,"'s. At least 6-8 times but I didn't count them all. It starts to get repetitious.
- Under the Original and subsequent redesigns section there are words used like "impressive" and "sparse" which read like pov.
- Please reduce wikilinks. Washington Naval Treaty is linked twice in one section for example. Other wikilinks to things of minor importance should be removed as well; like locations in the US.
- The Naval Historical Center is now called Naval History & Heritage Command. Some of your references still carry the old name. Your "retrieved on" dates should be brought to current rather than 6 + months ago.
- Really nice to see a ship article referenced to printed material for a change! --Brad (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Really? I am the first to support the article? Wow. At any rate, outstanding read. Keep it up!!!!! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw please - as much as I'd love to see this article get a star, there are a couple problems: (a) I don't have the time to deal with comments for the next couple weeks and (b) not enough people are commenting for this to pass. Thanks Sandy/Karanacs in advance, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:57, 18 August 2009 [36].
Big Star (band)
- Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article languishing a couple of months ago and it struck me as a good candidate to develop more fully. I have been working on it since that time, taking it through a GA pass and polishing it further since. In my judgement it now meets the FA criteria and I offer it for review. All comments are welcome and will be acted on promptly. PL290 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check the toolbox to your right, there are several disambiguation links to be fixed. Also, I see you've put in alt text, but it is incorrectly done. What you've done is simply duplicate the image caption, which is not the purpose of alt text. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: dablinks fixed and new alt texts provided. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) I own Jovanovic's book, and I am a big fan of Big Star and am familiar with their history. In fact, I planned in the back of my head to work on this article forever, but I've been inactive on Wikipedia for a while and in the meantime it seems you've picked it up (great work, btw). I've cleaned up a few minor typos and changed a few UK spellings to US ones. Here are some things I noticed along the way reading it (I'll keep adding to this list as I read each section):
- "The band's musical style, influenced by British Invasion groups including The Beatles and The Kinks, as well as The Byrds, The Beach Boys and other U.S. acts, incorporated darker, nihilistic themes, foreshadowing the alternative rock of the 1980s and 1990s." Darker than what? This sentence is awkwardly constructed and should be split into two sentences.
- Done: reworded. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chilton had enjoyed commercial success as lead singer with The Box Tops, delivering, at sixteen, the lead vocal for the #1 hit "The Letter"." Is this sentences necessary to the lead? Only one sentence is dedicated to the Box Tops in the article's main body, and the placement at the end of the first paragraph seems out of place. I'd say either remove it or at least make it the first sentence of the lead's second paragraph.
- Done: I've removed it. I added it because it's notable but was never happy with the way it detracts in the Lead; having thought on, I now see that it's notable to Chilton rather than Big Star. The later mention is sufficient. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although Big Star disbanded in 1974, only reforming in 1993[...]" the "only reforming in 1993" is unnecessary, you go over this later in the paragraph and sticking it here is out of place.
- Done: removed. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "attention was drawn to the early material in the 1980s when R.E.M.[...]" should be "the band's discography drew attention in the 1980s when R.E.M.[...]"
- Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "new releases" should be "reissues" (and be sure to link to it so readers understand what this means)
- Done. Only the Big Star albums were reissues, however, so I've reworded it to allow for the Bell one being new. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "He was offered, but turned down as "too commercial", the role of lead vocalist for Blood, Sweat & Tears." --> "He was offered the role of lead vocalist for Blood, Sweat & Tears, but turned down as "too commercial"."
- Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "(or Ice Water[11])" Is it really necessary to know that this was sometimes spelled slightly differently?
- Done - no, not necessary, so removed. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The four-piece band eventually chose a name" Shouldn't this be "new name"?
- Done. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "other reviewers wrote that "every cut could be a single" from this "important record that should go to the top"." I looked it up and the publications that printed these quotes were Billboard (high praise from an important source!) and Cash Box. Additionally, Record World called it "one of the best albums of the year". I think that the publications should be credited in the text, and that new sentences should be devoted to mentioning the additional praise.
- Done. PL290 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised to find that there is virtually no explanation of the sound of each individual Big Star album. The "Musical style and influences" is a good general overview of the band's sound, but surely it's a good idea to explain the differences between each record in their individual sections?
- Done. It was definitely needed. I've tried not to overdo it, as the album articles are of course where much of the detail should go eventually. PL290 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "[...]existing copies of #1 Record from the stores again." Is the "again" needed? They hadn't been previously removed.
- Done: removed. This was a slightly interesting one! The word isn't needed and the style is more encyclopedic without it. As a point of interest, perhaps it's more in British English then that "again" is commonly used in the sense not of "another time" but of a reaction or response, as a result of which the status quo ante is restored. For example, to pick something up only to put it down again; or, the music got loud and then got quiet again. Used in that sense it has a function in conveying a connection between an action or state and another that preceded it. Anyway, that's by the by and purely for interest in case that usage is new to any reading this; I do think the style is better without the word in this case. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "according to Fry (quoted by Clark) and Hummel (quoted by Jovanovic)" Why not put direct references directly after Fry's and Hummel's names instead of the parentheses?
- Done. Turns out Jovanovic says both anyway, so I've removed Clark. PL290 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bell quit for good"; "Hummel too quit for good": I'd suggest removing the "for good" part, as it's not only repetitive but very informally worded. The mention of Hummel's quitting is far enough away from Bell's quitting that I think the "too" is also unnecessary.
- Done. PL290 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Radio City was released in January 1974. Like #1 Record it received excellent reviews, critics noting that "the sound is stimulating, the musicianship superb" on what was "a collection of excellent material" and affirming that Alex Chilton had "now emerged as a major talent"." I suggest changing this to "Radio City was released in January 1974, and like #1 Record it received excellent reviews.", and then spend a few sentences detailing those quotes and the publications they came from.
- Done. PL290 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "sales of Radio City were prevented"; this makes it sound as though Colombia deliberately suppressed every copy of Big Star's album, which is not true; Radio City actually sold around 20,000 copies, much better than #1 Record had performed but still not great. Perhaps "sales of Radio City were minimal"? Additionally, the information I mentioned above (from the same page you already cite) is important.
- "(The phrase "sister lovers" was[...]" No need for this to be in parentheses. Also, why not briefly explain how #1 Record and Radio City were named in their own sections?
- Done.PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first three Big Star albums are included in Rolling Stone magazine’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time." "September Gurls" was included in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs list, a fact which should be noted in that sentence.
- Done. Also "Thirteen". PL290 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Posthumous popularity, critical favor, and influence" is a long title, and I'm not sure I like parts of it. For example, "Posthumous" seems a strange choice, given not only that Big Star is a band and not a person but also that they became influential before reuniting, so it's not really posthumous at all. "Popularity" might be a bit misleading as they're still only a cult act. Perhaps "Legacy and influence" is more succinct?
- Done. I've also made it a subsection of "First era" since its the latter's legacy and influence we're talking about. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that logically, the "Covers and references" section should be a subsection of the "Posthumous popularity, critical favor, and influence" section. They cover similar ground, so it seems strange to see them separated by unrelated sections.
- Bearing in mind my response to your previous comment, I've instead made it a subsection of "First era", located immediately after what is now "Legacy and influence". Does that all seem OK, or would you suggest something different from what I've done? PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1998, #1 Record's "In the Street" was used as the theme song for the sitcom That '70s Show;[10] in 1999, a new version titled "That '70s Song" was recorded by Cheap Trick for the show.[10][43] This and Big Star's own "September Gurls" were included on the 1999 album That '70s Album (Rockin') released by the television program's producers.[44]" Logically, this should be in the "Covers and references" section.
- Done. PL290 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Second era: 1993 to present" section in general is very choppy, with short paragraphs. It really should be reworked into a better organized section.
- This was largely taken care of when more material was moved here from two other points. I've taken out a further paragraph break; are you happy with the result? PL290 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bogdanov et al. reserve "snarl" for another #1 Record song, "Mod Lang"" "Mod Lang" is on Radio City, not #1 Record.
- Done. (Doh!) PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "Musical style and influences" section: I think that it would make most sense if the first paragraph came after the second, and if the third paragraph were incorporated into the "Second era: 1993 to present" section.
- Done. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the audio sample boxes, as the quotes about each song are used later, it's a better idea to format the descriptions more in the style of articles like R.E.M.
- Done: I've formatted the descriptions in the style used by R.E.M.; I have retained a few parts of the quotes as they're suitably descriptive without getting POV; does this seem an acceptable result or would you suggest it's better to completely eliminate any quotations from the descriptions? PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stringfellow is also known for his work with R.E.M." Not sure about ending a sentence with the last period of R.E.M.'s name... Perhaps reword this or slide the information into an earlier sentence?
- Done. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed throughout that there is very little insight from members of the band and/or people who worked with the band. Without going into too much detail, which should of course be reserved for the individual articles about the band's releases, it would be nice to include some quotes from Big Star-related people.
- Done. PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably aware of this, but there is a 33⅓ book devoted to Radio City. While it might not be needed for this article (33⅓ books are usually used in the article for the album they're about and not so much in the band article, although there are exceptions), it might be good to lighten the dependence on Jovanovic as a source. And it's certainly worth looking into.
- Noted - I have in mind to get that, and it will be excellent when it comes to developing the Radio City article further. Unfortunately I don't have a copy yet but will hope to address all review points without recourse to that. PL290 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All of my points have been met. I believe that, other than a few minor MoS issues which I'm sure will be resolved, that this article is feature-worthy. Good work, PL290! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images have alt text, but it needs work to satisfy the WP:ALT guidelines. The alt text is simply a copy of the caption. Butalt text should not be a copy of the caption; it has quite a different function from the caption, and it's quite rare for the same text to be good for both.Please read WP:ALT (particularly WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Examples) and then have a go at writing good alt text.Eubulides (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: new alt texts provided. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, much better.
But these proper names shouldn't be in the alt text. The average reader doesn't know what these people look like, so saying (in effect) "It looks like Stringfellow" in the alt text won't help them. Can you please remove the proper names from the alt text?Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done: proper names removed from alt texts. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: proper names removed from alt texts. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, much better.
- Done: new alt texts provided. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment Could you move the line "in its original era 1971–74, a "seminal body of work that never stopped...in all of rock & roll" to last paragraph of the lead? It seems more appropriate there, as that is the paragraph where you talk in detail about the group's legacy. Otherwise, it seems a little POV to tell the reader how influential Big Star were before you even lay out the basic facts about them.
- Actually that sentence was intentionally prominent; not as POV, which I hope it avoids by being composed of cited quotes, but to establish notability in first sentence per WP:LEAD. In view of this, would you be happy to leave that sentence where it is? PL290 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article could also do with a MoS polish. For eg: I see Rolling Stone linked and unitalicised twice in the same section. indopug (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been attempting to adhere to MoS as I work on the article but had missed italicising Rolling Stone for some reason; that's now fixed. I'll go over it again at the end of other editing to check for any other MoS issues. PL290 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
Current ref 71 (Big Star perform..) lacks a publisher. And what makes this a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- last.fm is part of CBS: [37]. I've now rendered it "lastfm.com (CBS)" in the notes to make that clearer. The rest don't look too reliable though, I agree. I've substituted better sources for all except two in your list. I drew a blank for Matt Brown's cover version, so I've removed it from the article. The other troublesome one is the R.E.M. Christmas fan club cover version. However, it's listed in the WP article R.E.M. discography#Christmas fan club singles, so I've added that as the cited link. PL290 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the REM thing, you can't cite the Wikipedia article. You need a source you've seen yourself for the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed as no source available. This should now address all the items in your list. PL290 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a reliable source for the R.E.M. Christmas single. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work! Reinstated to use this source. PL290 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last.fm is not a reliable source. It's user-generated content. You need to remove it. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that although last.fm does indeed contain some user-generated content, the cited parts are not user-generated. As you're querying it though, I'll check it out in the morning. PL290 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's as I thought: only certain content on last.fm is editable, such as this Big Star review where you can see an "edit" link. I'm not using that. Content I've cited to demonstrate the existence of a cover version mentioned is not editable. PL290 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you can find a better source than Last.fm, though. This isn't a music reference site; it's a site to show off what you're listening to (yes, I have one). It's routinely discouraged from use in music articles. Try Allmusic. Even then, to state the cover is notable, you need more than just a mention of a tracklisting, since the original doucment (the album itself) could tell you that (and you wouldn't need a citation for that). Also, this is not an appropriate source, not the least because when logged into my account I can edit it to say whatever I want. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, reading the article in-depth, you really should get rid of those long lists of cover songs. That's inappropriate minutae for a band article; if it's notable, stick it in the articles about the songs being covered themselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very good point; I suspect the detailed list of covers had more value in the past, before other content took over the role of demonstrating the band's notability. I'll look at condensing the list, probably into one sentence that just states artist names with reliable sources. I'll also hunt down a better source for the July 2009 concert. PL290 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. PL290 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks and reads much better. Also, I'd recommened make the Legacy subsection its own separate section, separate fromt he band biography. It's common practice in band articles, as a band's legacy and influence is not part of its biography. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. PL290 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks and reads much better. Also, I'd recommened make the Legacy subsection its own separate section, separate fromt he band biography. It's common practice in band articles, as a band's legacy and influence is not part of its biography. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. PL290 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very good point; I suspect the detailed list of covers had more value in the past, before other content took over the role of demonstrating the band's notability. I'll look at condensing the list, probably into one sentence that just states artist names with reliable sources. I'll also hunt down a better source for the July 2009 concert. PL290 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, reading the article in-depth, you really should get rid of those long lists of cover songs. That's inappropriate minutae for a band article; if it's notable, stick it in the articles about the songs being covered themselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you can find a better source than Last.fm, though. This isn't a music reference site; it's a site to show off what you're listening to (yes, I have one). It's routinely discouraged from use in music articles. Try Allmusic. Even then, to state the cover is notable, you need more than just a mention of a tracklisting, since the original doucment (the album itself) could tell you that (and you wouldn't need a citation for that). Also, this is not an appropriate source, not the least because when logged into my account I can edit it to say whatever I want. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's as I thought: only certain content on last.fm is editable, such as this Big Star review where you can see an "edit" link. I'm not using that. Content I've cited to demonstrate the existence of a cover version mentioned is not editable. PL290 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that although last.fm does indeed contain some user-generated content, the cited parts are not user-generated. As you're querying it though, I'll check it out in the morning. PL290 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I reviewed this article for GA, and helped copyedit it and dragged some other editors in to have a look. I think it has congealed nicely since then and passes criteria. I suppose I could jiggle a little prose around but no deal-breakers stand out and much of what I might tweak would be subjective. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I need to do a thorough run-through of the article in the next few days. I see some things that worry me. I may not get to it right away, so I hope this doesn't suddenly get promoted or something (which has happened before with FACs I wanted to list objections to). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Give me three more days to review the article in-depth and figure out if I'm going to field an object. Rather busy off-wiki these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed a newly ambiguous Hyde Park. Trust that is all but please let me know if anything else is needed. The api workaround tool Dab_solver.py generated various other output without saying why, but I think all is now well. PL290 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please trim down the external links section as per WP:EL. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. PL290 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support.
- Niggle: most US style guides say no dots in "USA", although the you dot es dot is still clung to, ironically. But in the infobox, I'd go with spelling it out, just once: "United States", as more stylish in isolation. No space problem there.
- Done. PL290 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be a bore, but I think FAC needs to be reminded (I certainly do) by Black Kite of the issues concerning NFC sound files. There seem to be a lot of them. Let's see what he says. Tony (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) PS Except he's away until 19 August; even if this is promoted, we can easily make adjustments if necessary afterwards, and report them at WT:FAC. Tony (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, the sound files can be adjusted if necessary; however, the question has been considered with other editors (see talk page if interested) and there are good grounds for this particular range of four sound files for this article. They are specifically selected, each demonstrating one aspect of the band's musical style, per their captions, in support of the article text. I hope they can remain but if it does after all transpire there's any violation of WP principles then I would support whatever changes are necessary to bring them in line, whether during this FA review or at a later time. PL290 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be perfectly honest, I stopped reading after the first sentence. It reads like an advertisement for the band, and provides very little actual info. As it would be unfair to oppose based on one line, I'm not going to vote, but I hope this can be addressed. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are all free, with proper attributes and reasonable alt text. No problems there.
- Audio has a slight problem. All the rationales are fine, they are reduced quality, and seem to be important to include for the text with reasonable "captions", but the last three audio samples exceed the 10% limit per WP:SAMPLE. There's a table on that page that id's how much is appropriate with a given song length. (The first sample is ok). --MASEM (t) 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. PL290 (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Audio is all good now (I feel the 4 samples are fine and not excessive and at least backed by discussion). --MASEM (t) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Sources - Checked through most of the sources and I can see no problems. The extensive copyediting and stylistic changes above probably ensured that if there was anything (which I cannot see in the history and from looking at sources I have access to) then it would have been changed from the source. Heavy use of quotations are good. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport (disclaimer, I'm a big Big Star fan) I dont like the accolades in the 1st sentance Big Star is an American rock band that created, in its original era 1971–74, a "seminal body of work that never stopped inspiring succeeding generations",[1] earning it recognition decades later as "the quintessential American power pop band" and "one of the most mythic and influential cult acts in all of rock & roll".[2] . Too much too soon. All this is true, but it is overkill in its present form. Just go for the usual "formed by.. in..(bass) etc, and save that stuff for the last para. I met this at PR, and most of the body of the article is fine, but the lead remains a problem though easily fixed by a cut and paste and a better opening. Would be leaning towards support once the lead is toned down, very nice work overall. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... I wonder if my interpretation of Wp:LEAD is off the mark... that sentence has been criticized before, but of course it could just be personal preferences. The reason for that particular opening sentence is to meet the guidelines in Wp:LEAD, i.e., as well as summarizing the article, the Lead should explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and should establish notability in the first sentence if possible. I've seen opening sentences taken up with "formed by... (bass)" etc. and they don't have the impact that Wp:LEAD appears to be aiming for, and the reader finds nothing interesting or notable in the first sentence. In view of this, do you still feel it's inappropriate as it is? Do you interpret Wp:LEAD differently? PL290 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do to be honest. You gushed before you even explained what Big Star is. Its academic now anyway, I've reworded a bit. I dont want to fall out over this though, I think the work here is terrific, have been following the development for the last month and a half, and am delighted to Support. More articles like this please, PL290. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like an idiot, as I have never heard of this band even though I am a music fan. So the article doesn't make much sense to me. How did I miss something as big as this? —mattisse (Talk) 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 00:39, 5 August 2009 [38].
Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
- Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This GA has gone through a Peer Review with Brianboulton (talk · contribs)... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
- Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. - I could not decipher the Statistical note section; is there some clearer way to format that? Without understanding what's going on I have a vague suspicion that this bit is WP:OR.
Eubulides (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think YM was driven to this formulation by the demands of unbending peer reviewers (no names mentioned), who objected to the elongated reference strings that disfigured the text in earlier versions of this article. The precedent is Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, recently promoted FA, in which this format is used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem with that, but if YM could just explain here the function of it, it would aid the comprehension of us FA reviewers. SGGH ping! 09:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It just moves the big group ref to its own section so that it isn't in the main text. N-1 links to the bottom and then under the N1 there are 30 odd refs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the first pic as it won't get past Jappalang anyway. Secondly, does the second one need an alt, because the layout of graph is already in the caption anyway as the caption is needed to explain what the data is already. The last part is not OR. Ring batted at No 9/10/11 most of the time and this can be seen by looking at the data sheet for each match and seeing that he is one of the last three names in most of them YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Described the graph YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I tweaked the description. Eubulides (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Described the graph YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the first pic as it won't get past Jappalang anyway. Secondly, does the second one need an alt, because the layout of graph is already in the caption anyway as the caption is needed to explain what the data is already. The last part is not OR. Ring batted at No 9/10/11 most of the time and this can be seen by looking at the data sheet for each match and seeing that he is one of the last three names in most of them YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport –Watch for those awkward with and -ing combinations. I see two in the lead alone, making me think that it's worth doing a general audit for them.Also a wordy "in order to" in the lead. Check for that as well, and see if any more can be safely removed.Overlooked for selection: Old Trafford link goes to the wrong Old Trafford.Giants2008 (17–14) 14:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]Charlie Barnett is a disambiguation link.Giants2008 (17–14) 14:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't entirely happy with the writing, although this is definitely within reach of promotion on that count. Here are a few random suggestions:
- "Along with Ron Hamence and Colin McCool, neither of whom played in a Test during the tour, Ring called himself "ground staff" because of the paucity of the trio’s on-field duties in the major matches and they often sang ironic songs about their status." Long sentence, and the last idea doesn't really flow from the previous, does it. Ideal for a dash or semicolon: "matches—often, they would sing ironic ..."?
- I thought it does. The songs were about them being ground staff YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests, more frequently than usual, fast bowling dominated over spin, and Ring was used primarily in the non-Test tour matches." Longish again, and it's easier for the readers if you dash out the dependent phrase: "As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests—more frequently than usual—fast bowling dominated over spin, and Ring was used primarily in the non-Test tour matches.
- Should "top-score" be hyphenated?
- I'm not sure but it is consistent YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen top score hyphenated, although top-scored usually is. Daniel (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure but it is consistent YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The MCC fielded seven players who would represent England in the Tests,[12][13][14][15][16][17]"—is the raft of six refs necessary for this plain statement?
- It was easy to trim by a third the rather long caption for batting performance. Tony (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm surprised that a Brianboulton copyedit left you not completely satisfied YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments—
- Ring played in only the Fifth Test, taking one wicket for 44 runs (1/44) and scoring nine runs — This sentence scratches the itch of curiosity, as it fails to specify for both batting and bowling whether it is a combined total across two innings or only one. Is there any way to smoothly incorporate these two facts into the sentence?
- Ring called himself "ground staff" — isn't 'ground staff' a collective, and hence it'd need to be 'a member of the' or similar?
- I just exactly what was in the quotes and it was used over and over...Weird yes YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the entire tour, Ring took 60 first-class wickets at a bowling average of 21.81, the most expensive among Australia's frontline bowlers — 21.81 is still a pretty good effort, and I think it'd fit nicely to emphasise that this figure is a good number relative to other tours, but simply the worst for the Invincibles.
- I think it would make the stats debate part too fat in the lead. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests — the second 'after' reads awkwardly, although I confess I don't have any immediate ideas for a solution.
- Would it be worth including a one-paragraph introduction about Ring's form immediately prior to the tour, which justified his selection, at the top of 'Early tour'?
- On the first day, Australia set a world record by scoring 721 runs on the first day, the most first-class runs made in a single day’s play,[10] but Ring was unable to contribute to the surfeit of scoring, making only one. — any suggestions on how to break this five-part sentence up? Its length plus the repetition of "day" makes it read awkwardly.
- He then made an unbeaten nine in Australia's reply of 400. He then shouldered — 'He then'...
- Ring took 3/51 from 21.2 overs in the first innings, leading the way; most of the Test bowlers were given a light workload — is 'leading the way' a generalised and conversationalist way of saying (in this situation) 'bowling the most overs', or 'taking the most wickets', or both? It's probably better to be specific in that part of the sentence in my opinion.
- Can the Derbyshire and Glamorgan paragraphs be merged?
- Watkins swung a delivery from Ring to the leg side straight into the hands of Hassett, who did not need to move from his position on the boundary — as a cricket follower, the use of the word 'swung' to describe a cricket shot caused some confusion upon reading, as its a term nearly exclusively used in relation to bowling rather than batting.
- He removed Reg Simpson to break the opening stand of 60. The Gentlemen progressed to 3/217 before Ring removed Edrich for 128 — second 'removed' to something else, maybe dismissed?
- one specialist spinner in the Tests.[18][22][26][28][34] — worth throwing these five footnotes into that note format you used for the other bulk references?
- Five is my upper limit :) YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- in which he sent down 3,088 deliveries. This was second only to Johnston, who bowled 3251 — comma consistency :)
Regardless, an excellent article as always. Support. Daniel (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I'll buy this one (Cr. 1a), even though it's double Dutch to me.
- Tour stats in the infobox: microscopic headings? Why not close together the two columns and give us normal font size?
- Well that's the project infobox. That's the way it is. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- "Ring was omitted from this match"—slightly awkward "omitted", unless it's the usual cricket lingo. Was it against his will? If so, I'd use "excluded".
- Omitted seems to be a general sports jargon. Excluded is seemingly reserved for people getting disqualified or banned for misconduct YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "the preceding 1947–48 season"—I though we were talking about that very season. I'm confused.
- I was referring to the 1947-48 summer in Australia, that preceded teh UK summer of 1948 because his form in the previuos summer determined whether he was picked or not YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WWII—why linked?
- Well it is a proper noun...YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "the first time that the tourists had conceded a first innings lead"—"that" could be dropped.
- "He then took three consecutive wickets as Sussex fell from 5/98 to 8/109 before eventually being bowled out for 138."—He was bowled out, or Sussex was? If the former, please insert a comma after 109.
- The latter, so nothing is needed I guess YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ring scored 150–runs at 16.66"—why the dash?
- Thanks for spotting the blooper YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Statistical notes" display in a very odd way on my OS/browser/platform. 6–69 all on one line? Tony (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They do indeed fit on about 60% of one line YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:25, 12 August 2009 [39].
Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana
- Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.To help get you started I added alt text support to {{Infobox Hurricane Impact}}. Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thanks, the images have alt text
, but the alt text needs work. The currently alt text is just a copy of the captions. Butalt text has a different function from the caption, and typically the alt text and caption should overlap little, if at all.Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then give it another go.Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've improved them properly now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, much better
, but still needs work. The alt text too often give details like "Hurricane Georges" or "Chandelur Islands" that cannot be verified merely by looking at the image (unless you are an expert). An ordinary reader won't look at the Chandelur Islands photo and say "that looks like the Chandelur Islands".I reworded the first few; can you please reword the last two? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I came back to see that the alt text problems were still present, and fixed them as best I could. Eubulides (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, much better
- Thanks, the images have alt text
- Comment Why are the damages and deaths repeated twice in the lead, in the first sentence of each paragraph? Also, for the images in the Impact section, can you find a way (might involve playing around with the template itself), to use {{Double image stack}} as used in Raymore Drive? The way those two small images are positioned looks awkward. I'll probably add more comments, as I'm combing the article over to use it as a model for writing an effects article myself. Maxim(talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the double image link, I didn't know that existed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think the prose needs more work. The year of the hurricane needs to be specfied at the beginning of the article (not just in the infobox); in the Preparations section third paragraph there are multiple repetitions of evacuate/evacuated/evacuation – nine in all; "Record-breaking" needs a hyphen; "declared disaster declarations" is not good prose. These are examples of points needing attention; in addition there are numerous no-break space omissions throughout the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done these examples. Will try to copyedit the article more thoroughly tomorrow. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyedited the entire article. I'll proofread it tomorrow. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, should be good to go. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: Most of my earlier concerns have been addressed. I have since had the chance to read the article through, which has brought to light several more (manly prose) points:-
- "On September 16, the depression was upgraded into Tropical Storm Georges and further into Hurricane Georges the next day." The word "further" is disruptive and unnecessary. Also, "into" rather than "to"? My preferred version would be: "On September 16, the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Georges, and to Hurricane Georges the next day." Also, shouldn't Tropical Storm Georges be wikilinked?
- Done and it doesn't have to be linked since the article is linked in the lead and there is a {{Main article|Hurricane Georges}} in that section Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse my ignorance, but what time was "1500 UTC". I've never heard of UTC, and the link hasn't made me any wiser.
- Coordinated Universal Time is the standard time unit for world events, the time zone it is centered around is the Grand Meridian. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The same as Greenwich Mean Time, then? But wouldn't it be relevant to have the time in Louisiana as well? Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to CDT. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of "evacuate/evacuations" in paragraph 3 of Preparations has been reduced from 9 to 6, but the repetition still jars. Because hurricane articles all tend to use the same terminology, it is important where possible to vary the language. Here, the first "evacuated from" could be replaced by "left". Likewise, Grand Isle's 1,500 residents could be ordered to "leave", and the large-scale evacuations could be described as "population movements". Please consider.
- "were confined", followed by "having been concentrated" is ungrammatical. The sentence makes perfect sense without "having been".
- Fixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "A lighthouse located on the islands prior to Georges was partially submerged in the Gulf of Mexico, nearly 1,200 feet (370 m) from land." The wording is unclear. Does this mean that a lighthouse was bodily picked up and hurled 1,200 feet into the Gulf, or that the waters of the Gulf covered the island on which it was standing, leaving it 1,200 feet from land? We need a clearer picture of what happened.
- Beach erosion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear where the 80,000 "residences" that lost power were located. The previous sentence begins "In Orleans Parish..." – were all 80,000 there?
- Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "blamed on" should be "blamed for"
- Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to be funny, but "...medical conditions complicated by an evacuation" sounds, well, medical (and unpleasant). Could you rephrase to "medical conditions aggravated by the stress of the evacuation" or something similar?
- Reworded. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Including relief funds to Puerto Rico and Mississippi in association with Georges..." Awkward wording: try "associated with" or "arising from", rather than "in association with"
- Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible to give a bit more information about the various costings referred to in the lead and Aftermath sections (both saying much the same thing at present)? For example, what does "paid losses" mean? $56 million was raised in relief funds - how was it raised, and who got it? What is the relationship of these relief figures to the $30.1 million estimated cost of damage?
- Clarified. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My earlier comment about no-break spaces has not been addressed.
Otherwise, a tidy enough piece of hurricania. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the lead doesn't really summarize the article per WP:LEAD. The first half is dedicated to information that more or less rehashes the Background section, but it doesn't tell me anything about the topic of the article. I'd prefer to see a sentence or two of the background, and the rest of the lead summarizing the meat of the article. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it better now? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's looking nice! --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything else you want added into it? I'm just being on the cautious side since it's a short article and I don't want to put too much into the lead Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pleased with the writing. In view of the clarifications and changes at MoS concerning those dreadful unsized thumbnails, will you consider upsizing a few of the pics? There's interesting detail (potentially) in the satellite shot of the hurricane; but it's wasted in such a small pic, and all the hurricane article pics like that seem to be the same at that size. I can't make out much detail in the differences pics. Can they not be left–right adjacent to the rainfall chart? Already the text is a little squeezed down the middle, and bigger pics will require a reshuffling of locations. Tony (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've fixed the image size issue. On my computer, the images appear fine, I'm not sure what's happening with other computers. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, my issue with the lead was resolved. Prose looks good. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I rarely support off the bat, but I made the necessary tweaks (please check) myself instead of listing them here; the article is quite good (and relatively interesting for a tropical cyclone).
One question: "for the Ascension, Assumption, Jefferson, Lafourche, Livingston, Plaquemines, Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. John the Baptist St. Tammany, Terrebone, Tangipahoa, and Washington Parishes." What's that first "and" for?Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was just a listing error on my part. I've fixed it, thanks for the corrections and support. Same goes to Tony1 and Laser brain Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No image review? Text squeeze between images in "Impact" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the squeezing Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments (please fix these first with emphasis on number 4 being absolutely necessary for FA status) - 1. I tried to check some sources and I got stuck behind having to sign up for stuff, so, I will AGF. 2. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the lead seems off - I would suggest: 'After nearly 1.5 million people were urged to evacuate coastal areas, officials described the evacuation as "probably the largest [...] we have ever achieved".[1]' 3. The semi-colon in the second paragraph seems off. Semi-colons connect two sentences that are thematically connected but there is little grammatical cohesion to warrant a semi-colon. 4. The image is against the main template in the "Background" section in violation of WP:ACCESS. Please move the image to below the template. 5. You never say who Mayer Morial is. 6. In "Impact" you use "impacts" as a noun, which seems inappropriate. You could switch to "damage", "destruction", or something similar. 7. The phrase "nearly 1,200 feet..." doesn't work with the sentence. You don't say which islands either. You could start the section dealing with the islands saying "The Chandelur Islands were nearly 1,200 feet..." then follow that with the lighthouse and other sentences. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the text per suggestions for your first three comments, as for the image comment, there has never been an issue with having a storm track near the infobox template in any other FAC, I'm not sure what makes this any different. Points five and six addressed. As for the last point, it's not talking about any of the islands being 1,200 feet out, it's referring to the lighthouse that was isolated from land. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On point 4, Ottava was referring to the fact that the image preceded the {{main article}} template in the section order when it should be the other way around. I fixed that. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, well, that makes much more sense, thanks for taking care of it :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking for a sentence to clarify "the islands" in "A lighthouse on the islands". "the" is used to specify a specific set of islands. It would be helpful to instead put a name of which islands. If there isn't a name, then use "on a set of islands" or "on some islands". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Yes, that removes the confusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images are all free, appear to have proper attribution, and appear fine. However, I would recommend that File:Georges1998rain.gif enlarged on this page as at 180px (the fixed size used in the page), the text on the image is unreadable. It's better at 300px (and per recent FAC/MOS discussion, images do not have to be thumb size but should stay under 400px). --MASEM (t) 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to 300px, thanks for the image review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 00:39, 5 August 2009 [40].
Huntington's disease
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a great medical article covering all the main topics of this important disease. The article has been greatly improved in the last year and I believe it deserves to be considered a FA. Its strongest point is possibly the high quality of the sources used, but prose has also been extensively reviewed by several editors. Garrondo (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Materialscientist
Figure captions: neuron pictures need length scales or length indication in the caption (image width ...). File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg: "shown in pink" is misleading because there is also purple and those two are hard to distinguish. Meanwhile, the figure description page mentions purple and orange. I would unify the description and also change the pink color on the picture itself into some other. File:Aspiration-pneumonia-002.jpg: caption should start something like "A tomography image of xxx showing aspiration pneumonia, a common cause of death in HD" where xxx is lung or whatever (too many abbreviations, and you can't show an illness pneumonea on a picture). Should it be "from HD" instead of "in HD" ? That caption needs expansion explaining what is actually shown.Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand what do you mean with length scales.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are completely right on your point of the putamen image. However I do not know how to modify svg images. For the moment I have changed caption to "shown in purple and orange".--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lung image: caption changed. I have left "in HD", since it is not directly produced by the disease: the disease produces swallowing problems that may or may not lead to pneumonia.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Length scale is a calibrated bar on the image with a tag, such as "0.5 mm". If its too much work to add it, just say (image width 2 mm) in caption, or so. I can edit File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg and change color as you wish, but can not save the result in SVG. Can save in PNG (or other formats), which as I understand is similar to SVG. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The scale comment will be hard to address but I'll try to contact the authors of the image. Regarding the image change I suppose there will be no problem to change the pink part to the same color of the brain and leave only coloured the striatum, and then save it in png; nevertheless right now I believe it is clear which part is the striatum.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've emailed Dr FinkBeiner, he has been very helpful and prompt with the image, but may take a few days ... L∴V 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer is it's 1 micron / pixel - the nucleus of central neuron is about 15 microns, so maybe a 100 micron scale at the side / bottom , and whether to call them microns, micrometers, or µm ? L∴V 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've emailed Dr FinkBeiner, he has been very helpful and prompt with the image, but may take a few days ... L∴V 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, colors are fine now, and I would keep them for consistency with the original figure file explanation. Pneumonia is not explained in the caption (non-specialist like me would never guess where to look at that image). Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of explanation are you thinking of? I am no expert either so we could maybe ask in the medicine project for a better explanation of the image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where and what is "pneumonia" (like "fine gray grains in the center indicate ..") BTW, the image is proposed for deletion, which needs to be addressed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it is proposed for deletion, in the GA proccess reviewer said it did not add much, and it is hard to address your comments I have decided to eliminate it as the simpler solution.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where and what is "pneumonia" (like "fine gray grains in the center indicate ..") BTW, the image is proposed for deletion, which needs to be addressed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of explanation are you thinking of? I am no expert either so we could maybe ask in the medicine project for a better explanation of the image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The scale comment will be hard to address but I'll try to contact the authors of the image. Regarding the image change I suppose there will be no problem to change the pink part to the same color of the brain and leave only coloured the striatum, and then save it in png; nevertheless right now I believe it is clear which part is the striatum.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Length scale is a calibrated bar on the image with a tag, such as "0.5 mm". If its too much work to add it, just say (image width 2 mm) in caption, or so. I can edit File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg and change color as you wish, but can not save the result in SVG. Can save in PNG (or other formats), which as I understand is similar to SVG. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References: Some author names start with initials, some with last names, some with 1st names. Please unify.Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to change them.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have given all author names the same format.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the comma, separating the first and last name, varies. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is fixed now. Give me specific examples if otherwise please.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the comma, separating the first and last name, varies. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have given all author names the same format.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to change them.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Style: Hungtintin is either capitalized or not.
- It was decided in talk page of the article to capitalize the gene but not the protein.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this should be unified with Huntingtin article. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this should be unified with Huntingtin article. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was decided in talk page of the article to capitalize the gene but not the protein.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from SandyGeorgia (Talk)
- While only briefing checking the article to make sure the significance of the Venezuelan work was included (it was!), I found multiple instances of strange use of semicolons, and a copyedit problem, suggesting a copyedit needed (a foundation cannot have a daughter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you knew of the Venezuelan project and that it is covered acceptably! I think I have addressed the semicolons, further copyediting still requred, I suspect. L∴V 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the Nancy Wexler / Foundation a little less ambiguous. L∴V 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- WP:ALT says "useful", doesn't say "need". Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ALT says "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is used only for visual formatting or decoration." The 9 images specified in the source of Huntington's disease are all functional, as they all link to their image pages, so they are not present only for visual formatting or decoration and they all need alt text. The motivation for this is accessibility to the visually-impaired; please see WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ALT says "useful", doesn't say "need". Materialscientist (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added alt text, phew that's a tricky one ! L∴V 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was quick! You missed the image in History, though. Eubulides (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops missed adding the alt= tag! L∴V 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops missed adding the alt= tag! L∴V 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was quick! You missed the image in History, though. Eubulides (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added alt text, phew that's a tricky one ! L∴V 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive-by comment
...7 per 100,000 people, but is relatively lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - better is ...70 per 1,000,000 people, but is lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - this makes the difference clearer, and "relatively" is unneeded since you are talking rates, not absolute numbersJimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, have applied. L∴V 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
In the references, you have a mixture of dmy, mdy and ymd date formats (current refs #89 & #96, for example). You should use one style consistently throughout the references for dates of publication and access. Where references have a PMID, the day and month of publication add no real information. Have you considered simply using year of publication for those cases?--RexxS (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have eliminated the month parameter in those journal references where it appeared. I have also fixed a few other references. I believe its done.--Garrondo (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, all done
, with the possible exception of current ref #92, which has a PMC ID (and therefore has a guaranteed stable link to the full text) - I personally wouldn't bother with the accessdate there, as it's never going to be used. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks to you for your review (and to all other reviewers). I have eliminated the access date of ref 92.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with the disclaimer that I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Medicine, although not associated with this article. I believe it meets the standard of Wikipedia's best articles. --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to you for your review (and to all other reviewers). I have eliminated the access date of ref 92.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, all done
- Comments -
Current ref 67 (HDA research news...) is lacking a publisher.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Huntington's Disease Association-United Kingdom as publisher. Also added lacking date of website (2009) for the same reference.Thanks for pointing it out.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in terms of content I did the GA review of this article, and went over the content and references pretty thoroughly. I won't vouch for every tiny detail, but I believe that in this respect the article meets FA standards. I said at the time that I thought the prose style needed a major tune-up to reach the FA level, and I believe that is still the case, although it has definitely improved. A going-over by a skilled copy-editor would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Axl:-
- The pedigree chart in "Inheritance" uses the label "Wild Type". This term is appropriate for Drosophila and other laboratory experiments. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for human populations.
- The photo of the brain section in "Diagnosis" appears to have a copyright issue.
- That photo claims to show dilated ventricles. I cannot even see the ventricle on the left side of the picture. I can just about see the ventricle on the right side of the picture. [I don't actually know which is left and which is right because the orientation of the section has not been explicitly stated.]
- From "Diagnosis": "the considered implications and relevance of having a confirmed diagnosis mean that less than 5% of individuals choose to do so". Which individuals? Those offered the test? All patients with Huntington's disease?
- The section "Diagnosis", subsection "Genetic" has a graph captioned "Expression pattern of the Huntingtin gene". Even when viewing the graph separately, I can barely make out the names on the x-axis. Is it "X72 T B Lymphoblasts" with the highest rating? What is the significance of this? The y-axis is numbered, but with no indication of the meaning. The graph itself does not appear to correlate with any information in the section.
- From "Society and culture", subsection "Ethics": "There is greater acceptance opposing permitting testing until individuals are cognitively mature". What does this mean?
Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. I agree, 'unaffected' would be in keeping with 'affected male' etc. but not completely sure if affected/unaffected is the correct term to use either.L∴V 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have amended the image, also dropping the generation numerals which I believe were unecessary. L∴V 23:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. & 3. There is a possiblity of using the image here http://www.radpod.org/2007/05/01/huntingtons-disease/, it comes from a site that is sympathetic wo WP would this be a better replacement? L∴V 10:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image actually from radiopedia (http://radiopaedia.org/imagesets/huntington) is on its way - as soon as its owner gets time to upload it. L∴V 15:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image replaced, thanks to Frank! L∴V 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image actually from radiopedia (http://radiopaedia.org/imagesets/huntington) is on its way - as soon as its owner gets time to upload it. L∴V 15:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. It's individuals 'at-risk' but I'll edit later to avoid those annoying 'edit conflicts'. L∴V 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all thanks to Axl for his ce and comments of the article. Regarding the image: it was me who uploaded the images inton WP-commons, since I had not completely understood the disclaimer, and only today I have received an email telling me there was a possible problem with it. Reviewing the disclaimer it is true that the image may be under copyright. On the other hand the image proposed by Lee is also not suitable for wikipedia commons; since it says that it can not be used for commercial pourpouses in the lincence. I'll eliminate the article image for the moment . I'll look at the other comments later.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed comments 4 and 6. 6 changed to: There is consensus opposing testing individuals that are not considered cognitively mature, although there are defendants of a parent's right to make the decision.--Garrondo (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all thanks to Axl for his ce and comments of the article. Regarding the image: it was me who uploaded the images inton WP-commons, since I had not completely understood the disclaimer, and only today I have received an email telling me there was a possible problem with it. Reviewing the disclaimer it is true that the image may be under copyright. On the other hand the image proposed by Lee is also not suitable for wikipedia commons; since it says that it can not be used for commercial pourpouses in the lincence. I'll eliminate the article image for the moment . I'll look at the other comments later.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 5 I guess it is a bit specialist for the article and doesn't quite fit. L∴V 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 (see point 4)
Comments. I have initiated a line-by-line prose review on the talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments by Axl
Thanks to Garrondo and Leevanjackson for addressing my points. The adjustment to the pedigree chart has now created a different font style for the unaffected people. Perhaps you could change the affected label, so as to make the style consistent? The new MRI image of the brain is much better. I have adjusted the caption. This diagram of the normal brain may help you to see how the lateral ventricles have enlarged, the caudate nuclei have atrophied, and the cortical matter has also atrophied:-
- Thankyou Axl, I have uploaded next version with the same fonts - well spotted! Do you think we should put the above image in as a reference - I agree it would help - but does it look too different for comparisons sake? L∴V 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee, in one of the links you provided for the image (the first one) explains the image. It says: "Radiologically the heads of caudate are atrophied with enlargement of the frontal horns, along with a more generalised cortical atrophy." I think we should add the link as a ref for the radiologic changes (to explain we are not the ones saying the changes). I would not add the other image. Only my opinion.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point have added page as a ref. L∴V 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee, in one of the links you provided for the image (the first one) explains the image. It says: "Radiologically the heads of caudate are atrophied with enlargement of the frontal horns, along with a more generalised cortical atrophy." I think we should add the link as a ref for the radiologic changes (to explain we are not the ones saying the changes). I would not add the other image. Only my opinion.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point 4, are these individuals "at risk" because of their family history of HD?
- There is a chance of another image showing healthy brain on its way - as time permits.L∴V 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The ref does not explicitely say it, but in 99 percent of cases I would say it is a yes. Genetic testing would also only be used in those cases when even without a family history there is symptoms that indicate the possibility of suffering the disease.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point 5, would you consider removing the graph "Expression pattern of the Huntingtin gene"?
- Done (I was doing it as you added your comments :-).--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment more of a placeholder really - I will have a look and massage straightforward prose fixes. Please revert if you feel I have inadvertently changed meaning, and I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the alternate names Huntington disease, Huntington's chorea, chorea major, in the lead. Yes Huntington's chorea was a common alternative until recent years, but the other two are highly uncommon or archaic (I have never seen it as huntington without the 's), and as such I wonder whether they should be instead discussed in some naming section within the article proper (which they aren't now). Technically all material in lead should be within article proper.
- I tend to agree with you, if someone has come from a redirect it will be stated at the top, the list isn't complete either, note Huntington without out the possesive 's is in anticipation of all diseases to be stripped of this which seems to be a growing consensus. L∴V 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have eliminated chorea major and huntington disease.--Garrondo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with you, if someone has come from a redirect it will be stated at the top, the list isn't complete either, note Huntington without out the possesive 's is in anticipation of all diseases to be stripped of this which seems to be a growing consensus. L∴V 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Physical symptoms can begin... - is not "Physical" redundant here?
- Have refactored sentence to 'Symptoms can begin at any age, with physical symptoms being noticed first, most commonly this occurs between 35 and 44 years of age.' L∴V 12:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion as well as Coronal brain section showing the symptom can we also have a healthy one as a comparison? ϢereSpielChequers 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be tricky, having got sidetracked on wikicommons categorising mri scans have been unable to find one suitable as yet, I will try asking the provider of the current one, but I sense this might be another protracted image hunt.. L∴V 14:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a chance of another image showing healthy brain is on its way - as time permits.L∴V 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be tricky, having got sidetracked on wikicommons categorising mri scans have been unable to find one suitable as yet, I will try asking the provider of the current one, but I sense this might be another protracted image hunt.. L∴V 14:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - All images have good descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport This article is quite well-written. I like how most of the sections begin with an "easy" version of the material and then progress to a more detailed explanation. I think this makes the information quite accessible to various levels of readership. I have a few questions and suggestions:
Chorea may be initially exhibited as general restlessness, small unintentionally initiated or uncompleted motions, incoordination, or slowed saccadic eye movements. - Is "incoordination" a medical term? I had to look up this word to make sure it was real. :)
- Changed to 'lack of coordination' although I seem to remember some toing and throwing about the exact phrase in the past. L∴V 14:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Huntington's disease mutation is genetically dominant, and is not sex-linked. The change in length of the repeated section can be influenced by the gender of the parent it is inherited from. - I think this might confuse people unfamiliar with genetics. One sentence says "not sex-linked" and the next says "can be influenced by the gender of the parent". As these two sentences come from the introductory paragraph to "Genetics", which summarizes the material for readers not interested in or unable to grasp the specifics presented later, I think it is important to present this as clearly as possible.
- Have expanded and reworded to: 'The Huntington's disease mutation is genetically dominant, because either of a persons HTT genes being mutated causes the disease. It is not inherited according to gender, but the length of the repeated section of the gene, and hence it's severity, can be influenced by the gender of the affected parent.' L∴V 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better. (I've fixed the apostrophe problems.) Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In these models, HTT has been shown to have several functions: it is important for embryonic development, its absence being related to embryonic death; acting as an anti-apoptotic agent preventing programmed cell death; controlling the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, a protein which protects neurons and regulates the neurogenesis of new ones; facilitating vesicular transport and synaptic transmission; and controlling neuronal gene transcription. - This sentence is a bit too long to follow.
- Changed to: In these models, HTT has been shown to have several functions. HTT is important for embryonic development, its absence being related to embryonic death. It also acts as an anti-apoptotic agent preventing programmed cell death and controls the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, a protein which protects neurons and regulates the neurogenesis of new ones. Additionally HTT facilitates vesicular transport and synaptic transmission, and controls neuronal gene transcription. Better?--Garrondo (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the initial motivation for having a pre-symptomatic test is strong, the considered implications and relevance of having a confirmed diagnosis mean that less than 5% of individuals at risk of having HD choose to do so. - What are the implications? Could we explain this a little more in the opening section?
- I don't believe the ref s I've seen do more than speculate as to the exact reasons, so I have tried to list the implications seperate - grabbed from the genetic testing section but have to dbl check ref covers it, and leave any assumptions to the reader. Here's current attempt: 'Genetic counseling is provided to advise and guide an individual throughout the testing procedure and also in the consideration of the implications of having a confirmed diagnosis; on the individuals pyschology, on their career, in family planning decisions, and its impact on friends and family. Although the initial motivation of individuals at risk of inheriting HD for having a pre-symptomatic test is strong, upon consideration, only a minority choose to do so.' L∴V 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still wish that this could be explained in more detail, but ok. I've copyedited a bit. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How far the disease has progressed can be measured using the unified Huntington's disease rating scale which provides an overall rating system based on motor, behavioral, cognitive, and functional assessments, but is primarily used for clinical trials. - I find the "but is primarily used for clinical trials" part of the sentence confusing. Why is this essential to mention? To me, it just interrupted the flow of the sentences.
- Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The age of onset decreases, and the rate of progression of symptoms increases, with the number of CAG repeats. - Perhaps you could remind the reader what "CAG repeats" are?
- Changed to: with the length of the trinucleotide repeat. Better?.--Garrondo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example a woman, named Elizabeth Knap, was judged in the Salem witch trials although she probably suffered from HD. - Instead of saying "judged", could we a bit more specific about what happened?
- Changed to: A well known case is that of Elizabeth Knapp, who probably suffered from HD, but in 1671 was accused of witchcraft in Groton, New Hampshire. Finally she was not condemned.--Garrondo (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked a bit myself. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davenport's interested was created by his college friend Smith Ely Jelliffe, who was intrigued by the strong inheritance pattern of the disease - Something is amiss in this sentence.
- Less amiss now... L∴V 15:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries' organizations have agreed not to use this information. - This sentence is a bit vague and doesn't flow very well with the rest of the paragraph.
- Changed to: Some countries' organizations, such as the United Kingdom insurance companies,.--Garrondo (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added possessive. Now fine. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abortion after prenatal genetic testing with positive results and preimplantation genetic diagnosis in order to ensure that the disorder is not passed on are not free of ethical concerns. - This is a tortured sentence.
- How about: 'The use of prenatal genetic testing or preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure a child is not born with a given disease has some ethical concerns' L∴V 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we either have to mention what some of the ethical concerns are or delete the sentence. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added from the ref: The former uses selective abortion; which is considered unacceptable by some, specially since being a late-onset disorder a person with the mutation will be free of the disease for many years. The latter, in addition to the problem of the low success rate in obtaining pregnancy, doubled in the case of HD, has specific ethical difficulties in those cases when the parent does not want to know if he has the disease.. As always some ce would be great.--Garrondo (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copyedited the section. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Media depictions" section is basically a prose list. Perhaps the link List of Huntington's disease media depictions could be made a "See also" link at the top of the section and the section deleted?
- Eliminated section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "
Until the 19th century Huntington's disease was grouped with numerous movement disorders. As with many of these disorders, people with the condition may have been persecuted as witches or thought to be possessed by spirits, and shunned or exiled by society." - This is sourced to a document from this website, which is prepared by faculty and undergraduates. That part of this site is written by undergraduates is a bit concerning. I would also note that the site says "We emphasize that we are not medical professionals" and that the faculty adviser is an anthropologist.
- They have been accurate on other information, but I will see if I can find a more specific reference... L∴V 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found an historical review by Alice Wexler. I'will add it through the day (I will have to make some changes to comply with it).Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed it according to the new ref to: Historians have traditionally said that HD sufferers may have been persecuted as witches or thought to be possessed by spirits, and shunned or exiled by society before the 19th century. A well-known case is that of Elizabeth Knapp, who probably suffered from HD; in 1671 she was accused of witchcraft in Groton, New Hampshire, but not condemned. However these may not have been the case, at least in some places. Not all communities were so ignorant, as the family that prompted George Huntington's description were accepted by their local community, working all their lives until physically unable. Some tweaking would be great.--Garrondo (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyedited. Awadewit (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "
IMDB is used as a reference to demonstrate that HD is mentioned in particular movies. It is not a reliable source. I would suggest finding a source that lists important HD-related media instead. (That is, if you intend to keep this section.)
- Eliminated section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for edits and pointers, Awadewit, I am mostly working through comments chronologically ... I have incorporated some of the sentence on guidlines you pointed out was duplicate - but trimmed excess. Very pleased you found the intros gentle - it's been tricky striking the correct balance! L∴V 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last remaining issue for me is the lead. I've placed an alternate version we can discuss on the article talk page. I think the lead needs to be simplified a bit. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is now done. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Last I checked, IMDB is not a reliable source since most of its content is user-generated, much like Wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't see where in these IMDB links it mentions Huntington's disease. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eliminated the section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment (hopefully I'll get time to do more later): What is the image in the infobox? Maybe the caption should say "An artist's rendering of..." or "An electron micrograph of..."delldot ∇. 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back, article has progressed quite some since your original GA review pointed the way! From the ref is 'A montage of three images, using a specially modified microscope' which I have added. L∴V 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it should be added in the close up image too.--Garrondo (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added it myself.--Garrondo (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! delldot ∇. 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added it myself.--Garrondo (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it should be added in the close up image too.--Garrondo (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back, article has progressed quite some since your original GA review pointed the way! From the ref is 'A montage of three images, using a specially modified microscope' which I have added. L∴V 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you are using the first citation an incredible amount. For a 10 page article, this is rather surprising. Some of these uses are adding the citation where there are multiple citations already or using it multiple times back to back, as in the last paragraph or the second paragraph of "Genetic". You can condense instances of that together. Please do, as the over use of the references really distracts from the ability to read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, first paragraph of "Inheritance" lacks a citation covering the last sentences. By the way, is there a reason why the first source is favored over all of the other sources? Whole sections are mostly reliant on that source. Also, the layout of the section is a little confusing. You have mostly descriptions of the disease, then history of where it appears, then society, then where research is going? There doesn't seem to be any real unity. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the lancet article: There are practical and reliable sourcing issues. Firstly is a very comprenhensive (it covers most aspects of the disease), very recent review (2007) from a very high quality journal (lancet), which makes it perfect for our article per WP:MEDRS. Non of the other used references has these same thing. On the practical side its structure is quite similar to that of WP article so it is much easier to find a reference when you search for it. Finally when I came here a few months ago there were many sections almost completely unreferenced or referenced to primary articles, but mostly correct. When I found these review and I saw that it covered most aspects of the disease I decided to use it as the main ref of the article to check for any unreferenced statement and with it we were capable of eliminating almost 50 primary articles. As I have already said I believe that referencing each sentence makes it really harder for anybody to insert any information not backed up by sources and I really believe that such advantage really outweights the distractibility issue; specially for a possible FA article. I would feel that a reduction in the citation style would be against the article verifiability.--Garrondo (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that when you say also, the layout of the section is a little confusing you mean the lay out of the article. Am I correct? If it is the case it is the recommended lay out for disease articles per WP:MEDMOS. All recent disease FA had the same structure. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding ref on inheritance: I would say it is a basic knowledge, but we could search for a basic biology textbook. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now detailed the lancet references so they include the exact page - this splits the previously used reference up into 10 seperate ones, making for easier reading and checking. The lancet review is an ideal source - it may have been loosely based on the WP HD article at the time, so has a similar flow - but with far more detail and thorough referencing, there are other references but few are free or as general e.g. the Harper/Bates Oxford Monographs book, (which is about $150) so it is best to find one reference that covers most of the ground reliably. L∴V 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the lancet article: There are practical and reliable sourcing issues. Firstly is a very comprenhensive (it covers most aspects of the disease), very recent review (2007) from a very high quality journal (lancet), which makes it perfect for our article per WP:MEDRS. Non of the other used references has these same thing. On the practical side its structure is quite similar to that of WP article so it is much easier to find a reference when you search for it. Finally when I came here a few months ago there were many sections almost completely unreferenced or referenced to primary articles, but mostly correct. When I found these review and I saw that it covered most aspects of the disease I decided to use it as the main ref of the article to check for any unreferenced statement and with it we were capable of eliminating almost 50 primary articles. As I have already said I believe that referencing each sentence makes it really harder for anybody to insert any information not backed up by sources and I really believe that such advantage really outweights the distractibility issue; specially for a possible FA article. I would feel that a reduction in the citation style would be against the article verifiability.--Garrondo (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All current reported links now disambiguated, thanks. L∴V 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the application for FA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great ! - thankyou - and cheers for the edits and pointers you contributed :) Just some quick notes though; awadewit has her final point - a more accessible lead that is to be pasted (this may include moving refs from lead - they are currently there to keep a sensible order), Cryptic c62, I suspect, will have a few more copyed suggestions and their is possibility of a MRI scan of a healthy brain somewhere betwixt radiopedia and here to be added. L∴V 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone needs to deal with those refs at the end of the lead. There are now 11 lined up. They should be placed at the appropriate place in the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes (either within the article, or at the appropriate place in the lead. As it stands now, unclear why 11 citations at end of lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe they were added there because they were the most general refs on the disease; the ones that covered almost every topic. Nevertheless I have moved them to their first appearance. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes (either within the article, or at the appropriate place in the lead. As it stands now, unclear why 11 citations at end of lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone needs to deal with those refs at the end of the lead. There are now 11 lined up. They should be placed at the appropriate place in the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great ! - thankyou - and cheers for the edits and pointers you contributed :) Just some quick notes though; awadewit has her final point - a more accessible lead that is to be pasted (this may include moving refs from lead - they are currently there to keep a sensible order), Cryptic c62, I suspect, will have a few more copyed suggestions and their is possibility of a MRI scan of a healthy brain somewhere betwixt radiopedia and here to be added. L∴V 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – a good article that appears to satisfy the FA criteria. The only area where I really tripped over the jargon was in the first paragraph of the Huntington's disease#Macroscopic changes due to mHTT section, but I can live with that. There are a number of red links that all look to be notable topics, so I don't have a problem there. The citations appear okay, but could perhaps be further refined as a nit-picking exercise. Otherwise a nice piece of work. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [41].
Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)
- Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this article on another Australian Flying Corps veteran and senior officer in the RAAF - in the mold of Richard Williams, Henry Cobby, Frank McNamara, and so on. Currently GA-Class, as well as A-Class on the Military History, Aviation, and Australia wikiprojects. Since passing those milestones, have added some further detail here and there and sorted out a niggling question on his victory claims in World War I (even added alt text to the pictures after finding out about that requirement!) so believe ready for FA-Class... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is in good shape and certainly very close to FA quality.
- He seems to have transferred to the RAAF and then become one of its original officers when it was formed. How did he transfer to it if it didn't yet exist?
- "Though he later recorded that it involved "twenty months' hard work, without pay ... with loads of scurrilous and other criticism", provision of the RAAF's radio facilities and technicians was considered a boon for contestants." I can't quite figure out what this sentence is trying to say.
- Reworded these two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In the event, he had to make do..." This reads as quite colloquial to me, but I wouldn't mind hearing other opinions.
- For me it does the job, but more than happy to listen to suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we sure that Who's Who in Australia is a RS? Most Who's Whos are considered not to be, I believe.
- First I've heard of Who's Who being a questionable source, and I've used it in most of my recent A/FA-Class noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Ealdgyth seems to think it's okay, so I'll trust her judgment. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References look okay otherwise.
- Images not reviewed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review, Steve, and the copyedits - while I tweaked a couple, I think they've certainly improved the prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - My concerns have been addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria of a Featured Article. I have the following comments:
- there are no disambig links and no reference errors using the tools (good work)
- there is some overlink (e.g. World War I) that possibly needs to be fixed
- dashes seem consistent with WP:DASH - I fixed any hyphens I could find that needed to be endashes;
- there is possibly an issue in relation to Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words as some numbers greater than 10 are spelt when maybe they should use numbers instead.
Anyway, hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for that mate. I do generally re-link items that are in the intro the first time they recur in the main body, as well as in the infobox, but hopefully nothing's linked more often than that (if so, let me know or feel free to de-link). Also re. numbers, I tend to consistently go with the MOS clause "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred"; in military articles there are so many unit numbers on top of the date figures that I prefer words where strictly within MOS guidelines. Again, if I haven't applied that consistently then feel free to rub my nose in it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent article which meets the FA criteria Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a well written, well presented and comprehensive article. My only niggle is that there is inconsistency in the succession boxes, with one containing ranks and the other not. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks guys - yeah Bryce, another succession box aficionado added that one without including the ranks of these guys that I'd never heard of - occurred to me I might just know where to find the missing info and so it's proved - both temporary AVMs... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Figured that was the case. Thanks, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:23, 9 August 2009 [42].
Ashton-under-Lyne
- Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article on one of Greater Manchester's mill towns complies with the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well sourced, and – having recently undergone a copyedit – hopefully well written. Thanks in advance to those who take the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Images
needall have good alt text as per WP:ALT. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the images have alt text, except the one in the infobox, which needs an update to be made to {{Infobox UK place}}.[43] --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All images have alt text. The only one which might not work is the image in the infobox. The infobox is currently being upgraded to alt text and should be working soon; I've tried to add a workaround, but I'm not sure if it will work. Nev1 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)This is being worked on. It's in a queue for other upgrades to be made to the template, so I would hope reviewers can temporarily WP:IAR whilst it is implimented over the next few weeks. :) --Jza84 | Talk 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry, I looked at the first one, saw it lacked it, and assumed the rest lacked it. Thanks for doing all that alt text: it's really good. My sincere apologies for the false alarm; I must try to be more careful. I'll mark off this part of the discussion with hat/hab to avoid distraction.
- That workaround works just fine.
- Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - Sorry if this is an odd question, but are you the author of Nevell works used to write the article? --Laser brain (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an odd question at all, and no I am not. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - this is good, and I'm leaning toward support. Some fit and finish is needed, as follows:- "it was probably used as an administrative boundary and dates from the 8th or 9th centuries" 8th or 9th "century" OK?
- "Ashton Old Hall was a manor house and the seat of the Assheton family, the administrative centre of the manor." Strangely worded—to me, it reads like the family was the administrative centre, but you presumably mean the Hall.
- "The manor remained in the hands of the Ashton family until 1514 ..." Until now you've been referring to them as "Assheton" and haven't explained the leap to "Ashton".
- "Domestic fustian and woollen weaving has ..." I would have used "have", unless I am misreading the sentence.
- "There was a cholera outbreak in Ashton-under-Lyne in 1832, caused by a poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage." Switch this around to make active and avoid the awkward "there was": "A poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage caused a cholera outbreak in Ashton-under-Lyne in 1832."
- That compass table is awful... 4 different fonts including the header? And why the period after the header?
- Please check all instances where you begin a sentence with "In <year>". Some have commas, some don't. I fixed a couple but there may be more.
- "Ashton Market Hall has undergone a £15M restoration ..." Why not just AMH "underwent"?
- GCSE...? Spell out acronyms the first time they're used, and only include the abbreviation if re-used.
--Laser brain (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nev1 and I have made edits to this effect as shown in this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we've dealt with everything apart from the compass table, and there's not much we can do about that as it's a template (the alternative template isn't any better IMO). Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if an upgrade was made avaliable, but I suppose that's a matter outside of this FAC. --Jza84 | Talk 23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templatesCurrent ref 3 http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/LAN/Ashton-under-Lyne/ImpGaz1872.shtml is a reprint of an older book. Should list it as a book source, not a website. Also, suggest using googlebooks to do the url, it's slightly more reliable than genuki.Current ref 51 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41438 is actually an online print of the Victoria County History and should be cited like a book, the information is given at the top of the webpage.- What makes the following reliable sources?
Current refs 125 and 125 (Eve Dougdale) and (Adam Derbyshire) are lacking publisher information
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the publisher field for refs 125 and 126 (there was a typo so the field didn't appear); all are now using template:citation; and I've sorted out sources 3 and 51 as suggested. [44] I've not got a page number for the gazetteer though, so the reference looks a bit odd. I've replaced runtrackdir.com with the sports club's website. Nev1 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, sorry it took me a while to get back here but I believe it is up to standard now. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
and commentsArticle is comprehensive and up to standard. I made one tiny edit to remove a repetition of "around".
- or else to Ashton's proximity to the Pennines not clear to me how this relates to "under Lyne" and the ref is opaque. Can you clarify the link, if any, between "Pennines" and "Lyne"
- A bit of a tendency to the passive voice, which I particularly noticed in the "History" section, was founded occurs a bit too often, and, as an example, the Oxford Mills bit would read better in active voice
- Some images have forced image sizes. it looks as if that's a conscious decision, but I'd welcome reassurance that it's not just a breach of MoS
- Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the "under-Lyne" was (or perhaps still is) something to do with being 'under the line' of the Pennines, or even (so I once read) 'under the line' of Lancashire's county boundary with Yorkshire. Shouldn't be hard to clarify. --Jza84 | Talk 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The three images with a fixed size are done so because the details are difficult to make out at smaller resolutions. I suppose it's not essential that the Portland Basin and town hall pictures are large, but the image under the geography section does need to be as at the default 180px you can't see the town. A few instances of passive voice have been changed to active and I think Casliber has changed a couple. As for "under-Lyne", Wilson doesn't explicitly state why the town's proximity to the Pennines leads to "under-Lyne", however Jza84's explanation is the likely implication. Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My concerns have been addressed, so I've struck the comment header. I'm happy with the picture size, just wanted confirmation that it was a deliberate choice rather than an oversight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments-I'll begin a lookover and might massage prose I find, please revert if I inadvertently change any meaning.I will note queries belownice to fix those below but neither are deal-breakers: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "under-Lyne" facet --> suffix? (more exact?)
- In the 19th century, Ashton-under-Lyne was hailed as a "new Jerusalem" by John Wroe. - this leaves me hanging and wondering why. Even a single sentence would be helpful.
- I've changed facet to suffix as it sounds better, it's the word I was searching for when I originally wrote the sentence but couldn't put my finger on. Also, I've clarified that Wroe tried to turn Ashton-under-Lyne into a "new Jerusalem" rather than proclaimed it as such for any property it possessed before he arrived. Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. Thanks for the copy edit, everything seems fine. Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
When you calculate the percentage change (table within the Population change section) you should divide the difference by the old number not the new one. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn. Thanks for finding that, I've now fixed it. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image licensing comments
- File:Ashton-under-Lyne old hall.jpg; the tag gives multiple ways it can be freely used, but it's not really specified in the description when the image was first published, merely a date I would assume to be the year of capture. Was the image previously published before the cutoff date, or was it never published before then? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The photograph was taken before 1890 (as that's when the building was demolished), so my understanding was that it comes under "A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1939". As for publication date, the book it's taken from doesn't give details of first publication. There is a date of 1931 handwritten below the image (which I cropped out for wikipedia) but I'm not sure what it relates to. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks pretty good overall, but I do see glitches in the prose. Here are examples.
- "resulting in it being granted honorific borough status in 1847." Ungainly and probably ungrammatical. See noun plus -ing. "resulting in the granting of"?
- US units and metric units seem to swap places as main/converted at the bottom of the lead. Looks like a case for km/miles at the top.
- Numerals or spelling out for centuries? Both appear.
- "probably became a settlement sometime after the"—not "sometimes", but two words, I think.
- "when it became useful as a means of distinguishing the town from"—"useful for distinguishing"?
- "Afterwards the effigy would be hung up and shot and then set on fire."—Neater as "Afterwards the effigy would be hung up, shot, and set on fire."?
- "The first recorded occurrence of the tradition is in 1795"; present tense? And do traditions occur? What about "The first record of the tradition was in 1795. The ritual may be even older, and continued into ..."? I've avoided the repetition of "tradition", too.
- "The manor remained in the hands of the Ashton family – whose name had changed from Assheton over time – until 1514 when the line ended"—I was uncomfortable with the "over time" bit. Isn't a name change instant? If parts of the family did and parts didn't, perhaps "during the second half of the 15th century", or something like that?
- "large-scale" hyphenated as an adjective.
- centred around? Do you mean it was at the intersection of? Unsure.
- MoS on chronological vagueness: "(today about £600,000 and £60,000 respectively)"—I think "as of 2009" is better.
- "A poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage led to a cholera outbreak in the town.[42] "—When? The decade or year or year-range?
- Does "secondary industry" carry a technical sense? Primary is agriculture? Unsure. "Coal mining was a secondary industry in the town compared to the textile industry ...". Was second in employment and output to the textile industry"?
That's down to but not including "Governance". Perhaps a look through by word-nerd colleagues? Tony (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus has addressed most of the comments you made intends to scrutinise the article further. As for the other comments, I've added the year of the cholera outbreak and clarified that the evidence comes from Ashton Moss as "centred around" is a bit vague. Looking at the source again for information about the Assheton family, apparently the name did not change (the reason a vague phrase such as "over time" was used was because I couldn't find a date... mainly because one didn't exist) and I had mixed up the name of the family and manor; I did not twig as it was not uncommon for names of places or people to change. Regarding "secondary industry", you are right that it does have a specific meaning so I've removed the term and clarified that coal was not as important as textiles [45]. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [46].
Fight Club (film)
- Nominator(s): —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is the most comprehensive source of information about David Fincher's 1999 film, based on Chuck Palahniuk's novel, to be found anywhere. The article details the making of the film, the filmmakers' themes, the marketing, the film's release in theaters and on DVD, and its cultural impact since. Please note that the film received extensive academic coverage, which is in development at Interpretations of Fight Club. I consider this sub-article a topic in its own right; extrapolation of the academic resources would overwhelm the rest of the main article.
I addressed disambiguation links and checked links to fix URLs or replace citations entirely. The only problematic URL is to the Academy Awards database since it is dynamic and expires in time. If anyone has a suggestion on how to better present the citation, since it's the most ideal for checking on the film's nomination for sound editing, let me know! Most references are from periodicals, and I used {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} templates for them. The more comprehensive references are in "Bibliography". References that may be challenged are two from MrShowbiz.com; they were published by ABC News Internet Ventures but the website is no longer in existence. (URLs were recovered from the Internet Archive.)
As a film, Fight Club is copyrighted in nature, so there were limited free images available. Per WP:NFC, The poster image qualifies as "cover art" in identifying the film in context of critical commentary. The free image of Helena Bonham Carter helps add illustration (since Pitt and Norton are already portrayed in the poster image). The bathtub image illustrates an example of the film's homoerotic overtones as part of the director's intent to distract audiences. The title sequence image illustrates a major thematic opening and the heavily technical achievement involved. The image of the DVD packaging is backed by commentary about the purpose of its design, which is relevant to its success as a highly acclaimed DVD.
Lastly, I introduced a "See also" section to introduce readers to similar films (impartially listed using an Allmovie reference). It helps improve navigation through topics that may otherwise not get attention. If reviewers are unsure or disagree, we can discuss the benefit of this section. I hope this introduction covers upfront any observations or questions that reviewers may have. I also hope that reviewers can provide constructive criticism to help shape this article to establish it as one of Wikipedia's best. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) [Note: The first FAC took place before the article ever saw any true work done, and the second FAC was closed early since a visitor nominated the article before it was ready. So please consider this its first true candidacy! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose for now on criterion 1a. The research appears solid, and the structure is great—but enough attention has not been paid to the quality of the prose. This could have used a thorough peer review for prose quality or independent copyedit before being listed here. I'd love to see this pass! Let's work on getting a copyedit and I'll list out more issues soon. In the mean time, these are just from the lead and first section:- "feels trapped with his ... position" In or within, surely?
- "The narrator gets involved in a fight club with soap salesman Tyler Durden" doesn't seem entirely accurate. "The narrator forms a fight club with soap salesman Tyler Durden" perhaps.
- "Several directors were sought" sounds as if they were looking to hire multiple directors.
- "... as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." "Feeling" as a noun here is quite awkward; normally people use the plural form, but another word altogether might be better.
- Avoid the repetition in "The director carried homoerotic overtones over" by moving "over" next to "carried".
- "for its visual style in cinema and presaging a new mood" Needs parallel structure.
- "They have new fights outside the bar, which attracts" The fights attracts?
- "The fighting moves to the bar's basement with the men forming a fight club." The noun +ing construction (men forming) and "with" connector don't work here. Why not "The fighting moves to the bar's basement where the men form a fight club"?
--Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed these examples, and I will try to address any similarly weird language in the rest of the article body. Let me see what I can do on my own and get back to you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
After reading this article I'm truly impressed with how well it reads and the in-depth and relevant use of information. The only objection i would have is that the 'plot summary' section is weak in relation to the rest of the article and would question the necessity of the links to other films. Other than this, very well written and covered film. --Flappychappy 02:18, 16 July 2009 (GMT)
- Comment I don't think the See also section helps much. Readers are left to wonder why the films mentioned are similar to Fight club. Is it the themes, the directing, etc. I would vote to remove that section. Remember (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is a source, albeit not a good one. Does allmovies have regular editors and vetted content? I'd like for there to be some way to include a list like this. --Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, to respond to Flappychappy, I've tried to improve the plot summary a little bit more, but I was trying to keep it fairly condensed and to avoid getting into the whole anti-consumerist message. It's the kind of film where a lot could be mentioned to continue improving a reader's understanding of the film, but at some point, it's too much. For the "See also" section, it is an admittedly new kind of addition, partially because a side goal of mine is to phase out Allmovie as an external link, and the stand-out benefit of that website were the "similar works" sections. I could not find how the website lists similar works, but my theory is that they cross-reference the details from the left column of a film's page (keywords, themes, tones, etc). Allmovie is also "powered by" AMG Data Solutions and published by Macrovision Corporation, which seems fairly credible. No end user involvement like IMDb might have. When I compared similar works to Fight Club, I could recognize how they relate. Since Allmovie doesn't explicitly explain why they're similar, it would be original research to deduce a conclusion. Laserbrain, a better use of the "See also" section may be stemmed in academic sources, like how I listed "Nazi Next Door films" at Apt Pupil (film)#See also using one. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is a source, albeit not a good one. Does allmovies have regular editors and vetted content? I'd like for there to be some way to include a list like this. --Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComments: I agree with Laser brain, above; the prose needs a lot of attention before it is of featured standard. I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the article, but it needs thorough copyediting. I have only looked in detail at the lead, and have picked up the following:
- "Norton plays a nameless protagonist who is an everyman and an unreliable narrator." This sentence is enigmatic; the reader can't understand it without using two wikilinks – and even then might still be puzzled. Is there not a more direct way of describing the protagonist's character?
- "Producers sought several directors to hire one to film Fight Club;" The words "to hire one" are redundant
- This sentence needs attention; it has four "ands" in it at present: ""The director and the cast compared the film to the 1955 film Rebel Without a Cause and the 1967 film The Graduate and said the theme was the conflict between a generation of young people and the value system of advertising."
- "...that applied heavy satire to avoid a potentially sinister nature." Present tense should be used. The word "avoid" is wrong here; I think "disguise" is what is meant. Thus: "...that applies heavy satire to disguise a potentially sinister nature."
- "Filmmakers intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." I am really struggling with this sentence. In my dictionary "film-maker" is a hyphenated term, but maybe there is an Am-Eng variant. However, starting the sentence "Filmmakers..." is confusing; is this all filmmakers, or does it mean the makers of this film? This must be clarified. The word "for" after "intended" is redundant. And I simply can't make sense of "a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." What does it mean?
- "perceived" losses? Perhaps "anticipated" would be better?
- "Fight Club failed to meet the studio's expectations at the box office, and the film received polarized reactions from film critics upon its debut." The words "the film" are unncessary. And is "debut" the word normally used to refer to a film's premiere?
- "It was perceived as ground-breaking..." State by whom it was thus perceived.
Note that these points all arise from the lead section; there may well be similar problems in the remainder of the prose. Hence the need for copyediting by a skilled prose editor. One final unrelated point: Helen Bonham Carter's surname is "Bonham Carter", and she should not be referred to as just "Carter". I hope you won't be discouraged by the work still needed. I will check back later for signs of progress with the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The everyman theme is explained in depth in the "Themes" section; it is too much extrapolation in the lead section to explain the term "everyman". Your second suggestion contradicts Laserbrain's suggestion -- without mentioning "to hire one", it sounds like the studio wanted multiple directors. I broke up the particularly long sentence. "Filmmakers" is used as a general grouping of people who produce the film, since it's not always clear who did what. If there is an alternate way to use active verbs, I'm open to suggestions. :) I think "perceived" was the word choice in the citation, but I replaced it with "anticipated". I also think "the film" is needed because the related noun is succeeded by two nouns ("expectations" and "box office"); clarifying re-focuses the noun usage. Let me know if you disagree. "Debut" is synonymous with "premiere". Thanks for pointing out the "Carter" surname; thankfully, only two instances to fix. I ask you to look at at least one other section since the lead section tends to be more of a challenge adequately summarizing the entire article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your various rephrasings in the lead have lagely dealt with the issues I raised, although I think "everyman" should be in quotes, to indicate that it is a figure of speech. I also have some problem with the clarity of the sentence "Fincher intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict" – I'm not clear what "feeling" means here. However, I am striking my oppose, and will try to get to the rest of the prose in the next few days. I have looked at the Plot section and have a few suggestions:-
- "disrupts his relief": slightly odd phrasing – and could there be a brief indication of how she does this?
- "...Tyler disappears from the narrator's life." Since he reappears, it might be best to end the sentence "Tyler disappears."
- "When a member of Project Mayhem dies, the narrator tries to shut down the project by following evidence of Tyler's national travels." It is clear how, by following evidence of Tyler's travels, the narrator can shut down the project.
- Suggest a slight rephrasing to avoid the "...Tyler. Tyler..." combination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 07:35, July 18, 2009
- Your various rephrasings in the lead have lagely dealt with the issues I raised, although I think "everyman" should be in quotes, to indicate that it is a figure of speech. I also have some problem with the clarity of the sentence "Fincher intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict" – I'm not clear what "feeling" means here. However, I am striking my oppose, and will try to get to the rest of the prose in the next few days. I have looked at the Plot section and have a few suggestions:-
- I made changes per your suggestions. Please let me know if the "Tyler" combination is ideally addressed now... I could not see a very easy solution to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I've made a small change myself (see edit summary) Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made changes per your suggestions. Please let me know if the "Tyler" combination is ideally addressed now... I could not see a very easy solution to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I note the great work which Graham has done on checking the prose, and since I trust his judgement I am happy to switch to full support. I must say I have enjoyed working on this article, and the ready, positive response to issues has been refreshing. There is one image query (not what's immediately below) that needs to be sorted out - see lower down. Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image query has been answered. Thank you for your help. It was my first FA nomination, and the constructive criticism really helped improve the article. Next time, though, I'll likely do a peer review focused majorly on copy-editing! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose massive copyright abuse FAC#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two days ago, you added the {{NFimageoveruse}} template without providing an edit summary and inappropriately marking the edit as minor. I waited for a statement justifying its addition on the talk page or the FAC page; there was not one. When I contacted you asking for an explanation of why you considered it overuse, you blanked my message without any response whatsoever. Non-free images were carefully considered for this article per WP:NFC and are equipped with fair use rationales. I ask you to review their rationales and explain why each one cannot belong. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment might as well be ignored. I see only three fair-use images outside of the infobox, and they are more or less justified. I could do without the image of the cardboard-like packaging, but both the bathtub scene image and the opening credits image are perfectly within NFCC. Fasach Nua has a long history of opposing FACs that have any fair-use images in them and often doesn't follow up on his comments. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the message. I removed the image of the DVD cover since another editor opposed because of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment might as well be ignored. I see only three fair-use images outside of the infobox, and they are more or less justified. I could do without the image of the cardboard-like packaging, but both the bathtub scene image and the opening credits image are perfectly within NFCC. Fasach Nua has a long history of opposing FACs that have any fair-use images in them and often doesn't follow up on his comments. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject to a successful review of sources and images. Oppose - for now, there are too many problems with the prose.
Here; Fincher intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict. - what does "feeling based on the generation's conflict" mean?The director implemented homoerotic overtones from Palahniuk's novel - "implemented" doesn't seem to be quite the right word.Here; Studio executives were not receptive to the film - how about "were not impressed by" or even "did not like"?Another impostor, Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter), disrupts his relief - doesn't sound idiomatic to me.There is a possible fused participle here, Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler inviting the narrator to stay at his placeHere They have new fights outside the bar - "new fights"?
"fight leisurely" still doesn't sound right.
- T
his lacks logical flow, When the narrator ignores a phone call from Marla, who has overdosed on pills, Tyler rescues her from her flat The narrator complains to Tyler about not being involved in the organization - it is not clear who is not involved.This lacks logical flow, When a member of Project Mayhem dies, the narrator tries to shut down the project by following evidence of Tyler's national travels."Police....its"?This sounds odd; The illusion of Tyler collapses with an exit wound to the back of his head"Afterward" -> "Afterwards"the reader discouraged an adaptation of the material - "adapting it"?- McCormick then forwarded the proof to producers Lawrence Bender and Art Linson, who also rejected adapting it, but producers Josh Donen and Ross Bell saw potential and expressed an interest in adapting Fight Club
This lacks logical flow, The producers cut out sections to reduce the running time and to record the dialogue.Here; finding Fight Club similar to the 1967 film The Graduate, which Henry adapted. - it should be "had adapted".This sentence is clumsy, A new screenwriter, Jim Uhls, lobbied Donen and Bell to be hired to adapt the screenplay, and the producers chose Uhls over Henry.Here; Bell explored four candidates to hire as director - I don't think people can be "explored".since he had an unpleasant experience -> "because he had", there is another misused "since" later on.There is something missing here, Producer Art Linson, who boarded the project late, met with another candidate, Brad Pitt, for the same role.Since Linson was the senior producer of the two, the studio sought Pitt over Crowe. - "sought Pitt over Crowe"?Here, The studio signed Pitt with a $17.5 million salary. - "and offered him"?Pitt sought a new film after the failure of his 1998 film Meet Joe Black, - in this context "was looking for" would be better.- As much as I like Matt Damon how would he "increase awareness of the film"?
it also considered Sean Penn as a possibility - "as a possibility" is redundant.Fincher instead considered Edward Norton a candidate for the role based on the actor's performance in the 1996 film The People vs. Larry Flynt. - needs a comma.This sounds odd; Pitt shaped the cosmetics of his role.Here; Fincher and Uhls revised the script for six to seven months, by 1997 having a third draft that reordered the story and left out several major elements. - "and by 1997 had.."?Here; Palahniuk recalled how the writers contended if film audiences would believe the plot twist from the novel. - is "contended" the right verb?The section on napalm seems completely out of place and breaks the logical flow of the paragraph.the budget was adjusted to $50 million - "increased to"?Here; and in the course of filming - would "but" be better than "and"?There is some overlinking as with "having the wind knocked out of themselves."What on earth is "straight water"?
- How about "neat" or "pure" or "unadulterated"?
Here; The director sought various approaches to the lighting setups in the film's scenes - "in the film's scenes" is redundant.What's a "practical" location?Do prosthetics really depict?Yes, on refection they do. Graham."On a microscope level" - should be "at a microscopic level".Here; The final scene of demolishing the credit card office buildings - should be "of the demolition of".I am not sure what "stepped all over means" in this context.
- I still don't know if this is literal, but I can live with it. Graham
Here, David Fincher supervised the composition of the DVD packaging, being one of the first directors to participate in a film's transition to home media - "and was one of the" would be better.More overlinking: "word of mouth", "cult film", and Palahniuk linked right at the end of the article.The film's success also heightened the profile of the novel's author Chuck Palahniuk to global renown.Graham Colm Talk 13:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the list of items to fix! It's rather shocking to find out what still can be fixed, even after all the times I've read through the article. :P Some notes: "Afterward" and "Afterwards" are both acceptable. "Practical location" means a preexisting location, not one built on a soundstage; it's common terminology in the film industry. Does it need to be defined? As for prostheses, I was not sure of the best verb to use here; "depicting" seemed closest but admittedly not spot-on. Suggestions in this context? I've fixed the other items to reduce redundancy and improve flow. If there are any other items to be found, please let me know! —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To follow up, for the "stepped" item, this is the sentence from the citation: "When we processed it, we stretched the contrast to make it kind of ugly, a little bit of underexposure, a little bit resilvering, and using new high-contrast print socks and stepping all over it so it has a dirty patina." It's technical jargon, so I'm not clear about how else to explain it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy to add my support now, given the caveat above. Graham Colm Talk 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: The article prose is amazing, as well as the sources, so I have to say I support this. One issue, though - in themes, it states "Edward Norton said," [...] followed by "Brad Pitt said,"[...] A bit redundant and can be reworded. Other than that, excellent work. The Flash {talk} 00:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh! I actually reworded these quotes to start with "said" to make it more basic. :) Do you think "Pitt explained" would be a better way to word it? Appreciate the support, and if you see anything else amiss, feel free to share or fix yourself! —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that sounds better. The Flash {talk} 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments - The prose is looking good, so I have stricken my 1a opposition above. However, on examining the Themes section, I can't help wondering if we need to be a bit more thorough. There is not much serious academic discussion. There is almost nothing about the split personality theme, which is a major element of the film. You mention it here and there (like how the narrator is referred to as Jack in the script) but I would expect its own para in Themes. You could discuss the clues given in the film that the narrator and Tyler are the same person, what the split allowed the narrator to do, and so on. Are there no works that discuss this theme? The soap was also a theme. You mention that Tyler is a soap salesman, but there was a whole thing around how he was using human fat to make it, and later the lye figured into the hand-burning scene, explosives, etc. And that reminds me.. you don't discuss the hand-burning scene at all, which I think is a cathartic moment in the film that also figures into the split personality theme. I know you are working on a separate Interpretations article, but these aren't really interpretations, they are themes and plot elements. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I have only just watched the movie on DVD—to date, I have been concentrating on the prose, but there is much more to this film than the article describes. People are complex, and Norton's "everyman" character is no exception. I am left thinking that this contribution is rather superficial, lacks depth, and will leave readers dissatisfied. This article gets 1,000s of hits a day—we have to be 100% sure that it is worthy of promotion.Graham Colm Talk 22:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Themes" used to be longer, but I cut it down to be more concise. I was thinking that the "Interpretations" sub-article would be more important (intentional fallacy and all that). I don't disagree with the points you make, though, so perhaps look at the section as it existed before? Anything that you think could be recovered? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added some new quotes at Talk:Fight Club (film)#Expanding themes. Are you both thinking of themes as intended by the filmmakers, or to go beyond that and include academic coverage? Interpretations are largely thematic; there are some resources that do not quite address themes, hence the "Interpretations" sub-article (see its "Further reading" section). —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The old version of the Themes section is an improvement, in my view. The difference between Themes and Interpretations is that the Themes section discusses the motifs and patterns in the film without going into critical discussion of what they mean. That is where we cross into Interpretation territory—that is, experts conjecturing on the meaning of the themes. Bear in mind summary style as well—whatever you cover in depth in the interpretations article should be at least mentioned here. Does anyone object to going back to the cited version of the Themes section as a starting point? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will retrieve the missing material from the old "Themes" section and restore it to the current one. It's been shuffled and copy-edited, so we'll have to be surgical about the restoration. I also elaborated on existing themes with examples like the Volkswagen Beetle. I can also create an "Interpretations" section and place the link to the sub-article there with the {{main}} template. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on themes. Unasked, I've had a look at several of the articles that were on Erik's comprehensive reading list for developing this article. There's a lot of information out there, as one might expect, but while I can see where Andy (née Laser brain) is coming from, I don't think there's a massive amount that could be added on the split personality theme that wouldn't come across as a potentially trivial list of "clues" for the audience. Most of the real meat is pretty much already included, though it might not be immediately obvious; Erik appears to have made an editorial judgement to spread the split personality material throughout the article rather than include it explicitly and exclusively in the themes section. That way, we can see how the idea informed the writing, filming and editing—real world context that to me is more relevant than telling the reader what the split meant for the plot and the character. YMMV. :-) On this and the other issues (such as the hand-burning scene) it may be that they haven't received a comparative amount of academic coverage because they're more apparent conceits that are instead more intently focused upon in non-academic sources, such as mainstream reviews. I think that if Erik can include a little more from the sources he originally discarded (and I see he's already begun this), the section should by the end be comprehensive enough to pass muster. (Though I do agree that it may also be beneficial to at least look at the interpretations sub-article to see if there's anything useful to summarise from it.) Steve T • C 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you make good points. I'm thinking that it wasn't a long way off, but I wanted to make sure our bases our covered. This is a film that, after first viewing, audiences tend to go, "What did I just see?" They will likely come here to read more about the film. I'd really like to make sure what we build here is the gold standard for complicated films, comparable to Mulholland Drive. Do you prefer the old or the new version of the Themes section? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was directed to the Mulholland Dr. article a couple of days ago; it really is excellent, though light on the production material that forms the bread and butter of a film article. Themes and interpretations are all very good, but they shouldn't come at the expense of the more traditional encyclopedic content, and for that article I might encourage an expansion of the latter while farming the former out to an analysis sub-article that someone could go even more to town on. The Fight Club article has production material in spades, and looking at just some of the available sources, I believe Erik made a legitimate decision that there was absolutely no way in which the main article could host the reams of analysis in addition to that and stay even close to article size limits. For that reason, he created the—admittedly incomplete—spin-off article. Its existence means the main article will host less analysis than that seen at Mulholland Dr. and Barton Fink (another good one); even using summary style it will inevitably not cover every intended and unintended theme. So how to tell what to include in the main article? Arguably, the split personality theme, the hand-burning scene, etc. haven't received more—or even equal—weight in academic sources than anything else, so what criteria should be used to determine those themes that are the most prominent? Still, as it stands now the Themes section is in better shape than it was pre-expansion, though I didn't really prefer either that or the old(er) version; had I come along to this FAC before the issue came up, I probably would have recommended to Erik that he put some of it back in, as he has now done, along with a little more from the sub-article. The wider issue—on how much is enough to include for films that have had hundreds of pages written about them—is perhaps a separate discussion outside the scope of this FAC, as I'm sure Erik won't want me to put other potential reviewers off by bloating the page with my inevitably-longwinded witterings on that subject. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I fully expect a film by someone like Fincher to have far more production information than one by Lynch, who is notoriously tight-lipped about his production methods. To this day, he won't reveal the true nature of the baby in Eraserhead, something I'm waist-deep in right now. As for the Themes section... well, it's really a judgment call, isn't it? It's going to be different for each film. For complex films that confuse audiences, we have a responsibility to explain things like the split personality to them. We also have to consider how much weight the various themes had in the relevant literature. I think what's there now is looking great. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was directed to the Mulholland Dr. article a couple of days ago; it really is excellent, though light on the production material that forms the bread and butter of a film article. Themes and interpretations are all very good, but they shouldn't come at the expense of the more traditional encyclopedic content, and for that article I might encourage an expansion of the latter while farming the former out to an analysis sub-article that someone could go even more to town on. The Fight Club article has production material in spades, and looking at just some of the available sources, I believe Erik made a legitimate decision that there was absolutely no way in which the main article could host the reams of analysis in addition to that and stay even close to article size limits. For that reason, he created the—admittedly incomplete—spin-off article. Its existence means the main article will host less analysis than that seen at Mulholland Dr. and Barton Fink (another good one); even using summary style it will inevitably not cover every intended and unintended theme. So how to tell what to include in the main article? Arguably, the split personality theme, the hand-burning scene, etc. haven't received more—or even equal—weight in academic sources than anything else, so what criteria should be used to determine those themes that are the most prominent? Still, as it stands now the Themes section is in better shape than it was pre-expansion, though I didn't really prefer either that or the old(er) version; had I come along to this FAC before the issue came up, I probably would have recommended to Erik that he put some of it back in, as he has now done, along with a little more from the sub-article. The wider issue—on how much is enough to include for films that have had hundreds of pages written about them—is perhaps a separate discussion outside the scope of this FAC, as I'm sure Erik won't want me to put other potential reviewers off by bloating the page with my inevitably-longwinded witterings on that subject. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you make good points. I'm thinking that it wasn't a long way off, but I wanted to make sure our bases our covered. This is a film that, after first viewing, audiences tend to go, "What did I just see?" They will likely come here to read more about the film. I'd really like to make sure what we build here is the gold standard for complicated films, comparable to Mulholland Drive. Do you prefer the old or the new version of the Themes section? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. I think the Themes section is vastly improved, and it presents reasonable weight to explaining intended themes and introducing academic analysis. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Comment – On my monitor, the alt text for the poster image is cutting off in the middle. Anyone else see this on their computers? Giants2008 (17–14) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is Firefox, don't worry about it. For example, if you visit the article with Firefox, right-click on the image, and select "Properties", you'll get an "Element Properties" window that lists "Alternate text:" with the text apparently truncated (it scrolls, actually, though there's no scrollbar). There's nothing wrong with that, except perhaps with Firefox's implementation. The intended use of alt text is assistive technology such as JAWS and Orca and the main limit there is the listener's patience.
- (ec) The use that your browser makes of alt text depends entirely on your operating system, your browser, and their settings. The HTML in the page served is exactly what is expected (an <img> tag with the alt= parameter containing the alt text provided for that image). By default, windows users with IE8 or Firefox don't see the alt text; they see the contents of the <title> tag when hovering over the image (set to the filename, for inexplicable reasons). If you could tell us what os, browser and addons you are using to display the alt text, it would help in trying to resolve the problem. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about IE7? I'm using it with Vista and am not so knowledgeable about the add-ons. It's not a big deal for me; I just wanted to know if anybody here had a similar issue. It probably has to do with settings that I don't understand. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with brevity if it can be done without losing information; also, some of the details in that alt text were not about visual appearance and thus didn't belong there, so I managed to trim it down a bit.
- Eubulides (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found this in Plot: "He uncovers Tyler's plans to destroy buildings housing credit card records so civilization's debt is reset." Through about half the article, that's the only real problem area I've seen in the prose. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can thank Laser brain (a.k.a. Andy Walsh), Brianboulton, and GrahamColm for all their copy-editing work and suggestions! :) I rewrote the sentence. Does it read any better now? I'm only concerned that it sounds like "He uncovers... by destroying buildings"; is this a big deal or not? Also, I'm not sure what happened with the alternative text. I messaged someone who might be able to answer your question. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's clear enough that the plans are Durden's and not the narrator's. The only thing I'm waiting on before offering support is an image review. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments - and probably my last. I have reinstated my support, but hope that the extraordinary amount of work that has been put in since its nomination is not taken as a precedent for other candidates. I have just re-read Richard Dyer's British Film Institute monograph on Se7en, looking for parallels in structure and style, and given that this article is for an encyclopedia and not a book, I feel that a superb job has been done here. The Themes section is a great improvement. I have tweaked the prose here a little, and, despite the expression "negativist prospect" (which I can live with), I think it is up to standard. With regard to the alt texts, they look OK in my browser, but some are a little too long—there is no need to describe colours I think. I hope this article is promoted—it deserves to be. Have the images been reviewed yet? Graham. Graham Colm Talk 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Fight Club DVD cover.jpg - The text easily conveys what this image depicts, so I don't see the need for this non-free image. Otherwise, all images are adequately described, have verifiable licenses, and, if necessary, meet WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you are right. I removed the image, and I also added more descriptive text so readers don't merely visualize a plain cover that looks like cardboard wrapper. If there is anything else to address in the article, please let me know. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All image issues addressed. Awadewit (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. I have some very minor queries remaining:
Are you happy with leaving the release date out of the lead? It's a valid editorial choice—seeing as the full date is given in the infobox—but I just thought I'd check."She designed an extra's ear to have cartilage missing, citing Mike Tyson's bite as inspiration."—seeing as Holyfield–Tyson II was twelve years ago, some of our readers might not have the necessary familiarity with this to understand what "Mike Tyson's bite" is referring to without leaving this article. That's fine, that's what the link is there for, but if there's a way of wording it that avoids even this—without bloating the section—that could be pursued. Perhaps, "She designed an extra's ear to have cartilage missing, citing as inspiration the boxing match in which Mike Tyson bit off part of Evander Holyfield's ear." The only difficulty I can see with that is working out the best position for a piped link."... the studio later paid for the sequence following Fincher's expert direction of the film"—this is cited to the DVD commentary, so I'm not sure that Fincher and the cast are the most unbiased sources for the "Fincher's expert direction" statement; it's an opinion, so I'm thinking attribution might be required ("Fincher claimed/said"). Alternatively, the wording could be toned down, or perhaps putting quotes around "expert" (or whatever word they use in the commentary) would suffice.I'm perfectly willing to believe I'm misremembering something I've seen a bunch of times, but "an early scene in which the camera flashes past city streets to survey Project Mayhem's destructive equipment" wasn't really that early in the film. Would it lose anything to remove the word?So I misremembered. :-) Steve T • C"Midway through the film, Tyler Durden points out the cue mark, nicknamed "cigarette burn" in the film, to film audiences."—this might need input from someone less familiar with the subject, but are we happy that this makes it clear that Durden is breaking the fourth wall? Something along the lines of: "Midway through the film, Tyler Durden breaks the fourth wall to point out the cue mark—nicknamed "cigarette burn" in the film—to the audience."Per summary. Steve T • C
- Otherwise, good to see that most of the major concerns have been either fixed or successfully rebutted. All the best, Steve T • C 08:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that the full release date is necessary for the lead section; release year seems enough. Full release date seems best when the date is truly relevant to the film, such as studios trying to get out of the film before year's end to qualify for awards. I've amended the bite fight sentence and put the link in "the boxing match". And just to clarify, the "early" scene takes place before the flashback to the rest of the film. This is the full quote, "We have front row seats for this theater of mass destruction. The demolitions committee of Project Mayhem wrapped the foundation columns of a dozen buildings with blasting gelatin. In two minutes primary charges will blow base charges and a few square blocks will be reduced to smoldering rubble. I know this, because Tyler knows this." The "cigarette burn" scene issue seems amended. Lastly, you have a good point about citing the commentary. I think I tried to mean "expert" as in "technically proficient". In any case, I referenced Cinefex instead, which had this sentence: "Though the director had always intended to open the film in this fashion, budgetary concerns had kept the title sequence from being awarded until January 1999." So I revised the wording to be more in line with that. Thanks for the observations! —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All struck. Steve T • C 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've watched this article for a long time, impressed enough with the way in which Erik has developed it that I've consciously emulated his approach at some of the film articles I've contributed to. This article could easily have been a collection of trivia and fancruft, but Erik has instead crafted one that focuses on relevant real-world production material and critical analysis—genuinely encyclopedic content that elevates the material to the standard he's always wanted for it. Nice work. (Full disclosure for closing delegate: Erik is an editor with whom I've worked a lot elsewhere.) Steve T • C 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 00:39, 5 August 2009 [47].
Volcano (South Park)
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all of the criteria. Hunter Kahn and I have been working on this article the past few weeks/months, and now feel that it is ready for FAC.--Music26/11 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Music26/11 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images both need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I did this but please check it; I don't normally do alt texts so I want to make sure I did it right. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking into it.
The alt text still needs work, I'm afraid, as it is mostly not about appearance. It needs to be reworded to talk only about appearance and to discuss only material that can easily be verified by someone who can see the image but does not know the area.Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (particularly the 3rd and 4th examples). Eubulides (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking into it.
- I did this but please check it; I don't normally do alt texts so I want to make sure I did it right. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've edited the alt-text, please check if it's ok now. Orichalcon (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better
, but it still needs work. The alt text makes claims about the visual appearance that a non-expert cannot immediately verify by simply looking at the image. For example, a non-expert won't know the names of the characters, or of the co-creators. Alt text should just describe the visual appearance; it shouldn't explain the image. Here's another way to think about it: if there's any repetition between the alt text and the caption, then something is amiss, as the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, and the caption should assume that you can see the image and shouldn't waste its time on visual appearance. Again, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- This is quite funny actually, anyone who passes by takes a stab at trying to improve the alt text. What do you think about the changes I've made.--Music26/11 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, much better. I tweaked it a bit more to follow the guideline more closely. Eubulides (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is quite funny actually, anyone who passes by takes a stab at trying to improve the alt text. What do you think about the changes I've made.--Music26/11 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better
- I've edited the alt-text, please check if it's ok now. Orichalcon (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a few quick ref and format fixes before I can support this. Amazing work, but:
The profile caption should be sourced.- Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand this is common knowledge to any South Park episode, but could you find a source for the TV-M rating?- Done, added to Reception section. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph in production seems clumped.- I broke it apart. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than those, fantastic work! I can tell you're attempting to get Season 1 all Featured, likely to make a Featured topic, so good luck with it. The Flash {talk} 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything checks out, nice work. Support. The Flash {talk} 04:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The infobox is very very long. I suggest making the episode chronology like [Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo]] and cutting down the size of the caption. The plot summary section is also a little long in my opinion; can it be cut down to three tight paragraphs by removing details like "Unlike Stan, Kenny is able to shoot animals, and this impresses Jimbo" or the bit about the education film? (not seen the episode yet, but stuff like this doesn't seem particularly important to me to the overall plot) indopug (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the infobox concern, I think. The stuff about the Duck and Cover film could be removed from the plot section, but the reason it is mentioned in the section is because the film is discussed in the cultural references section.--Music26/11 12:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One possible option would be to either shorten the "Duck and Cover" mention down to a very brief mention, or just remove it altogether, but then go into more detail about it and how it is used in the episode under Cultural References. What do you think, Music? — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever Indopug prefers.--Music26/11 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Hunter says looks good to me. I suggest this because I feel the plot is tighter and better handled in other Season 1 FAs such as "Damien". indopug (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the change. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Hunter says looks good to me. I suggest this because I feel the plot is tighter and better handled in other Season 1 FAs such as "Damien". indopug (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker and Stone felt the early animation of the series had strongly improved with the "Volcano" episode" seems a little awkward, especially since "Parker and Stone strongly disliked." is just before it. Not sure how to fix it.
- I tried a change. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Volcano" and the episodes "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" and "Weight Gain 4000" received an average 1.4 Nielsen Rating, which translates to slightly more than 1 million viewers." Seems kinda random to mention those other two episodes. Why those two, and not other ones? Why mention any others? Probably based on the source, which I can't read.
- The reason for this is there was no source that I could find for the ratings of this individual episode, but I did find one saying these three episodes averaged a 1.4 rating. I see what you mean, though, so to avoid confusion I just dropped the 1.4 rating and the referenencs to the other episodes, and said it was seen by approximately 1 million people. Better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest mixing up "Volcano" and "the episode" a bit more with "its" in the lead. Maybe further down too, but I haven't read that far yet.
- I tried to switch it up a bit. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"nuclear weapon attack." might be better as "nuclear attack." Not sure.
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to start the Plot section with "At the start of the episode, Stan's Uncle Jimbo..."
- I don't really feel strongly one way or the other, so I added it in. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Jimbo explains to the boys how they should hunt." Maybe "Jimbo explains to the boys how to hunt."
- Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When they see a creature" Do they do this repeatedly with different animals, or can you say "they see a rabbit" or whatever?
- It is multiple creatures. I tried rewording it to make that more clear. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Stan proves not to have the proper temperament to enjoy hunting" Mabye "Stan doesn't have the proper temperament for hunting"
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and this impresses Jimbo" How about "impressing Jimbo"
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"honorary nephew, which upsets Stan" Mabye "honorary nephew, upsetting Stan"
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As the boys are skeptical, Cartman then decides" Mabye "The boys are skeptical, so Cartman decides"
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"scare them" twice is repetitive.
- Reworded. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the others start shooting at him" Who are the others?
"remove his costume." "remove the costume." might be better, not sure.
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"some of the South Park residents dig a trench under Randy's guidance to divert the lava" Maybe "under Randy's guidance some of the South Park residents dig a trench to divert the lava" Not sure if that's better.
- I tried a new wording. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the hunting group members try to flee only to find themselves trapped" -> "the hunting group tries to flee but find themselves trapped"
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Jimbo apologizes to the boys for their seemingly imminent deaths" aren't they safe at this point?
- No. They are trapped on the other side of the trench... — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "felt" is used a few too many times. For example, 'film was featured in Los Angeles; Stone felt, "If they could do it, we could."' Could maybe be changed "Stone said" And "happened after the fart, and they felt it was not funny." could be "happened after the fart, therefore it was not funny."
- Drops those and a few felts. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker said he did not believe Comedy Central would allow it to air" Should it be "Parker said he did not believe Comedy Central have would allowed it to air"?
- Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"just as it literally was" don't need literally
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that Scuzzlebutt turned out to be a real character" Maybe "Scuzzlebutt turning out to be a real character"
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph that starts "The "Volcano" episode was in production when the pilot episode first aired on August 13, 1997." is a bit choppy in the middle.
- I changed it to "when South Park debuted on August 13, 1997." Better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker and Stone recorded commentary track for each episode" Should it be "a track" or "tracks"?
- Yup, fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a combat between" sounds funny. Also, not sure the two sides in the Vietnam Ware have to be explained.
- Changed to "a military conflict between". — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The moment Scuzzlebutt puts a star" Maybe "The scene where Scuzzlebutt puts a star"
- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Jimbo blames the Democratic Party for passing laws that he feels are overly restrictive on hunters and gun owners.[9] Upon learning children are in danger due to the volcano, Mayor McDaniels seeks publicity for herself by contacting the television news magazine programs Entertainment Tonight[10] and Inside Edition.[11]" This part is kind of choppy
- Better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The song "Hot Lava", sung by the Chef in the episode, was featured on the 1998 soundtrack Chef Aid: The South Park Album.[17]" make the end of its paragraph choppy.
- I'm not sure how to improve this sentence. Can you give me any suggestions? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in the Reception section should have some sort of lead sentence. Something like "The episode was received favorably by critics" or whatever you think describes the critics overall.
- I think this got removed by accident; it's in the lead but not in the Reception section. I added it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - asides from minor touching finishes, this is a nice, comprehensive article. Also, I bet you could add one or two more images. Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Agreed with Nergaal above. —Terrence and Phillip 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - Could you give a .html link for this image, rather than just a .jpg link? Other than that, images look fine. NW (Talk) 04:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Music has gone vacation and I'm handling the FAC concerns for now, although I'm not sure the answer to this one. If possible can you tell me more specifically what needs to be done? If not, and if it's not such a big deal that it would hold up the FAC, could Music fix this whenever he returns? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that this is a minor detail, and I will try to explain what I mean with an example:
- Music has gone vacation and I'm handling the FAC concerns for now, although I'm not sure the answer to this one. If possible can you tell me more specifically what needs to be done? If not, and if it's not such a big deal that it would hold up the FAC, could Music fix this whenever he returns? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that might be confusing, but forgive me, it is late. Just pop me a note if you don't understand my (awful) analogy. NW (Talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this fixed? If not, could you further clarify for me, or just fix it yourself? I'm still confused...
- I know that might be confusing, but forgive me, it is late. Just pop me a note if you don't understand my (awful) analogy. NW (Talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a and 1c. The prose needs work, as indicated by some of the samples below, which should not be considered comprehensive. There are problems with the research, and the one source I checked randomly has been misused in the article, indicating the need for a full source audit.
- (Not to be a stickler, but the above user (Peregrine Fisher) noted those were the only prose errors she found ("That's pretty much it"). I believe she is saying that is comprehensive, at least from her perspective. I think I've addressed your below issues, and since this article has gone through a peer review and additional comments here in the FAC, I think the prose fixes we've made would have to be considered comprehensive. Unless you can point out any more errors, which of course we will address and go from there... — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your point. Just because one editor provides what they consider a comprehensive review doesn't mean another editor won't see other issues. As illustrated below, I easily located issues that Peregrine Fisher missed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I misunderstood (I responded to these comments at work so it's possible I was distracted). I thought you were saying that you felt Peregrine's comments were not comprehensive. I thought you were speaking on her behalf. But I certainly didn't mean to suggest her comments should limit your ability to provide any comments yourself. Sorry about that. — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your point. Just because one editor provides what they consider a comprehensive review doesn't mean another editor won't see other issues. As illustrated below, I easily located issues that Peregrine Fisher missed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose
"The episode was inspired by the 1997 disaster films Volcano and Dante's Peak, which Parker and Stone strongly disliked." The "which" is ambiguous here. Consider, "both of which" for clarity.- Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The episode also parodied the Duck and Cover educational videos from the 1950s and 1960s, which advised people to hide under tables in the event of a nuclear attack." Same problem here, as "which" modifies "videos" but the placement is illogical. Eliminate the problem by removing the comma and using "that" instead.- Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's overlinked somewhat. Don't link dicdef terms like "lava", "construction paper", "self-defense", and so on.The loophole statement requires explanation. Loophole in what?- The loophole is you can kill an animal in self defense, so shouting "it's coming right for us" makes it appear the shooting is in self-defense, even though it is not. I thought this was expressed by the current wording, but if it isn't, can you give any suggestions? — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what it means, but I was saying I don't think the text is clear. Consider someone reading this whose country doesn't have such laws. Will they know what your meaning is? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. I've reworded it, although I'm sure it could still use some work. What do you think of it now? !!!!
- I know what it means, but I was saying I don't think the text is clear. Consider someone reading this whose country doesn't have such laws. Will they know what your meaning is? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The loophole is you can kill an animal in self defense, so shouting "it's coming right for us" makes it appear the shooting is in self-defense, even though it is not. I thought this was expressed by the current wording, but if it isn't, can you give any suggestions? — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"During the hunting trip, Jimbo proclaims Kenny as his honorary nephew" Spot the extra word.- Thanks for making it a game. ;) Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The boys then see Cartman in disguised as Scuzzlebutt and ... the boys start shooting at him." When you remove the middle clause, you can see the redundancy.- Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"However, he is unable to do so and this gives Cartman enough time to escape and remove the costume." Try replacing "this" with "the delay" to avoid the ambiguity.- OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... because the Volcano film was featured in Los Angeles" What do you mean it was featured in LA?- Changed to "set in". — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The animators of the show spent the first four episodes of South Park trying to get the characters animated the way they wanted." This is awkward: the animators don't "get things animated".- Changed to "perfect the animation of the characters". — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"By 'Volcano', Parker and Stone felt the textures of the episode were improved" The "of the episode" suggests you are referring to Volcano... so "By 'Volcano', Parker and Stone felt the textures of 'Volcano' were improved"?- Dropped "of the episode" and reworked the sentence slightly. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'Volcano' generally positive reviews." ?- This was added recently as a result of above comments and I think it's pretty obvious a word was accidentally omitted. Resolved. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Research/Sourcing
- I'm disappointed in the "Cultural impact and references" section, which sadly lacks either. Why call it that if you don't discuss cultural impact of the episode? And I'm unsure what "references" means. The section is really just a list of pop culture influences that made their way into the episode, correct?
- I think the title "Cultural impact and references" was used because it not only included the references, but a small account of how the popularity of the episode endured beyond just this episode (the shirts, the famous lines, the game). We used "Cultural impact and references" for this specifically because that is what other South Park articles use and we wanted to maintain consistency, but if you have a suggestion for a different title I am open to it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as why you used the heading, I figured as much. However, we need to make sure the heading reflects what is actually there, over being consistent with other articles. Maybe "Cultural references"?
- I have no problem with that. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as why you used the heading, I figured as much. However, we need to make sure the heading reflects what is actually there, over being consistent with other articles. Maybe "Cultural references"?
- I think the title "Cultural impact and references" was used because it not only included the references, but a small account of how the popularity of the episode endured beyond just this episode (the shirts, the famous lines, the game). We used "Cultural impact and references" for this specifically because that is what other South Park articles use and we wanted to maintain consistency, but if you have a suggestion for a different title I am open to it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the first source listed as a CD? Isn't it a DVD?- No, it's a CD. As it says in the last paragraph of the production section, the commentary tracks were released on a CD seperately from the DVDs because the networks wanted to censor Parker and Stone and they refused. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I randomly checked one of your sources and found that it doesn't support what you attached it to, which doesn't bode well for the remaining sources and indicates that a full review is needed. You write that Cartman's "'Democrats piss me off!'" is "especially popular among ... fans" and cite the Lowry Variety article, which says no such thing. It merely says the line is "memorable", which is a far cry from what you wrote.
- I could be wrong here, but I feel that the source is sufficient for the wording in the article. It may not overly state that it's popular specifically with South Park fans but I think the context of the article makes that pretty clear. Plus any South Park fan knows that this is the case, which obviously by itself wouldn't be enough to warrant an inclusion, but Ii felt applying this citation to it along with a little bit of common sense was sufficient. That being said, if you still feel it's a problem I'll remove it. But I don't think it's at all fair or sensible that this one small reference should sink the entire FAC (especially if it's removed). — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that the source is sufficient to back up what you've written. Lowry calling something "memorable" is just stating his opinion. He was in no way stating that the quotation is popular among the South Park fan base. It may not be fair to judge the other sources on this one, but it is sensible. No one said anything about sinking the FAC—I just suggested that if the one source I randomly checked was misused, the others should be checked. I will be looking deeper into the sources in the next couple days. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, sorry if I misunderstood. In the meantime, what do you feel should be done about this particular reference? Should it be removed altogether, or do you think it can be reworked? — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that the source is sufficient to back up what you've written. Lowry calling something "memorable" is just stating his opinion. He was in no way stating that the quotation is popular among the South Park fan base. It may not be fair to judge the other sources on this one, but it is sensible. No one said anything about sinking the FAC—I just suggested that if the one source I randomly checked was misused, the others should be checked. I will be looking deeper into the sources in the next couple days. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong here, but I feel that the source is sufficient for the wording in the article. It may not overly state that it's popular specifically with South Park fans but I think the context of the article makes that pretty clear. Plus any South Park fan knows that this is the case, which obviously by itself wouldn't be enough to warrant an inclusion, but Ii felt applying this citation to it along with a little bit of common sense was sufficient. That being said, if you still feel it's a problem I'll remove it. But I don't think it's at all fair or sensible that this one small reference should sink the entire FAC (especially if it's removed). — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - Would you mind sending me the article text for refs 14 and 15 (Martin and Casimir)? You can e-mail them to me. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. If you need others, let me know. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article, mostly well-written.
- Right at the top: two misleading "alsos": "It also marked the first of two appearances for Scuzzlebutt, who became a popular minor character and appeared in the mobile video game, South Park 10: The Game. The episode also parodied the Duck and Cover educational videos ..." I'm looking for where we've been told before about first appearances, and then about parodies ... can't find them. This is a matter of false cohesion; simply removing the two offending words will make the narrative run much better. (I think ... try it.) Then further down: "The plot was also inspired by the large amount of hunting Parker and Stone saw ..."; but "inspired" does not appear beforehand. Why not "Another influence on the plot was the large ..."? The "also" is also odd at the opening of a para,, since also is such a strong back-reference and has to jump across the para break. Tony (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your issues have been adressed.--Music26/11 08:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are currently two images of the volcano in the article. Are both necessary? Theleftorium 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why not, they have different purposes. Kakun (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. The rationale used in File:SouthPark-Volcano.jpg could also be used in File:Volcano (film) volcano (south park) comparison.JPG. Theleftorium 18:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it mean? Do you mean there's a legal problem? The second image compares between the film and the episode, the first one deals with the episode itself. Kakun (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NFCC#3: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Theleftorium 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One just shows the volcano and the other shows another type of information, the lava ball coming out of the volcano comapred to the lava ball in the film. If you are still convinced it should be removed, please wait for another opinion. Kakun (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NFCC#3: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Theleftorium 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it mean? Do you mean there's a legal problem? The second image compares between the film and the episode, the first one deals with the episode itself. Kakun (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. The rationale used in File:SouthPark-Volcano.jpg could also be used in File:Volcano (film) volcano (south park) comparison.JPG. Theleftorium 18:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why not, they have different purposes. Kakun (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Agreed with Nergaal. Kakun (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I don't think that new fair use image is going to cut it. It's kinda ORish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what's OR but I removed it anyways. Kakun (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're talking about original research, there's actually a source to the caption within the article. Kakun (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that image meets the non-free content criteria anyway, as it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Theleftorium 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mostly for non free images, but picking which meteor in the episode looks like which meteor in the movie is what seems ORish. Maybe I'm being overly strict in my intrepretation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't try to do that, that movie had lots of balls. Anyway, I removed it, if someone decides to put it back he's welcome. Kakun (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mostly for non free images, but picking which meteor in the episode looks like which meteor in the movie is what seems ORish. Maybe I'm being overly strict in my intrepretation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that image meets the non-free content criteria anyway, as it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Theleftorium 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're talking about original research, there's actually a source to the caption within the article. Kakun (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what's OR but I removed it anyways. Kakun (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [49].
Inauguration of Barack Obama
- Nominator(s): Lwalt, Aaron charles, TonyTheTiger
I am nominating this for featured article because I would find it hard to believe that with all the improvements to this article that there would not be consensus that it is among the finest on wikipedia. Although I started the article and undertook the GAC nomination myself, the article is hardly my work anymore. Before GAC the other two main editors listed here did heroic work while it was one of the highest trafficked articles on wikipedia in January. More recently they have done incredible work responding to concerns in prior FACs and PRs. I think this is ready now.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
- Fixed; thanks.
The infobox has a caption but no image? Surely an image is intended there.
- It appears now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed; thanks.
The alt text needs work. For example, for File:ObamaInaugurationCapitolPreparation.jpg the alt text "Inauguration preparations at the United States Capitol" is weak because (1) it nearly duplicates the caption, and (2) it says little about the appearance of the image. Better would be "U.S. Capitol at dusk, mostly darkened but with dome floodlit from within. Just below it is a lit area with several dark figures.".Please see WP:ALT #What to specify and WP:ALT #What not to specify.
- Fixed; thanks.
- Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying you want them all redone or was that one a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of the alt text has a problem. Much of it simply duplicates the captions, which isn't helpful to the visually impaired. Also, the newly-added image lacks alt text.Eubulides (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done what I can. My co-authors are better copyeditors than I. If you have further concerns I will attempt to address them if they don't do so first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's much better
, but I'm afraid that it still needs work. Too often, the alt text explains the image rather than describes it. If there's repetition between the alt text and the caption, that's a sign that there's something amiss: the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, whereas the caption should assume that you can see the image (or the alt text) and should not repeat what is already obvious about visual appearance. Also, alt text should not presume expertise on the subject: it should be immediately verifiable by a reader new to the topic. (For more on this please see WP:ALT #What not to specify.) For example, the lead image's alt text is currently "Barack Obama holds his right hand in the air as he and Michelle Obama both smile toward Chief Justice Roberts whose back is to the camera during the oath of office of the President of the United States." (my italics). Only the italicized part is about appearance. The rest is interpretation or explanation or identification, which doesn't belong here. A reader new to the topic won't know that the bald-headed guy is Roberts, for example. We might make an exception for the two Obamas (most educated readers know already know what they look like) but not for anybody else pictured.Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am probably going to need some help with these.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I followed up your comment at WT:ALT #Assistance request. Eubulides (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. how is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs work, I'm afraid. There is a typo "walt past". More important, the alt text assumes details that a non-expert reader cannot verify simply by looking at the images. Here are the problems I noted: "the Bidens" (most people don't know what the Bidens look like), "large portion of the seated section of the U.S. Capitol" (most readers won't recognize that nondescript image as being from part of the U.S. Capitol), "From left to right: Itzhak Perlman, Gabriela Montero, Yo-Yo Ma and Anthony McGill" (most readers don't know what these folks look like), "National Statuary Hall at the United States Capitol" (most readers don't know what it is, much less what it looks like), "President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama walk" (it's not clear from the image that they're walking, or that they are President and First Lady (it might be before O. was inaugurated), "From left to right: the Obamas, Bidens and the Clintons stand with their heads bowed in a pew" (again, few know what the Biden's look like; also, Hillary Clinton is not recognizable in this photo); "View of the entire length of the National Mall from the U.S. Capitol" (most people don't know the National Mall well enough to know that this view is from the Capitol), "military personnel and hummer in the street" (it's not a hummer, surely; also, please capitalize); "Barack Obama holds his right hand in the air as he and Michelle Obama both smile toward Chief Justice Roberts whose back is to the camera while a large crowd watches." (most people won't know what Roberts looks like and even if they knew couldn't tell from this image).Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good now. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's much better
- Minor comments
- "People in the United States and from around the world paid unequaled attention to the inaugural event, with reactions ranging from celebration and praise to cautious optimism and indifference." Seems like a lot of peacockery and words to avoid crammed into a single sentence: Assert facts and substantiate
- I suggest we replace the sentence with a statement that reviews what is referenced in article text like: "Based on combined attendance numbers, television viewership and internet traffic, it was among the most observed events ever by the global audience." Aaron charles (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with this suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced. Sorry (or not) I am on vacation and traveling much of this week and next, otherwise I would help more. Aaron charles (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:* "the historic occasion of the 56th inauguration" every inauguration is historic, this claim seems a bit excessive
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:* "Everyday American citizens", "41 "everyday" American citizens" are there biannual American citizens?
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:* "extends from U.S. Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial" Wikify
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:* "including big name donors" notable? wealthy? celebrities? surely something more formal
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Group of citizens on train ride includes some tangential information, especially on Kuntz and Ledbetter that interested readers can click through to find out more
- Good call. I shortened it. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- International reaction has some peacockish words as well that should be "neutral-ized": heralded, extended heartfelt congratulations, etc.
- I have attempted to address some of these problems.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall a solid and excellently referenced article. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Although the article has clearly undergone massive improvement since the last FAC, there is still something about the article that leaves it short of the "well-written" criteria. The article's forte has always been its depth and good referencing, and I think it's a symptom of the subject's specific nature and the lack of precedent for writing about such a subject that it remains intellectually unappealing, and certainly not for want of effort or contribution by its main editors. The prose just doesn't hang together in the way that an encyclopedia article is expected. In places it lacks justification for the informational value of a fact; in others, it remains unclear why a certain aspect of the inauguration is a notable exception to inaugural tradition, or how other inaugurations have planned. Coverage of some aspects, like the outreach to ordinary people, come across as platforms for the inaugural committee's desired presentation, leaving it open to debate whether in third-party observation it was actually of any notable interest. As a whole, it seems to document what the event was like, rather than what it was. It's not far off a featured quality, but right now it still doesn't stand as a compelling case for promotion. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have yet to be successful at FAC on any topic resembling politics (Jack Kemp and Jesse Jackson, Jr. have also failed). Instead of a constructive review of particulars for improvement, I feel your concerns were an indictment. The bickering with political subject seems to the nebulous. I can correct specifics, but changing the tone from one focussed on what it was instead of what it was like is a little mystifying to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was able to get Richard Cordray through the process, but my Byron Brown FAC attempt was puzzling and I received no feedback for Antoine Thompson. I should tone down my categorical statement against political noms. Maybe my Michelle Obama attempt was premature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not first and foremost a political topic; it's a ceremony, something in between a short historical event and an individual performance of a performing art. I'm not sure if the latter has any featured articles, and I'm not sure that if promoted this wouldn't be the least noted and least documented historical event by a good margin.
- I am not sure whether to take the double negative of that last sentence as outrageous sarcasm or what, but I can not fathom a group of ceremonies among which this was the least noted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Less sarcasm, more clumsy syntax on my part. I meant that if it were a featured article, it would be one of the least notable historical events. Since most of the historical event FAs are things like Night of the Long Knives, I think we probably agree there. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what dimension you are measuring notable events by, but did you read the first paragraph, which includes the following text: "The inauguration, which set a record attendance for any event held in Washington, D.C., . . . Based on combined attendance numbers, television viewership and Internet traffic, it was among the most observed events ever by the global audience." You seem to be reacting as if the inauguration of Barack Obama was event that no one attended or watched.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I do understand that a fan of the SS might oppose this article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I despair. If you cannot see the difference between saying that something isn't notable enough to be an FA and saying that it is a different kind of subject to what is already featured (and hence that getting such an article to featured standard for the first time should be expected to be tough) then you may be way out of your depth trying to evaluate articles against the FA criteria. Bigbluefish (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Less sarcasm, more clumsy syntax on my part. I meant that if it were a featured article, it would be one of the least notable historical events. Since most of the historical event FAs are things like Night of the Long Knives, I think we probably agree there. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure whether to take the double negative of that last sentence as outrageous sarcasm or what, but I can not fathom a group of ceremonies among which this was the least noted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot accept the insistence on a list of specific local points for improvement. First of all, FAC isn't a peer review process, it's an administrative process for selecting FAs. If you don't think an article is going to be promoted without first responding to comments by others, it should be going through peer review first. The potential for some objections to promotion to be addressed during the period of the process doesn't mean that if the objection isn't simple to solve it's not valid. Second, the problem with the article is one of overall tone, phrasing and perhaps structure. To present a list of individual changes to make would be to do the job itself. That job is difficult and requires extensive rigorous understanding of the subject, and if I were able or willing to make that time commitment I'd have fixed the article and supported its promotion instead.
- My problem is that generally, concerns at FAC are suppose to be actionable. This article has satisfied two peer reviews. The tone to me seems professional. In fact, one of the primary editors is a professional copyeditor or something like that according to a prior FAC or PR, if I recall correctly. A comment that amounts to this article needs a general copyedit for tone, when it has undergone a half dozen such copyedits, is a little bit disconcerting to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure if the professional copyeditor concerned is reading this, he or she would agree that excellent prose is the product of an iterative process. The last peer review was merely a list of example foci of attention for the article, offered by one editor, which were diligently addressed point by point. To suppose that this "satisfies" some metric misses half the value of the peer review in the first place. Even a point-by-point peer review is an illustration of where far more edits might be directed. If a peer-reviewer were to list everything that can be fixed, they might as well do the edits themselves. An article with specific things to fix cannot be said to be satisfactory until it has been re-analysed after the obvious points have been addressed. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. I dug through the prior FACs and PRs to find that in FAC1, Lwalt (talk · contribs) identifies himself as a professional writer. This article actually maintains a very high standard for prose, IMO. You do not offer any substantive or actionable points of opposition in this regard other than that it does not measure up to the SS article by some nebulous standard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may or may not be aware that Lwalt has now contributed 765 edits to the article to bring its prose up to a professional standard. He is now the leading editor by edit count and without him this article would not be worth considering for FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure if the professional copyeditor concerned is reading this, he or she would agree that excellent prose is the product of an iterative process. The last peer review was merely a list of example foci of attention for the article, offered by one editor, which were diligently addressed point by point. To suppose that this "satisfies" some metric misses half the value of the peer review in the first place. Even a point-by-point peer review is an illustration of where far more edits might be directed. If a peer-reviewer were to list everything that can be fixed, they might as well do the edits themselves. An article with specific things to fix cannot be said to be satisfactory until it has been re-analysed after the obvious points have been addressed. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My problem is that generally, concerns at FAC are suppose to be actionable. This article has satisfied two peer reviews. The tone to me seems professional. In fact, one of the primary editors is a professional copyeditor or something like that according to a prior FAC or PR, if I recall correctly. A comment that amounts to this article needs a general copyedit for tone, when it has undergone a half dozen such copyedits, is a little bit disconcerting to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're having difficulty understanding what's wrong with it, consider an article about a film which tells you what kind of camera they used. This is inexplicable detail, unless the camera used to belong to someone important, perhaps, or was an amateur camcorder. Every film has a camera, and usually it's not worth mentioning. Similarly, the only automatically notable features of an inauguration are the names of the people involved. All the rest - invitations, speeches, ceremonies, parades, balls, etc. happen every year. The details of these become notable when their unique nature is appreciated separately from the fact that they routinely happened again. Another example: the article presents the formalities right after the oath as though they are specific to this inauguration. A quick visit to United States presidential inauguration reveals that this happens every year, and even expands with the specific regiment that issues the 21-gun salute. Tone or phrasing issues like this permeate the article. The only view I mean to add through this process is that these issues prevent the article from reaching a featured standard. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, this event does not happen every new year, but rather every four. There are numerous annual events that are FAs. There are annual Grand Prix events and annual Bowl Games, for example. What makes these articles FA-class is description of details in large part. That is what you are clamoring against here. I do not understand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure where you get the impression that I disagree with the inclusion of detail in this article. It's the way it's presented that is unencyclopedic. The Grand Prix articles, for example, are constantly relating their detail to the outcome of the race, a critical aspect of the subject. None of them, on the other hand, mention that champagne was sprayed at the podium, though it undoubtedly was. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were endless WP:RSs relating details of what people were wearing while spraying champagne, which celebrities MCed the spraying, which celebrities performed at the spraying, which celebrities attended the spraying and a motorcade throughout the night that travelled across town from location to location to repeat the spraying or if there were DVDs being sold with hours of footage of the spraying it should also be included in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure where you get the impression that I disagree with the inclusion of detail in this article. It's the way it's presented that is unencyclopedic. The Grand Prix articles, for example, are constantly relating their detail to the outcome of the race, a critical aspect of the subject. None of them, on the other hand, mention that champagne was sprayed at the podium, though it undoubtedly was. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, this event does not happen every new year, but rather every four. There are numerous annual events that are FAs. There are annual Grand Prix events and annual Bowl Games, for example. What makes these articles FA-class is description of details in large part. That is what you are clamoring against here. I do not understand.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not first and foremost a political topic; it's a ceremony, something in between a short historical event and an individual performance of a performing art. I'm not sure if the latter has any featured articles, and I'm not sure that if promoted this wouldn't be the least noted and least documented historical event by a good margin.
- Actually, I was able to get Richard Cordray through the process, but my Byron Brown FAC attempt was puzzling and I received no feedback for Antoine Thompson. I should tone down my categorical statement against political noms. Maybe my Michelle Obama attempt was premature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have yet to be successful at FAC on any topic resembling politics (Jack Kemp and Jesse Jackson, Jr. have also failed). Instead of a constructive review of particulars for improvement, I feel your concerns were an indictment. The bickering with political subject seems to the nebulous. I can correct specifics, but changing the tone from one focussed on what it was instead of what it was like is a little mystifying to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is clearly a futile discussion. I've identified two specific actionable examples of what is wrong with this article. If you lack the imagination to transfer the concept across to other parts of the article then leave it and let someone more experienced deal with it. If others disagree that these are issues then go ahead and promote the article to FA. But I cannot and will not engage with an attitude that seems to believe FA status to be a mark of completion, FAC to be a game to be played to be won for personal gratification, and edit counts or the Midas touch of one user to be infallible mechanisms for achieving perfection. Rereading my original comment, it was anything but an indictment. To have devolved the FAC into such a childish spat begs the question as to whether Tony values the quality of an article above and beyond whether it has a little medal to go with it. Bigbluefish (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are getting quite off topic. In no way have you convinced anyone that the Inauguration of Barack Obama was a trivial historical event. Neither of your hair splitting differences (the article is not notable enough to be an FA or it is different kind of subject than any other previous FAs) counts against fulfillment of any clause of WP:WIAFA, thus you have not presented a valid argument against. The fact that it may not hold a candle to your beloved SS article in your mind is not a valid argument. The fact that this event recurs periodically is not a valid argument. Whether you believe I want a medal is not a valid argument. In fact, I would love to get a fifth WP:FOUR award. Heck I am hoping for 8 by year-end (Crown Fountain, McDonald's Cycle Center and Rob Pelinka are in the pipeline), but that is not an argument against this article. What makes no sense to me is that here I am going for my fifth WP:FOUR and then you make the case that I am out of my depth trying to evaluate articles against the FA criteria. Which is it? Am I trying to pile awards on top of my awards or am I too inexperienced in the process to pursue awards. P.S. I apologize none of my WP:FOUR awards are SS-related.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although it is by no means required for reviewers to list every problem that they find with the article, it is often helpful to list a few specific examples so that the nominator has an idea on how they can improve the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are getting quite off topic. In no way have you convinced anyone that the Inauguration of Barack Obama was a trivial historical event. Neither of your hair splitting differences (the article is not notable enough to be an FA or it is different kind of subject than any other previous FAs) counts against fulfillment of any clause of WP:WIAFA, thus you have not presented a valid argument against. The fact that it may not hold a candle to your beloved SS article in your mind is not a valid argument. The fact that this event recurs periodically is not a valid argument. Whether you believe I want a medal is not a valid argument. In fact, I would love to get a fifth WP:FOUR award. Heck I am hoping for 8 by year-end (Crown Fountain, McDonald's Cycle Center and Rob Pelinka are in the pipeline), but that is not an argument against this article. What makes no sense to me is that here I am going for my fifth WP:FOUR and then you make the case that I am out of my depth trying to evaluate articles against the FA criteria. Which is it? Am I trying to pile awards on top of my awards or am I too inexperienced in the process to pursue awards. P.S. I apologize none of my WP:FOUR awards are SS-related.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [50].
7th Infantry Division (United States)
- Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easily passed MILHIST A-class review. I believe all major points meet FA criteria. —Ed!(talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Except for the purely-decorative tiny icons, which should have "|link=" instead of alt text (see WP:ALT #When to specify).Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, a very nice job on the images you did. But 3 images still need alt text: the Ingman portrait and the two maps. For the maps, I suggest briefly summarizing the gist of what the maps show rather than go into a lot of detail. (A general on the phone asks you to describe each map in 40 words or less: what do you say?) Eubulides (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. (for the maps, I forgot to put the "alt" in the caption) How does it look now? -—Ed!(talk) 03:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks good. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. (for the maps, I forgot to put the "alt" in the caption) How does it look now? -—Ed!(talk) 03:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, a very nice job on the images you did. But 3 images still need alt text: the Ingman portrait and the two maps. For the maps, I suggest briefly summarizing the gist of what the maps show rather than go into a lot of detail. (A general on the phone asks you to describe each map in 40 words or less: what do you say?) Eubulides (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the Template: Citation. As for the two websites, the first is self-explanatory. tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil is a US Military website and part of the Pentagon's network, as evident from the address. I switched the arlington.net ref (#114) to a more reliable source: an article in the Washington Post. —Ed!(talk) 19:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 00:39, 5 August 2009 [51].
Stanford Memorial Church
- Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now fulfills all the criteria for an FA. With lots of help, including from MemChu's organist, I also believe that all the issues/concerns from this article's previous FAC have been addressed. The close paraphrasing problem is now solved, thanks to Awadewit, who has approved moving forward with this FAC. The images are much improved. The "gaps in content" (architecture, earthquakes, staff) are now closed, thanks to the research assistance of Erp. Even Scartol contributed, by creating the article's attractive tables. There's even a video of the above-mentioned Robert Huw Morgan playing one of the church's organs. The improvement of this article has been a real labor of love for all of us involved. I believe that the article is as pretty as the church is, and deserving of that silver star. --Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.To support this, I suggest using table syntax or {{multiple image}} instead of galleries, as per H:IOUF #Gallery tag, category, table of images; see, for example, Unification of Germany #Germania depicted. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks, as Scartol knows, I su--I'm really bad at tables and coding and such. Makes it looks much better, I think. Doncha love the collaborative nature of the project! --Christine (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables (formerly galleries) now have alt text
, but this still needs work. For example, File:Memchu hopedetail.jpg's alt text is "hope detail", which says almost nothing about appearance: it should be something like "Pointed bottom of a colorful mosaic labeled "HOPE" whose margin has a head with flowering ivy. The mosaic is in a spandrel framed by stonework featuring the head of a woman." (or something like that: someone expert in architecture could no doubt do a better job). Also, the images that were not in galleries all need alt text. For example, the image in the lead infobox needs alt text; please see Template:Infobox religious building/testcases for a suggestion for that one. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Completed. Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant, since this is the only time I've seen something like this requested during an FAC. I don't understand, though, why you would request something that my browser doesn't even show. Ah, well, I obey. --Christine (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not for your browser; it's for the browsers of visually impaired readers who cannot see the images (see WP:ACCESSIBILITY). Please try to pretend that you're someone new to the topic who is briefly explaining what you see to someone over the telephone. Don't interpret the image or explain where it came from (that's for the caption, or the main text).
The current alt text still needs some work, I'm afraid. For example, for Image:Memorialchurch1903.jpg the alt text is currently "Stanford Memorial Church, as it appeared prior to the 1906 earthquake. Notice the clock tower, which was never replaced." Almost none of this alt text describes visual appearance: only "church" and "clock tower" do that. The alt text should be reworded to describe the visual appearance only. For example, "Facade of church, in front of a clock tower that is another story higher than the facade".- For more about this sort of thing, please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples.
Please review and revise the other alt text examples in the light of those WP:ALT sections.Thanks.
- Eubulides (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooohh! Ding--the light bulb goes on. It's an accessibility thing. As we used to say in grad school, the ADA rules!! Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. Hope my improvements are adequate. If not, could someone else improve on my attempts? --Christine (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry my explanation was so bad. It's not an ADA thing, it's a W3C thing, but you've got the basic idea right. Thanks for working on it. I tweaked the alt text you added to try to conform a bit better to WP:ALT #What not to specify.
However, two images (marked "alt=??") are still lacking alt text; could you please fill those in? (One of them has two captions but no alt text; I expect that one of the captions was intended to be the alt text, but can't tell which one, which is a sign that the alt text needs work.)Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- There, now I've got it. Thanks for catching the ones I missed. Done, I think. --Christine (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and thanks for doing that. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There, now I've got it. Thanks for catching the ones I missed. Done, I think. --Christine (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry my explanation was so bad. It's not an ADA thing, it's a W3C thing, but you've got the basic idea right. Thanks for working on it. I tweaked the alt text you added to try to conform a bit better to WP:ALT #What not to specify.
- Ooohh! Ding--the light bulb goes on. It's an accessibility thing. As we used to say in grad school, the ADA rules!! Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. Hope my improvements are adequate. If not, could someone else improve on my attempts? --Christine (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Completed. Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant, since this is the only time I've seen something like this requested during an FAC. I don't understand, though, why you would request something that my browser doesn't even show. Ah, well, I obey. --Christine (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables (formerly galleries) now have alt text
- Done. Thanks, as Scartol knows, I su--I'm really bad at tables and coding and such. Makes it looks much better, I think. Doncha love the collaborative nature of the project! --Christine (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks. --Christine (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I copyedited this article several months ago, and I'm impressed by all the additional research and work that has been poured into it. I wish we could eliminate the horizontal scroll bar, but those images of the stained-glass windows are just too lovely to shrink. Assuming the alt-text specifics are worked out, I see no reason why this shouldn't be certified as an FA. Well-written, exhaustively researched, and lovingly polished. Kudos to all involved! Scartol • Tok 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't support this yet. There were umpteen errors screaming out for correction.
- Real solid mistakes about the events of the 1906 earthquake and the process by which the building became damaged. Half a dozen mis-statements in that category at least. I believe I have fixed them.
- Twice the present facade was described as having a "quatrefoil" window. It doesn't. That was removed in the 1913 rebuilding.
- The alt descriptions, which had been laboured over (I know that) simply hadn't had enough looking to get them really right. The figure of God (or possibly Moses) was described as an "angel". The figure of an angel (Cherubim if you like) was called "head of a woman". chancel windows were called "clerestory" windows. They are not.
- A great deal of the information that was present was badly organised. If you are starting on the personnel, stick to it. Don't suddenly shove in the dimensions of the building. They don't belong there.
- Things that were placed in order were often not in an order that was logical ie size, importance, chronology.
- The word "edifice" was used without understanding.
...... I have given the article a bit of an overhaul, but I'm sure it still needs correction.
- Formatting. Placing picture side by side is effective if they are the same size exactly. If you do this with pics of different shapes and sizes, it looks ghastly. It is better to just have a small gallery and be done with it. Layout is important to the general effect of your article.
- Can I suggest that you reread the article very carefully, because I can be certain sure that I will inadvertently have introduce typos, gaps, things you don't like and perhaps an error or two along the way. I'm a very sloppy typist for a start, and I use British spelling that you might want to fix.
- If I cvan help with architectural concepts/terminlogy, drop me a message. Amandajm (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Amanda, thanks for your input. I've noticed your edits and the above comments, but haven't been able to address them because I've been swamped with actual real-life work (for which I'm actually getting paid) and family obligations. It's my hope that I'll get to it before the weekend. Thanks for your patience. --Christine (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I started looking at some of the newer edits to this article, and although I'm only at the start of my review, I already have a question. When I re-submitted this article for FAC, every statement made in it could be backed up by reliable sources, which parallels my understanding of what an FA should be. It was obvious, though, that this article's main editor (that would be me) has never viewed or set foot in the church, so many of the descriptions of its appearance and architecture were lacking. I depended upon the descriptions of others, most notably Robert C. Gregg in his book, Glory of Angels. Gregg's book was invaluable in the final improvement of this article in preparation for this FAC. Amandajm's additions, however, have obviously been written by someone who knows the church. So here's my question: does a description of a physical object that's the subject of a WP article by a viewer constitute OR? One of the examples of similar FAs provided during this article's last FAC, St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery, seems to do the same thing, although not as extensively. If it's not OR, then much of Amandajm's edits can stand; if not, we're gonna have to restructure them. --Christine (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fix the citation errors. On a very quick runthrough, I spotted copyedit and MOS needs. I left some inlines, and suggest a tighter copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerning descriptions. Your average person can look at a Notre Dame de Paris (for example) and say "The cathedral has three doors, two towers, a rose window in the middle and rows of statuary". Someone with a knowledge of medieval architecture will describe the style of the rose window as "Rayonnant" and refer to the statues as being in a "gallery".
- This description:
- The facade faces the Inner Quad, and is connected to other buildings by arcades which extend laterally. The entry is through a narthex or porch extending across the building. The nave has a single aisle on either side, separated by an arcade with a clerestory above it. The crossing is formed by a structure of square plan which once supported the central tower. Over it is a shallow dome supported on pendentives and rising to a skylight. Arches separate the central structure from the nave, transepts and chancel. The chancel and transepts are apsidal. There are galleries in the transepts and an organ gallery above the narthex in the nave. The sanctuary in the chancel is raised on steps.
- ...is based on primary sources (ie photographs of the building), with the exception of the first two facts which were already written into the article. This is all very simple stuff.
- There is cited reference to the style of architecture of Stanford having been inspired by the Piazza of St Marco. This, of course, (and most significantly,) includes the facade of St Mark's Basilica. It is St Mark's that is reflected in this church, not in its shape, but in its mosaics and stone carving. Although mainly dating from the Romanesque period, St Marks stone carvings and mosaics, as well as the mosaics and large panel paintings by late medieval artists such as Cimabue, Duccio, and others, are generally referred to as Italian Byzantine in style. In other words, the 'known source' of the decoration at Stanford is described as Italian Byzantine, therefore the style of decoration at the MemChu is also Byzantine.
- However, a cited source describing the decoration as Byzantine would be a good thing to have. I'll look through the online sources to see if and where the word has been used.
- The other stuff is not OR. I just happen to know the correct terminology for what I'm looking at. If I made a claim like '"the style of the mosaics resembles that of the Sacristy of Westminster Cathedral", then I would be saying something so specific that it would definitely be Personal Research, unless referenced to another source.
- ...and no, I've never been there.
- Amandajm (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Amandajm, you are introducing unformatted citations;[52] articles cannot pass FAC without correctly formatted citations (see WP:WIAFA), so please assure that your edits conform with the criteria. If you are uncertain of how to do so, it may be wise to discuss edits on talk first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unformatted citations are the least of the problems. Anyone who knows how to format them can fix them. Having a citation in place, is better than no citation at all. Sandy, if you know how to format citations, why not just do it, while I get on with the research? Why bother leaving a messages that takes longer to write than correcting the problem? The links are there. Go for it!
- The PR problem. I found sources referring to the Byzantine nature of the decoration. I also took a careful look and juggled some of the wording, in order that what was stated complied with the available sources.
- There was one addition of mine which was decidely PR. It concerned the chancel being similar to those of the churches of Ravenna. I deleted this. Everything else is a straightforward statement of what is clearly visible. It is not interpretive in any way.
- There is a quotation about the glass of the large facacde window which says something like "there is facetted glass set in like glass". It sems to be a mistake. Could the writer check this quotation and see what it really says?.
- Amandajm (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the error; the correct word is "gems"--inset like gems". Thanks for the catch. --Christine (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked at the article of St Michael's Golden Domed Monastry, that you mmentioned about. There is a paragraph which describes a previous (partly speculated) state of the building. There is only one citation, but I would believe that the entire description came from the same cited source.
- Other than that, there is quite a lot of historic and interpretative material in that article that has no given source. To make an unsourced statement that "the design is based on that of the Church of So-on at Somewhere" is not the same as looking at the building and saying "it has four domes clustered around a larger central dome. They are onion-shaped and gilded."
- The article also has a stupid contradiction at the beginning of the history. It presumes that the reader thinks/knows somethinmg, and tells the reader it isn't true, without the reader having a clue! I'll leave them a message. It really isn't FA stuff! I don't know how it got there.
- Amandajm (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checked the dates. That article has been an FA for 3 years. Standars have gone up since 2006. Amandajm (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I shall be supporting this, when I have finished digesting it becasue it s very good. However, I keep thinking in certain sections that I have read this before, but I suppose when history and architecture are rightly seperated that is going to happen. This phrase "the Rev. Scotty McLennan, has stated that although she "built an unambiguously Christian church, with Jesus' outstretched arms of love at the very pinnacle of the mosaic facade outside, and Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection gloriously portrayed in 19 large stained-glass windows, ... there were rabbis and priests and imams speaking [at the church] right from the..." I lost interest in what the boring man was saying and never reached the end of the quote; let's leave things like "Jesus' outstretched arms" out of an encyclopedic page, no matter who said it. Giano (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, G. I figured the easiest thing to do was to just delete the thing. Which, as a "touchy-feely" type, was really hard for me to do! ;) --Christine (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For Amandajm: In the Plan section, you wrote the following: "There are deep galleries with swept balustraded fronts..." I'm assuming there are typos here. I changed it to my best guess: "with swept balustraded". Could you make sure this is correct? Also, should "baulustraded" be wikilinked, since (I'm assuming) it's an architectural term? --Christine (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not "swept" that means curves rising or falling in Baroque terms; if you look here [53] they are concave or convex (I can never remember which is which). Giano (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response "Swept balususutradeded fronts" is not my doing. However, they do appear to be balustraded. And they are concave.Amandajm (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, someone who knows what they're doing needs to change this, please. I've never said that that person was me, so I appreciate those of you who have filled in my deficiencies. --Christine (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not "swept" that means curves rising or falling in Baroque terms; if you look here [53] they are concave or convex (I can never remember which is which). Giano (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now fully tuned to the page, it is very long - too long; I think the Rev Scotty needs only a mention, all that about his books and so forth can be shunted off to a page of his own, that and all the other priest/Chaplains stuff is making the page to clumbersome. If they all have pages of their own, all that need to be said is when they were incumbant. Why not start a page Priests of Mem Chu or whatever?Giano (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: The prose size of this article is 42kb, which is a pretty average length. Scartol • Tok 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so, but the page drags a little there, as some of these people already have their own pages, is it necessary to have so much about them there? Those 2 sections could be realy tightened - it does seem heavy reading and is not really strictly about the church. Giano (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, G. I've been pondering about it, though, and I vote to keep the section in. It's there because sometime in this long process, someone recommended that the article have a "Staff" section because they felt that there needed to be something about MemChu's current ministry. The church and its business is still a vital part of the university, through its staff, and its article should reflect that. I'm sorry you find it so boring! ;) --Christine (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so, but the page drags a little there, as some of these people already have their own pages, is it necessary to have so much about them there? Those 2 sections could be realy tightened - it does seem heavy reading and is not really strictly about the church. Giano (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: The prose size of this article is 42kb, which is a pretty average length. Scartol • Tok 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, keep a staff section, perhaps grinning priests just make me nevous, but this whole paragraph "McLennan, who is a Unitarian Universalist minister, was an activist neighborhood lawyer"[49] in Boston before becoming a university chaplain, first at Tufts University.[49] At Stanford, McLennan has taught courses in ethics and business. He is author of the books Finding Your Religion: When the Faith You Grew Up With Has Lost Its Meaning and Jesus Was a Liberal: Reclaiming Christianity for All and co-authored Church on Sunday, Work on Monday: The Challenge of Fusing Christian Values With Business Life.[50] Garry Trudeau, who was McLennan's roommate when they were students at Yale University, based his Doonesbury character, the Rev. Scot Sloan, in part on McLennan.[49]" Has nothing to do with the subject watsoever, and needs to be shunted to his pwn page - It almost sounds as though you are plugging his books (I'm sure with catchy titles like that, he will hit the 100 best sellers, without your help) What I'm trying to say is, it is dull and of no interest to anybody disinclined to click the link about the man. Just introduce him as an author and old student and let the blue link do the rest. The same with the rest of them, keep it short and punchy. Giano (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're too funny. Grinning priests make you nervous. Your humor and good graces have changed my mind, kind sir. I deleted most of the above, but kept the activist lawyer bit and the Doonesbury connection. Should I make similar deletions for the rest of the staff? --Christine (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No that will do, if that's how you want it - it's much improved and so much easier to read- it will need updating from time to time though. Lemme have a last flick through and I'll support. Giano (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just spotted this which may need calrifying: "Members of the university community use the sanctuary for "quiet, for reflection, and for private devotions" - do they actually use the sanctuary? The "unordained" in the sanctuary, isn't that unusual? Shouldn't they stay chancel-side on the sanctuary steps? Giano (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The sanctuary is not used. --Erp (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Giano (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as I am about to support, I see someone has made this edit [54], I won't revert in case the editor in question is a principal editor of this page, but it looks dreadful, the MOS does not demand that all images (especialy on those concerning arts and architecture) have unspecified sizes. The small images look silly and spoil the pages appearance and no longer assist the text in an illlustrative manner - which is the point of them. MOS rules are not blanket enforcable.Could Sandy or Roaul confirm this's it's one of those thigs that seems to confuse people.Giano (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you tell me to, I will revert. I'm not afraid to do so. --Christine (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Giano (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The sanctuary is not used. --Erp (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late, me and Her from Oz have already done it! Giano (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone who knows the place re-write this for clarity "Behind the communion table, in the church's apse, contains a raised floor originally used for commencement ceremonies, as well as a mosaic reproduction of Roselli's "Last Supper",..." and whilsy doing it lose the "as well as". Sorry to keep nit-picking - the sun is beaming through the new oculi at its looking pretty good. Giano (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sweetie, it's all right. Aren't you supposed to be picky? ;) At any rate, I changed it to: Behind the communion table, in the church's apse, is a raised floor, originally used for commencement ceremonies, and a mosaic reproduction of Roselli's "Last Supper". Golden mosaic niches have been placed at the right of the communion table. Does that work for ya? --Christine (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Raised floor", "ceremonial purpose"......that's a dais isn't it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understood it to mean mezanine - so it needs to be clarified. Giano (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm - looking at these File:Memchu altar pulpit.jpg File:Memchu wedding.jpg, I'd say it wasn't a mezzanine. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "to the right....." who's right - clergy or leity? Better east - west etc. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there are actually two raised levels in the chancel. The first starts with a semi-circular stair, on the east side is the pulpit and on the west side the lectern (both are just visible in the picture linked above). Further south is the straight altar rail and stair to the second level, the sanctuary, where the marble altar and behind that the Last Supper mosaic are. I have never actually seen the altar used in a service, generally a communion table is set on the first raised level, if the service includes communion, and that is also where most performances I've seen are. --Erp (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understood it to mean mezanine - so it needs to be clarified. Giano (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Raised floor", "ceremonial purpose"......that's a dais isn't it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sweetie, it's all right. Aren't you supposed to be picky? ;) At any rate, I changed it to: Behind the communion table, in the church's apse, is a raised floor, originally used for commencement ceremonies, and a mosaic reproduction of Roselli's "Last Supper". Golden mosaic niches have been placed at the right of the communion table. Does that work for ya? --Christine (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it does! SUPPORT. Giano (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Position of Communion table. Don't use this as a reference point at all. The chancel is the chancel. It architecturally part of the building. That is the reference point. So we say that the floor of the chancel is raised by three steps. (it is almost alweays three, but the number can be verified by looking at the plan.) As for the raised bits under the pulpit and lectern, it is so nnormal and unremarkable as to hardly require description.
- For the record the chancel floor is raised by 7 steps in MemChu. The back half behind the altar rail is raised another 2 steps. --Erp (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just seen (per this edit [55]) this plan File:Memchu.svg, it needs to be incorporated and used as a reference, why has it not been? I am all for this being a FA,but I can see no excuse for this not being 'very used - is there a reason? Giano (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an argument about possible copyright problems. See end of first FAC archive discussion, I think it is possible ok but I think we need the experts' opinions --Erp (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, funnily enough I know someone who is very good at drawing plans - I beleive I noticed him "supporting" somwehere below me a moment ago. Giano (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure - might take me a few days - till Monday say if Sandy/Raul etc. can keep this open until then. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be so marvy if you did that. I've been giving virtual kisses during this FAC; JC, if you drew a plan, you'd get one, too. As far as keeping the nom open 'til Monday, that's something that gives me pause, since it means more time for more hands, which will make things more complicated. Is there any way this article can pass with this pending? I mean, will not having a plan prevent it from passing before Monday? And regarding the support below, I'm changing my nickname of this article to "'my' pretty little article" to "'my' lovely little article. ;) --Christine (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely more hands (and eyes) are to be welcomed? Anyway - it might not take me that long......--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure - might take me a few days - till Monday say if Sandy/Raul etc. can keep this open until then. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely article by the way, despite the infobox.--Joopercoopers (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Holding, pending plan. Also, the section regarding retrofitting..... First sentence says the building was extensively retrofitted. Then second sentence says the building was rebuilt. You can't really do both as a 'retrofit' rather implies there's something there upon which to 'fit'. I'd just say the building was rebuilt with the new measures to guard against future earthquake damage. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a major reconciliation of the "interior". Hope it meets with approval. Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the 'retrofitting' problem meself, plan on the way in 1hr. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a major reconciliation of the "interior". Hope it meets with approval. Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on criterion 3 - Hopefully these can be fixed quickly.
- File:Memorialchurch.jpg - The license for this image is CC-by-SA 2.5, but the website does not indicate that license. Perhaps I missed it?
- I have sent an email to the photographer to release the correct license. --Christine (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case he decides not to (he's a professional photographer and might be reluctant to do so), you might want to think about other image could be used there. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an issue, since I just received an email from the photographer releasing the license. Could someone please direct me what to do next? Do we go through OTRS, like with the Morgan file? --Christine (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, OTRS is the way to go. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request at OTRS has been made. --Christine (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, OTRS is the way to go. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an issue, since I just received an email from the photographer releasing the license. Could someone please direct me what to do next? Do we go through OTRS, like with the Morgan file? --Christine (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case he decides not to (he's a professional photographer and might be reluctant to do so), you might want to think about other image could be used there. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Robert Huw Morgan Bach FugueG.ogg - OTRS permission is not yet sufficient. Note the tag: "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read as ticket 2009062010003299 by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file.
- Dr. Morgan released the correct permission, but the OTRS guy didn't make the change to reflect this. I've resent a reminder requesting that the change be made. --Christine (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: the change has been made, so this concern is addressed. --Christine (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Memchu mosaics.jpg - We need to add information to the image description explaining why the mosaics are in the PD.
- Please forgive my denseness, but I'm not certain how to address this. Could someone else take care of this?
- File:Exterior mosaic2.jpg - Here is an example. Awadewit (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, gotcha. Done. --Christine (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Exterior mosaic2.jpg - Here is an example. Awadewit (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to check, were the interior mosaics made by the same people at exactly the same time as the exterior mosaics? (I see you have copied the info from the image I linked above, so I am assuming that is the case.) Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were indeed made by the same people and at the same time. The exterior mosaics had a couple of reworks in the 1910's as the initial setup due to window style change and removal of the dedication to a side panel after the earthquake didn't satisfy the Board of Trustees. The interior ones didn't have much done beyond repair work. I need to reread the article myself to make sure there is nothing I know is wrong.--Erp (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to check, were the interior mosaics made by the same people at exactly the same time as the exterior mosaics? (I see you have copied the info from the image I linked above, so I am assuming that is the case.) Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Christine (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading article now. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support - As Christine mentioned, I worked a bit on this article, but its transformation since I last saw it is wonderful. The additional detail about the architecture is excellent. In my opinion, it is well-sourced, comprehensive, and well-written. I will fully support as soon as the image issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing my typos etc. There are still quite a few red links to various people. Do we need a few more stubs on them, or are they not yet suuficiently notable for Wiki articles? Can someone decide? They look messy at present! Amandajm (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So I just read and jiggered with the organs.... My goodness that Organ Morgan (see Under Milk Wood) has an overabundance of enthusiasm! Just a couple of good quotes was enough! Amandajm (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Huw Morgan is an enthusiast (and a native Welshman). I gather on the gossip line that he is hoping for a fifth organ for the church soon.--Erp (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Stanford_Memorial_Church_Plan.jpg/250px-Stanford_Memorial_Church_Plan.jpg)
Plan completed - please let me know if any additions or alterations are required. I'll place it in the article somewhere appropriate. I've had to infer the locations and swings of some of the doors, and I had insufficient information to include the window penetrations, but this should be sufficient for our purposes. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Jooper! It's boo-tifoo! ;) --Christine (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the number of windows, it would probably be a bit cluttered. One thing is that the aisles (E) might imply there is no center aisle (the wording in the paragraph also implies this). I have the feeling another word is needed instead of 'aisle'. I think the swing of the side doors under the stairs are going the wrong way.--Erp (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- People being "walked up the aisle" is a popular misconception - you're walked up the nave .....that's not just a aphorism for the honeymoon. (the centre aisle is really the bit between the columns with the high roof = the nave) The aisles are definitely the walkways to the left and right of the nave, usually under the lower roof. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - is the infobox absolutely essential? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- Oh what a lovely beautiful plan! As for the info box.... I hate them! But because the TOC is rather long, the info box just sits there and doesn't disrupt the text and pictures below it, even on a wide shallow screen. So in this instance I'm prepared to leave it there to keep the lovers of info-boxes happy. I must say that I would love to visit this church and hear the Romantic "Rolls Royce" organ and the Maserati organ and the Continuo Organ and t'other organ! Wow! And how great those stained glass windows look! Now that I know how to line them all up like that, I have already used that formatting elsewhere. Amandajm (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Architectural type: Church" <rolls eyes>, this doesn't even make sense. Building type might, but given the name of the article includes 'church', there's absolutely no value in it whatsoever that I can see. The geographic location is repeated just a few lines down from the usual coordinates in the top right. Romanesque, Byzantine, pre-Raphaelite styles are listed, but does that really express the 'hybrid' nature alluded to in the article. Usual problems with infoboxes, which usually work well with subject with established taxonomies such as mushrooms, plants, subatomic particles etc. really not adding anything of value to arts articles. I'm tempted towards a bold removal, sorry Christine.......reaching for the edit button.........gonna....have......to.....loose.....it.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add, I'm likely in a minority view here, so please revert if you feel appropriate, my support is not contingent on the removal of the box. I just think the lead is better illustrated with an exterior and interior view, rather than an arbitrary collection of random facts of dubious use and value. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Architectural type: Church" <rolls eyes>, this doesn't even make sense. Building type might, but given the name of the article includes 'church', there's absolutely no value in it whatsoever that I can see. The geographic location is repeated just a few lines down from the usual coordinates in the top right. Romanesque, Byzantine, pre-Raphaelite styles are listed, but does that really express the 'hybrid' nature alluded to in the article. Usual problems with infoboxes, which usually work well with subject with established taxonomies such as mushrooms, plants, subatomic particles etc. really not adding anything of value to arts articles. I'm tempted towards a bold removal, sorry Christine.......reaching for the edit button.........gonna....have......to.....loose.....it.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind you removing the infobox, really. I lean towards your viewpoint about 'em. I figure if an article is lovelier without it, it's gone. Lovely articles may not be a WP policy, but it's one of mine. When Sesame Street gets closer to FA, I'll be fighting against its infobox, since it uglifies the thing. I think that losing the infobox in this article makes its lovelier, but I wish we had another image for the second one, one that shows a view of the nave, since we've already got a wedding image later on. I'm busy today, so Jooper, if you want to take care of that, and as long as it doesn't affect the FAC process, knock yerself out. --Christine (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True but the wedding is incidental really to the image of the interior architecture. I'll have a look in cold storage though.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, and kind of matches the colours of the first image which is nice. Will somebody double check the licensing, I think I've got it right....but.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind you removing the infobox, really. I lean towards your viewpoint about 'em. I figure if an article is lovelier without it, it's gone. Lovely articles may not be a WP policy, but it's one of mine. When Sesame Street gets closer to FA, I'll be fighting against its infobox, since it uglifies the thing. I think that losing the infobox in this article makes its lovelier, but I wish we had another image for the second one, one that shows a view of the nave, since we've already got a wedding image later on. I'm busy today, so Jooper, if you want to take care of that, and as long as it doesn't affect the FAC process, knock yerself out. --Christine (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:38, 5 August 2009 [56].
Soundgarden
- Nominator(s): -5- (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria for a featured article. The article is well-written and comprehensive. Any objections will be quickly addressed.-5- (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a couple unsourced paragraphs in the "Post-Soundgarden" section. Ref 1 needs a publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed most of that I think, but I may need some help as far as what needs to be referenced specifically.-5- (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I'll look around myself if -5- can't find anything for the "unsourced paragraphs". But I think -5- and the others have indeed adressed most of that and have done a really good job on this article and after a possible couple of fix-ups, if that, this article will be more than ready for FA status. Most of the article is well-sourced, the paragraphs go into good detail about their subjects and I do believe that most readers would be satisfied with the content here.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look through and if wanted, I could try to find another picture for the article, as the only one right now is at the top. Otherwise, I support this article reaching FA Status.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another picture to the article.-5- (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed as best I could. I've never done alt text before so it'll probably need a second look.-5- (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm afraid it still needs work.Alt text should mention only visual aspects, and these visual aspects should be easily verifiable by a non-expert. Please see the 3rd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. The alt text should not say "Soundgarden" or list names of people in the picture, for example, because that doesn't convey any useful information to the visually impaired reader. Please give it another try. Eubulides (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Okay, I made another attempt. I think this one's a big improvement.-5- (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, yes it is. I tweaked it a bit more. Eubulides (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never been a fan of these "List of awards and nominations received by ______" pages. I see that the Soundgarden award list was delisted as an FL and merged here. However, that doesn't mean you have to preserve the format, or even give the awards their own section. Work the awards into the band history prose, keeping in mind that album and song awards/nominations can typically go in the respective articles instead of this one. Alss, double-check links. You shouldn't be citing awards/noms from fansites or site like Acclaimedmusic.net. All in all this will make the article look cleaner and make it more readable. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't merge the list, that was User:Reywas92. I just left it as it was because Nirvana (band) now has its article the same way. I believe all of the awards are already mentioned in the article anyway.-5- (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Memo to self: clean up Nirvana (band). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure inline music samples would meet our non-free content requirements, as there is no indication how the samples add significantly to the reader's understanding. It might be better to have them in those standard sound sample boxes with a detailed descriptions of how that song illustrates Soundgarden's style.
- I think the first four paragraphs of the "Post-Soundgarden" should be removed (or at least condensed into a single paragraph). This article is about Soundgarden, not its members, and the info is redundant to their articles anyway. indopug (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed.-5- (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
A number of your websites lack last access dates.- Addressed.-5- (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original- Addressed.-5- (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes the following reliable sources?
http://www.toazted.com/playinterview/2245/Video-interview-with-Tom-Morello-27.htmlhttp://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/08/04/chris_cornell_keen_on_soundgarden_rariti/http://www.bullz-eye.com/music/interviews/2009/chris_cornell.htmhttp://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/video_news/cornell_hesitant_to_tamper_with_soundgarden_legacy.html
- Addressed. I've replaced or removed the first three references. The last reference I replaced with the original source of the quote, which is an interview with Cornell from Artisan News Service. It is a video interview, so there is no way they could have faked it, so it is reliable.-5- (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask what you replaced them with? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced the toazted.com article with an article from the New York Post, and I removed the paragraph that was referenced by the starpulse.com and bull-eye.com articles.-5- (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask what you replaced them with? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed. I've replaced or removed the first three references. The last reference I replaced with the original source of the quote, which is an interview with Cornell from Artisan News Service. It is a video interview, so there is no way they could have faked it, so it is reliable.-5- (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need time to perform a thorough review of the article's prose and source this week. By the way, I know there's a Soundgarden bio called New Metal Crown from 1994 or so. Can you get your hands on a copy? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pleasingly professional standard of writing. Well done! Nevertheless, I found a few things to fix as I drifted down from the top.
- "In 1986, Sundquist left the band to spend time with his family,[3] and was replaced by Matt Cameron,
who wasthe drummer for Skin Yard." - "35" but "twenty".
- Why is "United States" linked suddenly? I can see no country names that should be linked. And "Honolulu" and "Hawaii"? Is a reader likely to divert? If not, why not leave the many high-value links less diluted?
- Eight commas in half a sentence: "On March 24, 2009, Thayil, Cameron, and Shepherd reunited, with Tad Doyle on lead vocals, to perform "Hunted Down", "Nothing to Say", and ...". Easy ones to remove are after "2009" and "Cameron".
- "by stating that conversations between the band members have been limited to"—"had"? Tony (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC) PS My pet hate is "pg.", and I see "p." too. Wow, you have access to lots of hard-copy newspapers and similar resources from the 90s.[reply]
- "In 1986, Sundquist left the band to spend time with his family,[3] and was replaced by Matt Cameron,
- Query - Why wasn't Nickson's Soundgarden: New Metal Crown used in writing this article? It's one of the only serious books dedicated to the band, and it's known to be well-researched and insightful. It looks like you have a lot of the history of the band sourced to books and articles that are ostensibly about the general music scene or even about other bands; why neglect Nickson? --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't own it and don't plan on buying it at this time.-5- (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, 1c. The article neglects a major source about the band. I checked it out at Bookman's and it's full of material that could be used to expand this article and check the facts that are attributed to secondary sources about other bands. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [57].
Hepatorenal syndrome
- Nominator(s): Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meets all criteria in my opinion. The article recently went through WP:GAR where many additions were made. I invited many of our medical types and non-medical types to look over the text over the past month. All images are free; it was a challenge for me to find the TIPS image. I look forward to everyone's comments -- Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images all need alt text as per WP:ALT. Also, I suggest moving one of the images up into the lead infobox, as this will be more likely to cause a naive reader to look at the article.Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Alt text added to all images. -- Samir 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also image added to lead infobox -- Samir 09:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead infobox's image also needs alt text. The Pathophysiology diagrams' alt text doesn't sufficiently explain appearance to a visually impaired reader; see the diagrams near the bottom of WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. A nit: alt text typically shouldn't begin with phrases like "Image of".Eubulides (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I have placed ALT text on the schematics as: "Diagram: portal hypertension leads to splanchnic vasoconstriction, which decreases effective cirulatory volume. This leads to ascites due to renal sodium avidity and HRS due to renal vasoconstriction" and "Diagram: ascites, diuretic-resistant ascites and HRS are a spectrum. All occur in portal hypertension. Diuretic-resistance occurs with splanchnic vasodilation. When it progresses to renal vasoconstriction, HRS occurs." It is a little lengthy but explains the two images well. I have added the text: "Two part stained slide of altered cells of the liver on top labelled as alcoholic cirrhosis and cells of the kidney on the bottom labelled as being normal". Thoughts? Should the schematic ALT texts be shortened? -- Samir 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if anything lengthened a bit. I adjusted them and the lead-box alt text. Thanks for the help. Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Eubulides, appreciate it -- Samir 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks dealt with -- Samir 03:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a basic test that medical articles should pass, which I call the "Johnny test". Mom: "The doctor says that your uncle has something called hepatorenal syndrome." Johnny: What's that? Let me look it up on Wikipedia." Can Johnny get a useful answer? To some degree yes, but there's too much jargon. The first paragraph of the lead, at least, should give Johnny an overview he can understand, without jargon. How about something like this:
“ | Hepatorenal syndrome (often abbreviated HRS) is a life-threatening but treatable medical condition, in which the kidneys fail to function properly as a result of cirrhosis of the liver, which may be caused by alcoholism, injury, or infection. Patients with HRS are very ill, and if untreated the condition is usually fatal. Even with treatment, less than 50% of patients survive. The only long term solution is transplantation of a new liver. The aim of treatment is to keep the patient alive until transplantation is possible, using medications, and sometimes the surgical insertion of shunt to relieve pressure on the portal vein. In some cases periodic dialysis is necessary. | ” |
- I'm not an expert and probably got some things wrong here: I'm mainly trying to illustrate the level I believe the intro to a medical FA should aim for. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, needs some tweaking. Working on it, need a little but not much time. Thanks -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, how does the lead read now? I think it is very good personally -- Samir 06:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, concise and informative but easy to understand. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, how does the lead read now? I think it is very good personally -- Samir 06:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, needs some tweaking. Working on it, need a little but not much time. Thanks -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is an excellent and comprehensive article, but I agree with the above that the prose needs simplifying. For example, the phrase 'in the setting of' appears 8 times by my count, and sounds like doctor-speak in a way that may be off-putting to laypeople. As a minor aside, the two diagrams have jpeg jaggies; convert to SVG? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it. Thanks Opabinia. A pleasure to see you back around. -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take care of those diagrams tomorrow, if Samir won't mind. I'm surprised he didn't ask ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the best, man! Thanks dude -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still working on it, some family issues got in the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried vectorizing them myself Fvasconcellos? How does it look to you (Hepatorenal syndrome#Pathophysiology? -- Samir 07:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on the prose fixes. Samir, your vectorized versions still look a bit wonky to me - the text edges don't look clean. Is that just me? Good to be back, although it may not outlast travel next week, or the subsequent arrival of my new computer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not your computer; it is a bit wonky here also. I'm hoping Fvasconcellos gets a chance when he is free. -- Samir 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I will—should be done by tonight. So sorry about the delay, some RL stuff got in the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried vectorizing them myself Fvasconcellos? How does it look to you (Hepatorenal syndrome#Pathophysiology? -- Samir 07:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still working on it, some family issues got in the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the best, man! Thanks dude -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: sorry it has taken me a week to come and comment on this excellent article. It covers all the important aspects and I cannot detect any omissions or factual problems. I was still hoping that the following issues could be addressed:
- There's a fair number of primary sources, and I'm not entirely sure if each of these is backed up by a secondary source affirming their relative prominence in the evidence food chain.
- The word "Type" as in "Type 1" is capitalised. Could you clarify if this is in keeping with the WP:MOS (can't seem to find the relevant point).
- Clearly, if you have HRS, you'd like to be in Barcelona. Is there a source confirming that this seems to be the world capital of ascites/HRS currently? JFW | T@lk 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi JFW -- yes I agree we are top heavy on the primary cites. I think we reference all of the major review articles. I will tighten the citations -- need a bit of time but not too long. The "Type 1" vs. "type 1" convention is not standardized in the literature. Couldn't find anything in WP:MEDMOS. The portal hypertensive basic research, the database work on portal hypertensive complications, and the terlipressin data are all from Barcelona. The midodrine/octreotide work was from Italy (Padua) and the TIPS work is from Toronto. MARS work and the transplant data are from a number of centres. -- Samir 04:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To follow-up: (1) primary sources are now backed by one of the major review articles as secondary sources; (2) "type" has been changed to lowercase as the majority of review articles have it lowercase; (3) I can't find a reference for Barcelona as the major centre for HRS research, probably best if we do not reference that imo -- Samir 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, clearly ready for FA. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Axl:-
- From "Signs and symptoms": "The urine produced by individuals with HRS has a very low concentration of sodium, and typically does not contain cellular material when analyzed by microscopy. Detailed criteria for the diagnosis of HRS have been defined based on laboratory data and the clinical circumstances of the affected individual." These features are neither signs nor symptoms.
- From "Causes", paragraph 2: "iatrogenic precipitants of HRS include the aggressive use of diuretic medications". Is this correct? Isn't this a cause of hypovolaemia?
- From "Diagnosis", paragraph 2: "treatment with 1.5 litres of intravenous normal saline". Doesn't saline cause worsening ascites and oedema?
- From "Diagnosis", paragraph 3: " there is impairment of the ability of the renal tubules to concentrate urine in ATN, leading to urine sodium measurements that are much higher than in HRS". In ATN, tubules are unable to concentrate urine. Also, the urine sodium in ATN is high; higher than in HRS. However is it correct that the impaired concentration leads to high urinary sodium?
- I like the diagrams in the "Pathophysiology" section.
- Regarding the photo in the "Prevention" section, it may be helpful to say that this is an endoscopic view of the inside of the oesophagus.
- From "Prevention", paragraph 1: "removal of ascitic fluid may improve renal function if it decreases the pressure on the renal veins." Are you sure it's the veins, not the arteries?
Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Axl. Thanks very much for looking things over for the article.
- For signs and symptoms -- Rewritten. I have removed the urinary findings as they are rightly not signs and symptoms (and are mentioned elsewhere). I also re-wrote the last line to make the point that signs and symptoms do not make the diagnosis of HRS
- Causes para 2 -- yes diuretic medications are a common trigger for the hemodynamic changes in cirrhotics that lead to HRS
- Diagnosis para 2 -- yes the way to distinguish HRS from pre-renal failure is to "force" euvolemia by giving 1.5 L of NS to an affected individual (in pre-renal failure, the renal failure would improve and U Na would rise)
- Diagnosis para 3 -- re-written. Agree, I worded it wrong and it was confusing before. Hopefully it reads better now.
- Prevention photo -- added reference to esophagus to caption
- Prevention -- yes large volume paracentesis is supposed to decrease pressure on the renal veins (arterial pressure would not be affected) leading to improved renal function. This is classic teaching handed down from Sheila Sherlock's original text on liver diseases, but there has been little work evaluating it in the recent literature. -- Samir 17:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Samir, thanks for clarifying (and educating me!). I support the application for FA status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will begin now to take a look and likely make some straightforward copyediting changes as I go. Please feel free to revert any that inadvertently change the meaning. I will note queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Cas, appreciate it. -- Samir 05:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I am impressed - you've navigated the tightrope between medical exactness and plain english very very well! I was reduced to minor nitpicky things. It is comprehensive and I can't see any reason not to Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review – Everything is good now. NW (Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrific thanks NW -- Samir 05:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Just for the future, when you upload images like this one, could you point your links to the exact flickr image instead of the photostream and upload the images to Commons rather than Wikipedia? Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full support with Comments - What on earth does this mean, "The minor criteria are laboratory in nature"? And here, "Some viral infections of the liver, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C can also lead to inflammation of the glomerulus of the kidney", as far as I can tell, the reference only refers to chronic hepatitis B virus infections. And this, I think, is a mixed metaphor "Contributions by Murray Epstein cemented splanchnic vasodilation and renal vasoconstriction as hallmarks of the syndrome"— but no big deal. Graham Colm Talk 14:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Graham, I rewrote the two sentences in a clearer manner [58] [59] and added the reference to a nice 2001 review of renal diseases in hepatitis C. [60] Thanks -- Samir 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:07, 1 August 2009 [61].
J. C. W. Beckham
I have recently expanded this article from a number of sources, and it has had one thorough copyedit by another editor. I believe it meets the criteria for a featured article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I fixed the repetitive Beckham... Beckham sentence in the lead. In the future, you don't have to repeat the name, rather, mention the former or the latter, as I did. I think it's more helpful than repeating names in the same sentence. ceranthor 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - This is quite good.
I've done some copyediting; please look it over and make sure everything's okay with you.
- Yeah, this looks fine to me.
- Both the "Governor of Kentucky" and "U.S. Senator" sections (and by extension the article lead) seem heavily slanted towards how Beckham won those positions at the expense of what he did once he was in them. Is there really no more information on the latter subject? This article isn't really very long for somebody who essentially served two terms as Governor and one as Senator.
- I've consulted the major sources that I'm aware of. I know most of his first term was devoted to non-controversial issues and attempting to reunite the Democratic party after the disastrous election of 1899, so it isn't surprising that there are few highlights from this term. Interestingly, the Finch article, which is devoted to senators of this time period, devotes only a single paragraph to Beckham's actions as a senator. Apparently, the political machinations behind his elections were much more interesting than what he did in office.
I don't know what a "uniform school textbook law" is. I assume it's a law requiring the same textbooks to be used at schools throughout the state, but it could use some elaboration.
- I'll have to get back to you on this one. Most of the time, this is just referred to as the "uniform textbook law" in the sources I've found, but one of them might have a few more details. I'll have to double-check.
- I clarified this a little. It seems like I remember one of the sources having more about this, but I can't find it now. Anyway, the law was to set uniform textbook prices. Apparently, one company had a monopoly on textbooks in the state at the time, although the source doesn't say which company. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In March 1904, Beckham signed the Day Law mandating segregation of all schools in Kentucky." I assume that this refers to racial segregation, but it should probably be specified.
- Clarified.
"...on the Senate Committee on Military Affairs." Are no dates available for this? It would help balance the dates earlier in the sentence related to his committee chairmanship.
- Unfortunately, no. The only source that mentions his service on this committee is the FCHQ article by Finch.
"The head of the Jockey Club had lost his fortune and influence..." Do we know his name?
- His name was James B. Brown. I omitted it because it hadn't been mentioned elsewhere and because James Brown is such a common name. However, I've added it per your comment.
File:JCW_Beckham.jpg needs some updated information. The source is a broken link, and the copyright tag claims pre-1923 publication without any evidence (though that evidence might be in that broken link).Other images look good.
- I can't figure out why the link doesn't work. Let me tell you how to get to the image, and maybe you can help.
- Go to the Library of Congress web site: www.loc.gov.
- Select "Digital Collections" at the top of the page.
- Select "Prints and Photographs" (second column, second item)
- Select "I understand. I'm ready to search the catalog" (blue button)
- Search for "beckham"
- On my search, it is the fourth image of six. The title is "BECKHAM, JOHN CREPPS WICKLIFFE. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, 1915-1921" and the given date is 1915.
- When I select the link, the URL in my address bar is the one given at File:JCW_Beckham.jpg. But that link doesn't seem to work directly. Any suggestions?
- Sourcing looks good, links checked using linkchecker tool (are people other than Ealdgyth allowed to say that?). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I've made a library search of resources of my own to flesh out the sections on his political life, and I've come up dry. Accordingly, and with all of my other concerns being addressed, I'm now supporting. Good work. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Images lack alt text per WP:ALT. An editor can ping me at my talk page if they want someone else to have a go over coming days. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more work on the prose. I thought it might be acceptable, but the more I read, the more it appears to need an independent copy-edit. It's not a huge job. Random examples:
- Why are the images so tiny?
- I've just used the standard "thumb" directive. I thought that was best practice because it allowed the user's preferences to control the image size.
- Hey, Bush's 2000 theft wasn't the first time that had been done.
- And the Democrats started it. Who'da thunk it? (I can handle good-natured jabs at my party as long as the other side can take one back.)
- "As governor Beckham sought to unite his party and the state."—How can it be verified that he sought to unite the state? It sounds like the kind of puff politicians regularly come out with. Which parts of the state? Blacks and whites? Workers and bosses?
- I'd be OK with dropping "and state". My intent was to convey that the Goebel assassination bitterly divided folks on opposite sides of the debate, and indeed from what I've read, most everyone came down on one side or the other.
- Just checking: "Although the Kentucky Constitution prohibited governors from serving consecutive terms"—So this has since been changed?
- Yes, this was changed via a constitutional amendment in 1992. Didn't know if I needed to mention that explicitly or not.
- "non-controversial", but also jammed together as one word.
- Fixed.
- "8—1 decision" – an en dash, please. See WP:MOSDASH.
- Fixed. These stupid dashes will be the death of me. :)
- Consider using a colon: "With a successful legislative session behind him, Beckham made a bold political move in June 1906. He orchestrated an effort to set the Democratic gubernatorial and senatorial primaries in November – a full year before the gubernatorial election and two years before the senatorial election." Tony (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- Regarding an independent copy-edit, one has already been done by User:Prestonmcconkie, who I have found to be very good. I'm probably too close to the prose to identify problems, so if you could provide a list of them or recommend someone who could, that would be immensely helpful. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:23, 9 August 2009 [62].
Fertilisation of Orchids
- Nominator(s): dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it's about a fascinating subject, has reached Good article standard, and is timely in relation to the approaching 150th anniversary of publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species... dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supplement: please note that Fertilisation of Orchids was Darwin's first book after On the Origin of Species, and the first time he demonstrated the usefulness for research and the explanatory power of his theory of natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. Alt text is clear; unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jappalang (talk · contribs) is a good one to verify that images are in compliance (or Awadewit (talk · contribs)), and I didn't see that Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) had done a source check, so you might ping her. I noted in edit summary an inconsistent citation style between notes and references: publishers should be separated from title in notes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, have dropped a line to Jappalang, and implemented the corrections to citation style. Many thanks for helping with that, dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jappalang (talk · contribs) is a good one to verify that images are in compliance (or Awadewit (talk · contribs)), and I didn't see that Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) had done a source check, so you might ping her. I noted in edit summary an inconsistent citation style between notes and references: publishers should be separated from title in notes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. Alt text is clear; unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a source check, see diff here where I cleared it. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As per old nom. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per previous nom. This is an wonderful article. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image issues resolved: one image issue remained outstanding: File:Fertilisation of Orchids figure 29c.jpg incorporates a commons source image, File:Catasetum-saccatum.jpg, which is authorised for use, per Template:LarsenCopyright, but a request to Cookie to forward the emails on Commons:Authorization to use material from http://www.larsen-twins.dk to OTRS (commons:Commons:OTRS) has not yet been answered. I have therefore changed the illustration in the article to File:Fertilisation of Orchids figure 29d.jpg which composites two public domain images. If the LarsenCopyright authorisation is fully approved at a future date, the other image could be restored. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur that the image issues have been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I had a review and wanted to support before, but things suddenly changed and, well, I lost my chance. Anyway, I just have a few suggestions. 1. The image "Musk orchids in grassland" should be moved to the second paragraph of "Insect fertilisation of plants". I say this because of the formatting problems that happen with the header along with musk orchids being discussed in that area. 2. "After On the Origin of Species was published Darwin " Please put a comma after "published". The "aft" would denote a clause that is explanatory but unessential to the statement in the next clause (the one starting "Darwin"). The next comma, "editions, as", is unnecessary as it is logically part of the same clause and would not be separated (i.e. Darwin didn't do one, then something else happened. Instead, Darwin did 1 and 2 with the mutual verbal phrase "became involved"). 3. "During 1861 botany" Please put a comma before "botany". See "2" and also - this could be read as "1861 botany", as if there would be such a thing. :) 4. Please move the image "Catasetum macrocarpum" down a paragraph. It levels against a blockquote directly above and the formatting seems off. 5. In "British orchids", the section beginning "While the bee orchid showed adaptation for self-fertilisation" could be separated into its own section. The second image could be moved left and to the front of this paragraph to keep the two images from running into each other and giving a small break in the paragraph for readability. 6. If you move that image as suggested, you could move "Catasetum saccatum " to the top and to the right of that section and further remove the formatting problem. 7. At the end of "Further research by Darwin", you have a quote followed by a blockquote. I am unsure about this. Are the two connected? Is one quoting the other? Is there some way you can denote this so it wont be as confusing? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - My opinion on the primary sources is as follows - The work is a scientific book. Regardless if it was later proven wrong or challenged in any form, it was created as a work of science and has the rigor of a scientific work. The primary sourcing is necessary to explain the ideas behind the science. This is not the equivalent of a plot section, as a plot is mostly summary about opinion, instead of a rigorous scientific discovery that is argued. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and suggestions, I like the grammatical changes and some of the image moves work well for me. Not too sure about the position of the pencils with pollen masses: see how that looks for you. dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitting the paragraph some and moving the image does help with the readability. The changes are much more aesthetically pleasing and really help. The little details do matter a lot. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and suggestions, I like the grammatical changes and some of the image moves work well for me. Not too sure about the position of the pencils with pollen masses: see how that looks for you. dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per my comment on the previous nomination. It is a very nice piece that meets the FA criteria and is very informative. I particularly enjoyed the backcround and botany as recreation sections give a great feel for how natural history was done in the Victorian era with informal correspondance networks and leading naturalists putting notices in popular journals to solicit readers to submit their observations on a topic. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All my concerns have been met except 1 that was debatable. The article has made it clear that the book, although known only to specialists, has been important and influential, and a worthy complement to Origin of Species. I hope to see it on the main page before the end of 2009. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as in previous nom. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can the punctuation on this sentence be improved?
- He explained the mechanism by which it fired its sticky pollen mass at an insect that touched an "antenna" on the flower, referring to experiments imitating its action using a whalebone spring.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comma followed by a dash: is that the punctuation in the cited source?
- flower is due to a long course of slow modification,—each modification having been
- In my examination of Orchids, hardly any fact has so much struck me as the endless diversity of structure,—the prodigality of resources,—for gaining the
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [63].
Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)
- Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a boring article about a boring man who did some boring things. I'm bothering with it only because I'm trying to make Premiers of Alberta into a featured topic. On the upside, the article is quite short. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Charles_Stewart.jpg - It is unclear how this images is PD Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the tag, it's in the public domain because its creator died more than 50 years ago (in 1938, to be exact). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At least, that's why it's in the public domain in Canada. It's in the public domain in the United States because it was in the public domain in Canada as of January 1, 1996. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Another finely written article. I really only have two concerns:
- The description of Stewart's relationship with UFA as being "frosty" seemed a bit odd. It's stated that he was a member of UFA, opposed their politicization, but that he still worked well with them after, and that UFA refused to run a candidate against him, or attack his government. Suddenly, as a federal minister, his relationship seems much worse, and full of ill will. There appears to be a gap here where the relationship turned sour. Or, perhaps, a little clarification that his relationship with the Farmers' government deteriorated upon becoming a federal minister?
- His post-political career seems mighty thin. Is there nothing that can be said of his participation with the organizations he chaired? Or any private business ventures? Resolute 01:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To your first point, good point. Does this help? Part of the problem is that there's no source that comprehensively covers his relationship with the UFA as Premier and as federal cabinet minister: Jaques and Thomas don't deal with his federal career in any detail, while Foster and Wardhaugh don't say much about his career as Premier. Reading between the lines, I think he felt a little betrayed that the UFA sought to replace his government after he'd been so accommodating towards them. To your second point, I haven't been able to find anything, and at this point I'm not sure where to look (I'm almost certain it would have to be in primary sources of some kind). Note that by the time he left politics he was close to seventy; I surmise that he wasn't all that active post-retirement, though that's just a guess. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think on the first point, it's the word "remained" that I object to. It implies a degradation of a relationship that isn't explained beforehand. Probably just changing it to "his relationship with the UFA was frosty..." As to the second, I can't imagine the needle in a haystack that searching through newspapers would be, with the possible exception of checking after the date of his death for an obit that might add more. It is an odd section though. In short, it says "Stewart sat on two councils then died" in the first paragraph, while the second is a one sentence rehash of the entire article. Now THAT is summary style! ;) Resolute 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced "remained" with "were", and inserted one more sentence (literally the only one I could find in any of my sources) in the section on his later life. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm satisfied with the article's quality and comprehensiveness. All images are PD, references look good to me. Resolute 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources: all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy yet. Examples from the top:
- MOSLINK recommends that major countries such as Canada/ian not be linked.
- Fixed.
- as his replacement. And another causality that is wrongly used as intransitive: "the UFA politicized during Stewart's premiership". (was policitized?)
- Fixed.
- Consider a new sentence for "When Sifton ...". I'm picking up a slightly tendency to overuse semicolons where a stop might normally be used. I say this even though I'm a supporter of semicolon use. See "; even so".
- I have been known to average more than one semicolon per sentence; I'll do a cull.
- "Unable to match the UFA's appeal to rural voters, Stewart was defeated at the polls and resigned as premier." Does that mean he was personally defeated in his electorate, or his government was defeated? Isn't resignation as premier a foregone conclusion in either case?
- Clarified that it was his government that was defeated. And no, resignation as Premier is not foregone - see Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King's decision to remain Prime Minister after losing the 1925 election, for example. In a Westminster Parliamentary system, the Premier remains Premier until he/she either resigns or is defeated in a parliamentary confidence vote. While it's customary to opt to resign after losing an election (the assumption often being that defeat in a confidence vote would be imminent), it's not automatic. Moreover, it was still less a foregone conclusion in this case, since there was thought that Stewart might lead the new UFA government (which I didn't think warranted a mention in the lead, but which is covered quite thoroughly later one).
- "an agreement that transferred control of Alberta's natural resources from Ottawa to the provincial government"—silliest thing the federal government EVER did.
- Sorry, I'm feeling dim - I'm rereading this, but I'm not sure that I see the problem.
- It was a meta-comment: Alberta hogs the lion's share of oil-shale revenue, which many people feel should be shared more equitably through the dominion.
- "in 1935, so too was Stewart"—clarify here that he lost his seat.
- Who was Macdonald? Suddenly he bounds into the text ...
- Hamiltonstone addressed this.
- Causality treated awkwardly again: "After marrying Sneath, he converted to her Church of England faith.". Sounds forcible.
- Not certain that I agree here.
- Sorry, I misread it as "converted her to". It's fine.
- Ref 1 repeated six times in a row in one para, having made five consecutive appearances in the previous para. Then 3, 3, 3. Can you attend to these repetitions throughout? Better one ref number at para's end, unless there are particularly contentious statements during the para that need to be specifically marked. (But they're mostly trivial.)
- My own view is (obviously) in line with Hamiltonstone's. I think dense referencing helps guard against the tendency for new material of uncertain provenance being added. Using a single reference per paragraph makes it easy for unreferenced material to be added to that paragraph while appearing to be supported by the reference at paragraph's end. Since reviewers are divided on this question, I'll hold off on making any change until consensus develops.
- Dense referencing is no such guard against subsequent insertions that are not attributable to the source. So sentences 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have a [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], and senctence 2 has no ref? You still have to check periodically, and as a FA you'd have it on your watchlist. What the density does do is clutter the text and irritate the reader. I strongly suggest that you ration the boring repetitions of the ref number to one or two, placed possibly at the end of one of the more important sentences during the para, and at the end (usually, one at the end is preferable, unless it's a long para or has a contentious statement within it). This is a signal to the reader that everything in the para is attributable to that source, as a default. Please have a look at a few other FAs to see how it's done. Like overlinking, over referencing makes the text look unprofessional. WP's editors are expected to exercise judgement here, in the normal practice of academic/research text, rather than slavishly covering their asses by plastering numbers after every single sentence.
- OK, if this is a sticking point, Steve I'm happy to defer to Tony's greater experience with these things. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that I've now removed all consecutive instances of identical references in the same paragraph. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "in which he defeated Conservative William John Blair handily"—the last word is colloquial. "easily defeated".
- Fixed.
Needs an independent copy-edit throughout. Referencing needs scrutiny for tedious reps. Tony (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've arranged for a copyedit from User:Roux; hopefully it will meet with your approval. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments leaning to support
- Excellent scope, structure and good general style.
- The range of sources seems a little narrow for someone who appears to have been quite a high profile figure, but it may represent all the sound scholarly material available.
- It does. For context, during this period Alberta's population was well under a million, so Stewart headed the government of an entity that, population-wise, was the size of a small city. Moreover, provincial premiers during this era, in contrast to now, were figures of relatively minor importance, since it was only the advent of the welfare state (during which government spending on areas of provincial responsibility, such as education and health, increased radically) that elevated them to effective full partners in Confederation. He has never been the subject of a book-length biography, and the material available on his premiership is in line with comparable figures. I was surprised not to find more on his federal role, but I've done a thorough survey of the material available about the King ministry and Stewart barely figures in most of it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some copyediting in early parts, but have to stop now - I only hope they are improvements rather than the opposite. I'm not of the same view as Tony, though: I favour dense referencing, even if it is the same ref. If the article gets sliced and diced, that way the refs stay with the material they source - not so likely to be the case if one has one cite at the end of the para. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help. Your work definitely improved the article, though it added a semicolon to an already semicolon-dense piece of work. I might revert your change in wording from "insurgent Liberal" to "rival" as it pertains to Boyle, since the latter wording implies to me a greater relationship between Stewart and Boyle than actually existed. I'm mulling it over. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reveting that is fine. Other points:
- I copyedited the intro to railways para, but it has a problem - the rest of the para doesn't actually explicitly mention Stewart's role. The people clamoured for their railways, then a bunch of business stuff happened. Where is Stewart in this? Also in same section "drainage of northern areas" lacks context. Are we talking swamps, snow melt, sewerage for towns? Is this readily (and briefly) able to be rephrased for more clarity?
- To the first point, assuming you're talking about the first paragraph of "Party division", it's intended to set the stage for the rest of the section. The Liberals of 1917 were a house divided for reasons essentially unrelated to Stewart, and those reasons need to be explained if his Premiership is to be understood (his minor role in the railway scandal is covered earlier, under "Earlier political career"). To the second, the wikilinked article states that "Many agricultural soils need drainage to improve production or to manage water supplies", which is what we're talking about here (I presume that snow melt would be the major cause, along with rain). I could specify "agricultural drainage", if you think that would help. Otherwise, I'm open to alternative wordings. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The problem is the first para after the heading 'public works'. The railways stuff just isn't linked to Stweart, other than saying it occurred during his premiership. Unless it somehow actually involved him, it probably isn't notable for this article, and if did involve him, we should hear about how. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry, that should have been obvious. I've inserted his name in there to add some clarity to the connection, but ultimately any action of the government is attributable to the premier, even if he's not specifically mentioned. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, for some reason i hadn't grasped that the government was acting to intervene in purchasing the company. The insertion of the time has triggered some understanding. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know when Stewart joined UFA?
- No - we can infer that it was between 1909 and 1919, but that's as good as it gets. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "the UFA was not satisfied with the government's record: in 1918, it found that.." The "it found that" sounds odd in this particular context. "it claimed that", or "it argued that" might be better, depending on the detail.
- Addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Though he emphatically denied that there would be an election in the spring of 1921 (the last one had been held in June 1917, and four years was the normal life of a legislature in Canada), Stewart eventually called one for July 19". Huh? July isn't in spring - this sounds like it was right on schedule. What have i missed?
- The "Though" is probably misleading. I've reworded a bit - see what you think. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lakeland College historian Franklin Foster, in his biography of John Edward Brownlee,..." This is the first mention of Brownlee, so we need to know who he is (ie. why would this be relevant to Stewart?) As this will lengthen the sentence, I suggest a full stop before "Lakeland College historian..."
- Clarified. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice ending.
- I'm a supporter of promotion to FA once the above issues are dealt with. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better, but I still see things that need tweaking, apart from the over-referencing. (I removed a few from the top, and now I see Cite Errors in the Notes: sorry, can you fix? And was there some way of doing it better?)
- "Newly-politicized" – see MoS on hyphens.
- Somebody seems to have gotten this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist)
- "It has been my fight ever since I became a minister to see that the farmers of the province were having a square deal," he remarked, – MoS requires the comma to be after the closing quotation marks (unless the comma is actually in the source.
- The comma is part of the quotation. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bit unusual not to put "p." or "pp." plus space, before the page numbers in the Notes. I support I can live with it.
- "As MLA" table: a reason to repeat "Turnour N.A." for each one? It's kind of crowded already.
- Foolish consistency, mostly. I've removed them. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to "Jasper—Edson". You'd put it out of its misery by moving it to a new title with an en dash. The em dash is wrong, and looks very odd.
- Steve (User:Steve, that is) seems to have taken care of this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Born in Ontario, he had moved west for economic opportunity, become an important political voice in an emerging province, and then gone to Ottawa to be that province's national voice. As Mackenzie King eulogized him, "in more respects than one, Mr. Stewart's career mirrored the development of Canada itself."—By the time you get to "gone", you've lost the sense of "had", don't you agree? I think here the "had" needs to be repeated twice. But on a larger structural scale, the last, short para doesn't seem to belong here: it's not about the title (Post-political life), but is rather a summary of his entire career – better in the lead, if at all. Why not insert Mackenzie King's statement in the lead, too? But I don't think we should have to go to the physical source to work out what King meant: what were these several respects? If you have it at hand, please consider explicating them in a brief list within the sentence.
- I thought the last para was a bit short, so i'm happy with the suggestion about giving it slightly more detail. But as to it being in the wrong place, i don't agree. I think a lot of WP articles, including high-quality ones, suffer from a lack of a sense of an ending - something particularly appropriate in bios. Take the last para away and one loses the poetry of the ending, and a great quote from King. And I think the King quote really has added meaning coming after the other rather unkind opinions we are provided, that King expressed in his diary - an effect that would be lost were this material moved to the lead. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Hamiltonstone about the paragraph's location, for essentially his/her reasons. In addition, the quote's from a eulogy, which it does make some sense to place in the same part of the article as the death. As for what the respects were, that's what I was trying to get at with the first paragraph of the sentence: Stewart was born in one of Confederation's original provinces, moved west at a time when encouraging western immigration was among the federal government's major priorities, took the leadership of Alberta when it was emerging as important, and joined the federal government where he played a role in placing it on the same plane, constitutionally, as the other provinces (with regards to natural resources). Admittedly, this relies on the reader being somewhat acquainted with Canadian history. I could spell all of this out, and it would expand the paragraph, but it might be a bit much for something that's only tangentially related. Thoughts? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be worthy of promotion when fixed. Tony (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comments A nice article about a boring man, but it wouldn't be FAC without a few nitpicks (:
- came west to Alberta where are you? I'd prefer went
- the pair would have eight children maybe the pair would eventually have eight children? - you can ignore this
- Could you check that every "however" has a useful function and isn't just padding?
- I had the same problem interpreting the final paragraph. Would changing the order of the two sentences help, so we can see the context first?
- I shall think about Charlie when I need to sleep... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, and I'm glad to have cured your insomnia. I've changed "came" to the more perspective-neutral "moved", and removed one of the howevers. I'm going to need to think more about the last paragraph. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworked the last paragraph, but I'm not really crazy about the result. Thoughts from all who have expressed views on the subject (and indeed from anyone else) welcome. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, well I really liked it. That was the kind of shape I thought it should have, so: well done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [64].
Herrerasaurus
- Nominator(s): Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was talk about nominating this article for Featured Article two years ago, but it never happened, despite lack of opposition. It still meets the criteria, though, and is equal to several of the Featured bird candidates that I have recently seen. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments(moral or otherwise as dino editor)as I go - I do recall a couple of queriesthe prose and flow have improved, and there is some more context (I added a sentence). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
at least five recent surveys of theropod evolution - "surveys" sounds a bit informal to my ears, would not "analysis" or "review" be better?- Changed to "reviews" per your request, sir. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and the other archosaurs and synapsids lost diversity. - not thrilled about the wording, something more user-friendly along the lines of decline in variety and number or something similar. Nothing acutely jumps to mind.
I'd think of filling out the second para of Paleoecology by (maybe) some adjectives describing some of the different critters might help make it less listy.
One of the other things I feel would be good to highlight is why Herrerasaurus is important, that is, the poverty of early dinosaur remains, so somehow slotting in something on this, which then helps clarify why the diverse opinions on its placement and how we got to where we are now. This helps with the context of the article.
- J worked on the listiness, and I adjusted the "diversity" wording. I've struck out the comments we got to, Cas, but feel free to revert if you feel those issues haven't been properly dealt with. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cas. We appreciate your edits, review, and time. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- J worked on the listiness, and I adjusted the "diversity" wording. I've struck out the comments we got to, Cas, but feel free to revert if you feel those issues haven't been properly dealt with. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trademark moral support as a contributor; not quite sure why this one didn't move on before. I will also be around to work on editor concerns. J. Spencer (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks J. I know it's not a hadrosaur, but if you see something suspicious, feel free to point it out here or attack it directly. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The image captions should not include the article name, so for example should be Skull cast in Milan. All need fixingArtist's restoration of – surely Artist’s impressionlightly-built – no hyphen after –ly per MOSflexible joint in the lower jaw, which allowed it to slide its lower jaw back and forth – clunky, why not flexible joint in the lower jaw, which allowed it to slide back and forth?forelimbs, which were less than half the length of its hind limbs. – “forelimbs” one word, “hind limbs” two?like Casliber, I don’t think you are helping your reader as much as you could – I had to follow a lot of links to keep up with this article, and the use of less technical language or glosses where possible would make it less likely that you would lose your audience. Two examples: were for ocular and nasal in the frenulum section could be eye and nostril, and Carnosaur could be glossed as Carnosaur, a large predatory dinosaur.
I thought this was generally well-researched and quite well-written article, but before supporting, I’d like to see the prose made a little more accessible where it is feasible to do so without undue verbiage. jimfbleak (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Jim. I will work on all your comments this evening. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a pass on some of the terminology, but am not convinced that everything I did helped. J. Spencer (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Jim. I will work on all your comments this evening. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My concerns have been addressed, and you are right about speculative colours in the alt text jimfbleak (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Jim. If you see further areas which need improvement, please feel free to mention them here or adjust them yourself. As for the alt text, I don't know the first thing about using alt text, and was just going with a "gut feeling", so I could be dead wrong. At any rate, thanks for reviewing the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Could the following sentence be made a little clearer? "However, an extensive study of Herrerasaurus by Sereno indicates that only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported while additional synapomorphies were discovered.[3]" It might help to make it an active, rather than passive, construction, explicitly naming the verbs' subjects.There is a little bit of redundancy between the last paragraph of the Herrerasaurus#Paleoecology section, and the beginning of the Herrerasaurus#Paleobiology section; in both sections, we point out, in rather similar words, that ornithischians such as Pisanosaurus were less numerous than rhynchosaurs and other groups.JN466 19:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]I agree that the article uses many technical terms that make it a little hard work – "upland riparian forest" is one example (surely we can say that in English?), "sphenopsids (horsetails)" is another (surely it is enough to say "horsetails"?). Some double-barrelled descriptions of reptile families include redundancies that increase the preponderance of specialist terms beyond what is necessary. Examples:- kannemeyeriids would be just as precise as "kannemeyeriid dicynodonts";
- chiniquodontids would do instead of "chiniquodontid cynodonts";
- traversodontids says the same thing as "traversodontid cynodonts";
- similarly, "Hyperodapedon (formerly Scaphonyx)" involves a redundancy – Scaphonyx is merely an obsolete name of the same animal, which redirects to Hyperodapedon, so "Hyperodapedon" is enough.
Is there any objection to using the shorter versions?JN466 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Jayen. Per your observations, I've gone through and reworked the portions you highlighted. Thanks also for your edits to the article. We appreciate the review. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've made some additional small copyedits; pls review. I am still not clear what we mean by "only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported". Does it mean that dinosaurs as a monophyletic group really only share one cranial and seven postcranial features out of Bakker's list, and all the other ones Bakker was wrong about? Or does it mean that Bakker's list was right, but Herrerasaurus only exhibits one cranial and seven postcranial features from Bakker's list? I can only see the abstract of Sereno's paper, but from that it's clear that Sereno classified Herrerasaurus as a theropod and thus already a clear dinosaur (located after the saurischian/ornithischian split, and after the theropoda/sauropodomorpha split in the evolutionary tree). Can we make this passage clearer? JN466 12:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at this further, I think this relates to the previous statement that "theropods, sauropodomorphs, and ornithischians diverged even earlier than herrerasaurids, before the middle Carnian, and that "all three lineages independently evolved several dinosaurian features, such as a more advanced ankle joint or an open acetabulum"." In other words, some of the features in Bakker's list are now believed to be the result of convergent evolution, rather than due to descent from a common ancestor, and it was the study of Herrerasaurus that first suggested that. Is that correct? JN466 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for your edits, and the present thorough review, JN. What the Science paper actually says is: "Of the approximately 50 postcranial synapomorphies listed earlier in support of Dinosauria, only seven are supported by the new material of Herrerasaurus." In other words, yes, according to Sereno and Novas, Bakker's original 59 synapomorphies (9 cranial and 50 postcranial) could be pared down to 1 and 7, respectively (although at least three additional synapomorphies were discovered). The authors believed the other similarities, such as sacral similarities between saurischians and ornithischians, were examples of convergent evolution. I'm certainly open to rephrasing this so it's understandable to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a go at rewording the passage. The new wording explicitly states that Bakker proposed a list of 9 + about 50 features likely due to common descent. Could you double-check that this is actually so, and that the list referred to is not the result of several authors' work building on Bakker's original paper over the intervening years? Because then we would have to word it differently. Also, if the list of 9 + 50 features was present in Bakker's original paper, then I would suggest the reference to that paper should go to the end of the sentence, after the mention of the list, to make that clear. I've also reworded the lead sentence of the paragraph, to provide better linkage to the preceding paragraph, which already raises some of these issues. JN466 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for restructuring. I will check the reference tomorrow, when my subscription to Nature should be fixed (I can't view the paper, despite being logged in). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does appear that later authors built upon this list; Bakker and Galton's 1974 paper list a dozen or so, not the 50 that Sereno and Novas (mostly) reject. I've reworded and added a few additional refs. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought so. Have tweaked the text slightly.
- Thanks for following up. And – Support. JN466 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for your comments, observations, and a few edits as well. I really appreciate the depth of your review, JN. I saw you on some other dinosaur talk pages, and appreciate all the attention you've paid to us. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pleasure. I'll do it again. :) --JN466 09:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for your comments, observations, and a few edits as well. I really appreciate the depth of your review, JN. I saw you on some other dinosaur talk pages, and appreciate all the attention you've paid to us. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does appear that later authors built upon this list; Bakker and Galton's 1974 paper list a dozen or so, not the 50 that Sereno and Novas (mostly) reject. I've reworded and added a few additional refs. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for restructuring. I will check the reference tomorrow, when my subscription to Nature should be fixed (I can't view the paper, despite being logged in). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a go at rewording the passage. The new wording explicitly states that Bakker proposed a list of 9 + about 50 features likely due to common descent. Could you double-check that this is actually so, and that the list referred to is not the result of several authors' work building on Bakker's original paper over the intervening years? Because then we would have to word it differently. Also, if the list of 9 + 50 features was present in Bakker's original paper, then I would suggest the reference to that paper should go to the end of the sentence, after the mention of the list, to make that clear. I've also reworded the lead sentence of the paragraph, to provide better linkage to the preceding paragraph, which already raises some of these issues. JN466 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for your edits, and the present thorough review, JN. What the Science paper actually says is: "Of the approximately 50 postcranial synapomorphies listed earlier in support of Dinosauria, only seven are supported by the new material of Herrerasaurus." In other words, yes, according to Sereno and Novas, Bakker's original 59 synapomorphies (9 cranial and 50 postcranial) could be pared down to 1 and 7, respectively (although at least three additional synapomorphies were discovered). The authors believed the other similarities, such as sacral similarities between saurischians and ornithischians, were examples of convergent evolution. I'm certainly open to rephrasing this so it's understandable to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Problem has been addressed.
Images need alt text as per WP:FACR #3. I added alt text to the lead image; can someone please add it for the remaining images? Please see WP:ALT for advice.Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added alt text, per your suggestion. This is the first time I've heard of or used alt text, so if I've blundered, let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all we FAC writers are in the same boat. With the benefit of my day-old expertise(?) on this subject, my own feeling is that the artist's impressions at least could do with a bit more detail. For example, in the first one you could say it's facing left, that its back is horizontal, and it is pale green and black. Please don't take this as gospel, someone who actually knows what they are doing may have a different view, and I certainly wouldn't make this a deal-breaker. jimfbleak (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions, Jim. I incorporated part of one. I'm sort of leery about including colors in the alt text; in the example given on the alt text page, the coin really is gold. Here, the color is entirely speculative. It would probably work quite well for a bird, where the colors are definitely known... but a fossil animal? I'd hate to give the impression that some sort of color has been preserved in/with the fossils... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When in doubt, briefer alt text is probably better; at least that's what I've been told by a visually-impaired reader. Imagine having to wait for a longwinded person to explain an image to you.... Anyway, I adjusted the alt text a bit. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Eubulides. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When in doubt, briefer alt text is probably better; at least that's what I've been told by a visually-impaired reader. Imagine having to wait for a longwinded person to explain an image to you.... Anyway, I adjusted the alt text a bit. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions, Jim. I incorporated part of one. I'm sort of leery about including colors in the alt text; in the example given on the alt text page, the coin really is gold. Here, the color is entirely speculative. It would probably work quite well for a bird, where the colors are definitely known... but a fossil animal? I'd hate to give the impression that some sort of color has been preserved in/with the fossils... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all we FAC writers are in the same boat. With the benefit of my day-old expertise(?) on this subject, my own feeling is that the artist's impressions at least could do with a bit more detail. For example, in the first one you could say it's facing left, that its back is horizontal, and it is pale green and black. Please don't take this as gospel, someone who actually knows what they are doing may have a different view, and I certainly wouldn't make this a deal-breaker. jimfbleak (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query please forgive my ignorance, but
"The balancing tail, partially stiffened by overlapping vertebral processes" lost me towards the end of the sentence. Is there another way to express that?ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tweaked this to The tail, partially stiffened by overlapping vertebral projections, balances the body and is also an adaptation for speed. No doubt Firsfron will change this if it has made the water even muddier Jimfbleak. Talk to me 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Jim. I've tweaked it further so that it's all past tense, to match the rest of the paragraph. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tweaked this to The tail, partially stiffened by overlapping vertebral projections, balances the body and is also an adaptation for speed. No doubt Firsfron will change this if it has made the water even muddier Jimfbleak. Talk to me 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks,
also the paleoclimate mentions forests and rains but not whether it was tropical, temperate etc.ϢereSpielChequers 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I'll check the source tomorrow (when I have access to several papers used in the article), but generally the Triassic was warmer than it is today. The North and South Pole were temperate. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've mentioned the moist, warm, though seasonal, climate, with references. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll check the source tomorrow (when I have access to several papers used in the article), but generally the Triassic was warmer than it is today. The North and South Pole were temperate. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox.Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah! They were all fixed. In my effort to clarify "upland" (above), I linked to a disambiguation page. Now fixed. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns:
- File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg: what are the sources used for this drawing?
- File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg: "after skeletal by C. Abraczinskas and P. Sereno", who are Abraczinskas and Sereno, or is the skeletal in a publication of theirs?
Otherwise, Images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All images were approved at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review, File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg here and File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg here. File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg is based on the work of paleontologist Paul C. Sereno (whose recovery of the skull of Herrerasaurus is discussed in this article) [65][66][67]. I don't know of any sources File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg is based on, but it was also approved. We routinely remove images in which the illustration differs appreciably from known skeletal elements, implied skeletal elements (via bracketing), known non-skeletal elements, implied non-skeletal elements, known range of motion, or images which depict a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. WP:DINO is keenly aware of potential problems depicting dinosaurs, and set up an Image Review in 2006 to address the problem. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please insert the sources for BW in the Description or Source (centralize the sources for the depiction). As for DB, inserting the link for the Dino project's review of this image and pointing out the possible discrepancies in the Description could do, I guess (perhaps that can be done for all images vetted by the project?). Jappalang (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of any (current) discrepancy with the DB image. The wrist pronation ("bunny hands") that was discussed during the image review has since been modified, along with a potential dewclaw problem. I'll certainly add the sources for BW. Thanks for the image review. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources added for BW. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of any (current) discrepancy with the DB image. The wrist pronation ("bunny hands") that was discussed during the image review has since been modified, along with a potential dewclaw problem. I'll certainly add the sources for BW. Thanks for the image review. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please insert the sources for BW in the Description or Source (centralize the sources for the depiction). As for DB, inserting the link for the Dino project's review of this image and pointing out the possible discrepancies in the Description could do, I guess (perhaps that can be done for all images vetted by the project?). Jappalang (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All images were approved at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review, File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg here and File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg here. File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg is based on the work of paleontologist Paul C. Sereno (whose recovery of the skull of Herrerasaurus is discussed in this article) [65][66][67]. I don't know of any sources File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg is based on, but it was also approved. We routinely remove images in which the illustration differs appreciably from known skeletal elements, implied skeletal elements (via bracketing), known non-skeletal elements, implied non-skeletal elements, known range of motion, or images which depict a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. WP:DINO is keenly aware of potential problems depicting dinosaurs, and set up an Image Review in 2006 to address the problem. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on sources
- Ref [4]: ISBN required
- Ref [22]: should this show publisher?
Ref [27]: does not seem to be fully formatted.
Otherwise sources look good Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 4 has ISBN now added. Ref 22 already shows the publisher: Gustav Fischer Verlag. I've removed ref 27; although it appeared correctly formatted (it was an episode from a dinosaur documentary called The Nature of the Beast, and thus looked "different" from the paper references), it was from 1990, and didn't add a huge amount of value to the article, since the material was already sourced anyway. Thanks again for the review. Please feel free to make additional comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Some comments:
Herrerasaurusskeleton.jpg and its caption doesn't say which dino is which- "allowing it to slide back and forth to deliver a grasping bite" maybe would be too speculative, but could there be a sentence on what it could have used it for, or what those reptiles use that kind of jaw for
"Herrerasaurus was bipedal" bit sharp break from previous sentence; I can't think of how to improve it though
Narayanese (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've altered the caption (but now will the alt caption need adjusting as well?) per your observation. The flexible joint was used for better grasping of its prey. We can mention this feature evolved independently in lizards, but would drawing more of a parallel be OR-ish? I'll see if I can dig up any studies that might compare the Herrerasaurus jaw with those of the anguinomorphans. I've reworded the bipedal sentence to soften it a bit, and split that part off into its own paragraph. Feel free to revert if I've gone too far, or rework if I've not gone far enough. Thanks again for your observations, Narayanese. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference. Specifically, I noted current ref 21 (Novas...) and 29 (Bonaparte...) but there may be others.What makes http://www.palaeos.com/ a reliable source? (I'm on the fence about it, it looks pretty decent but I can't find an "about us" page to see who's behind us.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Ealdgyth. I've added Spanish parameters to four of the references. Palaeos is quite good; it's not peer-reviewed, but it's good technical material that has been a recommended site at Wikipedia:DINO#Good_non-primary_sites_.28technical.29 for almost four years. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is behind the site? Are they experts in their field? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The authors of Palaeos are Augustus Toby White and M.A. Kazlev, according to their Authors page. According to the page, Mr. White wrote the vertebrate parts, has a Ph.D in biology from Johns Hopkins University, and did some lectures on evolution at Florida Gulf Coast University. Also according to the page, the Palaeos site "is used as supplementary course material at colleges and universities including Cambridge University (UK), the University of Helsinki (Fin.), the University of Washington (USA), Heidelberg University (Ger.), and the Universidad de Granada (Spain), as well as numerous smaller colleges, universities and high schools throughout the world." Firsfron of Ronchester 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to mention: Palaeos is recommended in Benton's Vertebrate Palaeontology[68]. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The authors of Palaeos are Augustus Toby White and M.A. Kazlev, according to their Authors page. According to the page, Mr. White wrote the vertebrate parts, has a Ph.D in biology from Johns Hopkins University, and did some lectures on evolution at Florida Gulf Coast University. Also according to the page, the Palaeos site "is used as supplementary course material at colleges and universities including Cambridge University (UK), the University of Helsinki (Fin.), the University of Washington (USA), Heidelberg University (Ger.), and the Universidad de Granada (Spain), as well as numerous smaller colleges, universities and high schools throughout the world." Firsfron of Ronchester 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is behind the site? Are they experts in their field? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Ealdgyth. I've added Spanish parameters to four of the references. Palaeos is quite good; it's not peer-reviewed, but it's good technical material that has been a recommended site at Wikipedia:DINO#Good_non-primary_sites_.28technical.29 for almost four years. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
- File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg as a left-aligned image breaks the level three heading right below it on even rather small screen resolutions, violating WP:MOSIMAGES; move it!
Similar issue with File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg; it's butting into the references section below it, shearing off a good chunk of space that could be used for the columns. Add a {{-}} or similar.- The tone throughout is generally good, but then there are these rather peculiar phrases, such as "This dinosaur is an enigmatic creature, showing traits that are found in different groups of dinosaurs", where its abruptly shifts and sounds much less formal.
- The article kind of... ends. I dunno, it just seems odd to just stop after imparting to us its diet. I dunno anything about dinosaur article guidelines, and it's not like it has or could support an "in popular culture" end, but there's got to be a better way to tie things up? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the observations, David. I've added a {{-}} for DB, and could do the same for BW, but it will cause that section to have a rather large white space on high resolutions. I don't notice it at my normal resolution. The illustration won't work in other sections, as it's used to give the reader a better impression of what Herrerasaurus may have looked like, an impression text simply cannot give. The h2 sections were roughly modeled after Featured Article Compsognathus (Description, Discovery and species, Paleoecology, Paleobiology, Classification, and Popular culture) but in a different order and without a goofy Herrerasaurus "pop culture" section which would be quite anemic. I guess we could tie in your observation to Cas' and have some sort of "Conclusion" section? "To wrap up, Herrerasaurus is important because it's the earliest well-known blah-blah..."? Let me know if this would be acceptable. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello??? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The space breaks larger than it needs to be because of the infobox; it still looks sloppy at anything about 1152px wide screens, but I'm not going to force it. Eh, a conclusion isn't really necessary, just forget it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thrilled this article has suddenly got so much attention. I will attempt to address all the new observations ASAP, but must retire for now. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've read Herrarasaurus, and Staurikosaurus, had vestigial outer toes, is that so? If it is, I couldn't find any mention of it in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently reads, "Its fourth and fifth digits were small stubs without claws.[3][9]" I could add the word "vestigial" to it, creating "Its fourth and fifth digits were small vestigial stubs without claws." Firsfron of Ronchester 02:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't that a description of the fingers? I was referring to the feet. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I'm not aware of the toes being vestigial. The Dinosauria (2004) on page 39 shows the pes (foot) with five digits, and although digits I and V (the outer toes) are small and didn't bear weight, at least digit I bore a claw. This is a little different from Guaibasaurus, where digit V appears to have shrunk to a single useless bone. I will add the above to the article, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added The foot had five toes, but only the middle three (digits II, III, and IV) bore weight. The outer toes (I and V) were small; the first toe had a small claw. per your observations, Funk. What's next? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's what I meant, Herrera and other early theropods were apparently unusual due to having five toes on each foot, with the outer one being clawless. Other than that, I don't have anything to add, so I support the nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking a look, Funk, and the observation. If you see anything else which sticks out (or doesn't) please feel free to adjust it yourself or bring it up here. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's what I meant, Herrera and other early theropods were apparently unusual due to having five toes on each foot, with the outer one being clawless. Other than that, I don't have anything to add, so I support the nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added The foot had five toes, but only the middle three (digits II, III, and IV) bore weight. The outer toes (I and V) were small; the first toe had a small claw. per your observations, Funk. What's next? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I'm not aware of the toes being vestigial. The Dinosauria (2004) on page 39 shows the pes (foot) with five digits, and although digits I and V (the outer toes) are small and didn't bear weight, at least digit I bore a claw. This is a little different from Guaibasaurus, where digit V appears to have shrunk to a single useless bone. I will add the above to the article, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't that a description of the fingers? I was referring to the feet. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently reads, "Its fourth and fifth digits were small stubs without claws.[3][9]" I could add the word "vestigial" to it, creating "Its fourth and fifth digits were small vestigial stubs without claws." Firsfron of Ronchester 02:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:23, 9 August 2009 [69].
North Road (stadium)
- Nominator(s): – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it would be impossible to expand this article any further unless new information were to come to light. I believe that this article meets all of the Featured Article criteria and that the only thing it is missing is a photograph of the site as it exists now, which I should be able to obtain by the time this nomination is complete. Opinions are welcomed and encouraged. – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Cliftonian (talk · contribs) – looks good generally, just a few points that need clearing up:
- "It was the first home of Manchester United F.C." – I'd expand this to "Manchester United Football Club".
- Done
- "The ground was originally just a pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate, but the addition of stands by the club in 1891 increased the capacity to around 15,000. However, the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run and, without the company's financial support, they were unable to afford the rent on the ground and were evicted." – This whole paragraph is very clunky and awkward, I'd be happier if it was re-written.
- Wording seems fine to me. Could you perhaps suggest alternative wording that with which you would be happier?
- The aspect which seems weakest to me is the first line – "The ground was originally just a pitch". Doesn't sound very good to me – perhaps "Originally, the ground consisted only of the pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate. On the club's addition of stands in 1891 the capacity was increased to around 15,000." The rest is fine. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording seems fine to me. Could you perhaps suggest alternative wording that with which you would be happier?
- "Instead, they had to change at a pub – The Three Crowns – a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road." – A bit too stop-and-start for my taste – try "Instead, they had to change at The Three Crowns public house a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road."
- Done
- "Fortunately, the club's management had been seeking a new stadium ever since the first attempted eviction in May 1892," – "Fortunately"? I wouldn't use this word in an encyclopaedic article.
- I've removed "fortunately".
- "the site now serves as the location of the North Manchester Business Park, and before that it was Moston Brook High School." – chronology all wrong. It should be "the site served as the location of Moston Brook High School, before becoming North Manchester Business Park in *date*.
- Done, with some extra additions
- "A red plaque could once be found attached to one of the school's walls" – when?
- The sources don't say when it was attached.
- "the plaque has since been stolen" – when?
- The sources don't say when it was stolen.
Looks good otherwise. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for the comments, mate. Glad you liked the article for the most part. Nevertheless, if you could suggest alternative wording for the passage you commented on above, that'd be very helpful. – PeeJay 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright then. I'm happy enough with it now, that paragraph still irks me a bit but it doesn't stop me changing my stance above. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much, Cliftonian. I have changed the paragraph like you suggested. Your version certainly reads better than mine did. I seem to have a penchant for sentences with lots of clauses! – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 06:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much, Cliftonian. I have changed the paragraph like you suggested. Your version certainly reads better than mine did. I seem to have a penchant for sentences with lots of clauses! – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright then. I'm happy enough with it now, that paragraph still irks me a bit but it doesn't stop me changing my stance above. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images shouldn't be watermarked Fasach Nua (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how the image came from the website. Not sure how to get hold of a similar map for myself. – PeeJay 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try File:North_road_os.png, I dont have a commons account, but if you could transfer it, that would be peachy! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now transferred that image to Commons. Thanks very much for doing that for me, FN. Hope you'll support the article's promotion. – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To eliminate watermarks from that site browse it with firefox, with the Adblock Plus add-in. Then just block the watermark from that site, before screencapping. Nothing wrong with doing that, after all its the watermark that carries the copyright, not the map. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now transferred that image to Commons. Thanks very much for doing that for me, FN. Hope you'll support the article's promotion. – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try File:North_road_os.png, I dont have a commons account, but if you could transfer it, that would be peachy! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport
- "Unable to afford the increased rent, especially as the Manchester Deans and Canons felt it inappropriate for the club to charge admission to the ground, the Heathens were served with an eviction notice in June 1893."
I know that the Heathens was a nickname of the club. But anyone reading the article who was unaware of this fact might assume that the religious organization evicted them partly on religious grounds. You might want to change the sentence a bit or explain that it was a nickname. Might also want to say what the organization felt about Newton Heath's nickname, if it is known.--EchetusXe (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've italicised "Heathens" to highlight the fact that this is a nickname. Do you think that, in conjunction with the fact that "Heathens" is spelled with a capital H, this will be enough? – PeeJay 09:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. Unless anyone else thinks it is not enough?--EchetusXe (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A small, detailed article with solid prose. Excellent work. My scans could not detect any defects. ceranthor 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment makes me extremely proud of this article. Goes to show that not all Featured Articles have to be tens of thousands of kilobytes in size! – PeeJay 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that the article is extremely short, though. If promoted, it would likely be the second shortest FA. This shortness might be from a lack of comprehensiveness, but I do not have the knowledge in the area to research. ceranthor 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: 789 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's sole top-level section is "History". If other sources are found, consider adding at least one more for the stadium's structure. It mentions that the stadium eventually got grandstands; any data on the surface area or dimensions of the stadium, or the height of the stands? Seating arrangements? Popularity and revenues over time? I know it's tough to source those things, but criteria 1b is very demanding and I've received concerns about sales data in an unrelated good article nom. Try to find library support or other sources (including pay databases) if at all possible.
- I've added a short section on the ground's history as a cricket field, but it is very short. A section on record attendances has also been added. I will try to add a section on the ground's "structure and facilities" per the Old Trafford article, but there's not much that could be said there that hasn't already been said in the History section.
- Nice work on the attendance figures. It's clear now that it brought the crowds even so long ago!
- I've added a short section on the ground's history as a cricket field, but it is very short. A section on record attendances has also been added. I will try to add a section on the ground's "structure and facilities" per the Old Trafford article, but there's not much that could be said there that hasn't already been said in the History section.
- How is ref 11 reliable? Not much author, editor, or fact-checking mentions there at all, looks blog-ish. I'm not even sure that it says a school was opened at that site.
- Yes, you're probably right about that. The Gary James reference was intended to show that the school was erected on the same site, but that's obviously not clear, and I'll try to find a reference for the closure of the school.
- I see. It looks ok now.
- Yes, you're probably right about that. The Gary James reference was intended to show that the school was erected on the same site, but that's obviously not clear, and I'll try to find a reference for the closure of the school.
Article, ref dates, formatting, dabs, and links look good otherwise. --an odd name 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, AON. I'll get to work on adding as much as I can. – PeeJay 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem; I replied above. --an odd name 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments –
Redundancy: "They attempted to take the two grandstands with them, but the attempt failed and the stands were sold for just $100." (not really, but us American don't have pound signs on our keyboards :-)) Attempted and attempt probably shouldn't be repeated in such close proximity.Overall, I'm shaky on this article because the writing seems fine, but there isn't much of it. It just feels like there is more that could be said, but isn't because newspaper sources from the time aren't utilized. In addition to the mentioned lack of a section on the facilities,there's nothing on record attendances, or whether they have been lost to history.Giants2008 (17-14) 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I've changed "They attempted..." to "They tried...", so that "attempt" isn't used too often in quick succession. As I have mentioned to User:AnOddName, I have also added a section on other uses and a section about record attendances at the ground has also been added. – PeeJay 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments on sources
- Slightly confused by your "General" and "Specific" subdivisions in the References section. "General" rather implies background reading, yet all these works have been specifically cited. It might be clearer if the citations were listed as "References" and the booklist as "Bibliography" or "Sources"
- Probably a good idea, but I thought that the "General" references would have indicated that those books were used as general references for the entire article, while the "Specific" references would allow for the citation of individual facts from within those books.
- Fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a good idea, but I thought that the "General" references would have indicated that those books were used as general references for the entire article, while the "Specific" references would allow for the citation of individual facts from within those books.
- Per above, I'm a bit concerned at the reliability of http://www.northmanchester.net/content/view/90/2/
- This page at politics.co.uk also mentions the school's closure in August 2000, but I don't know how reliable it is. It would also seem a bit odd to have an MP's profile page in the middle of an article about a football ground!
- See Ealdgyth's comment below. Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh huh, and what do you think of the alternative reference I suggested above? – PeeJay 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Ealdgyth's comment below. Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This page at politics.co.uk also mentions the school's closure in August 2000, but I don't know how reliable it is. It would also seem a bit odd to have an MP's profile page in the middle of an article about a football ground!
Otherwise, sources look solid. Brianboulton (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have replied above. – PeeJay 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
I too share Brian's concerns with http://www.northmanchester.net/content/view/90/2/ Surely this was covered in a newspaper article? I can't find anything on the website that shows who they are.- What do you think of the politics.co.uk source I provided above? – PeeJay 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same problems, who's behind the site? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've completely replaced the ref with a site run by the British government. Had to ask at WP:GM for help in finding it though. – PeeJay 22:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same problems, who's behind the site? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think of the politics.co.uk source I provided above? – PeeJay 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—1a. There's a tendency towards a slightly pompous texture. It needs a thorough, independent audit of the prose. Here are random examples from the top.
- Awkward: "the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run"
- "Upon" twice in one sentence? I don't want any of them: "Upon the foundation of Newton Heath L&YR F.C. at the request of the employees of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Company's Carriage and Wagon Works, it became apparent that the club would require a pitch upon which to play."
- "the site chosen was a "bumpy, stony patch in summer, [and] a muddy, heavy swamp in the rainy months",[2] and owned by the Manchester Cathedral authorities." -> "the chosen site – owned by the Manchester Cathedral authoritie – was a "bumpy, stony patch in summer, [and] a muddy, heavy swamp in the rainy months".[2]" Tony (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of opposing, could you not have simply left comments for me to deal with? I can easily make any changes you suggest, but an "Oppose" !vote just means that I'm going to have to go through this whole process again as soon as it closes. Anyway, I've made the changes you suggested, with the exception of the first one, which is actually the most efficient way of getting the message across. By the way, what do you mean by "a pompous texture"? – PeeJay 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "the football club split from its parent railway company" for the first? You'd avoid the "by" problem and get crisper text. Tony gives other suggestions at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a; "Misplaced formality" suggests alternate words, for example. --an odd name 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good suggestion! Can't believe I didn't think of that one! By the way, I would really appreciate it if someone would give this article a thorough copyediting, if that's what it needs. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do it myself, seeing as I'm the principle contributor to the article, and Peer Reviews get piss-poor responses these days. Seems like FAC is the only way to get an article properly reviewed sometimes! – PeeJay 21:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the team of Ruhrfisch, Finetooth, and Brianboulton usually make sure that no article goes without a proper peer review these days. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Dabomb.
This article wasn't submitted for peer review; had it been, most of the prose issues raised at this FAC would probably have been sorted out long ago. Something to bear in mind next time, perhaps?Brianboulton (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]- (Correction: it was peer-reviewed in October 2008, before I got involved. Sorry! Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks, Dabomb.
- FWIW, the team of Ruhrfisch, Finetooth, and Brianboulton usually make sure that no article goes without a proper peer review these days. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good suggestion! Can't believe I didn't think of that one! By the way, I would really appreciate it if someone would give this article a thorough copyediting, if that's what it needs. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do it myself, seeing as I'm the principle contributor to the article, and Peer Reviews get piss-poor responses these days. Seems like FAC is the only way to get an article properly reviewed sometimes! – PeeJay 21:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "the football club split from its parent railway company" for the first? You'd avoid the "by" problem and get crisper text. Tony gives other suggestions at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a; "Misplaced formality" suggests alternate words, for example. --an odd name 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the nomination been copy-edited yet? Please ping me when it has. Tony (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing oppose: the prose is much better (thanks to Malleus et al.). But if it's promoted, please make it a top priority to bulk it up a bit—this is on the slender side for an FA, and I wonder what further information might be included from the sources. Tony (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is L&YR ... make it tight for those not in the know ... Newton Heath L&YR Football Club SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [70].
Tropical Storm Faxai (2007)
- Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meet FA criteria. Although this is a relatively short article, it's comprehensive of the entire storm, including the large difference between warning centers. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I like this article pretty much, but there is one thing that I can see right now that might cause some problems. When you do the difference among warning centers, you say: The Japan Meteorological Agency uses 10-minute sustained winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses 1-minute sustained winds.[12] The conversion factor between the two is 1.14.[13] JMA's peak intensity for Faxai was 100 km/h (65 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 120 km/h (75 mph) 1-minute sustained.[2][13] The JTWC's peak intensity for Faxai was 75 km/h (45 mph) 1-minute sustained, or 65 km/h (40 mph) 10-minute sustained.[14][13]. That seems good, but with the conversions between 10 and 1-min winds are the problem. The JMA only reports in 10-min winds and the JTWC only reports in 1-min winds so would that be OR? --Anhamirak 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- → "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks--Anhamirak 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was my only problem, so support. (By the way, is this just our second WPac FAC?) --Anhamirak 02:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No; we have Typhoon Tip, Typhoon Pongsona, Typhoon Paka, and Tropical Storm Vamei. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was my only problem, so support. (By the way, is this just our second WPac FAC?) --Anhamirak 02:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support Anhamirak; the quick reply from JC; and the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - The two public domain images are fine. Could you please complete the licensing migration for File:JMA Faxai 2007 track.png? Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review, I'm a bit confused as to what I need to do exactly for the track map though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think NuclearWarfare meant to tag the image for relicense to CC-BY-3.0, which I did. --an odd name 11:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok, thanks AnOddName. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, AnOddName got it. Sorry I missed this earlier, but thanks for doing that for me. NW (Talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, since I made that pic, I switched it to the proper license ({{PD-self}}). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, AnOddName got it. Sorry I missed this earlier, but thanks for doing that for me. NW (Talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok, thanks AnOddName. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think NuclearWarfare meant to tag the image for relicense to CC-BY-3.0, which I did. --an odd name 11:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Theres nothing missing from the MH, Impact or Preps and it looks good.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.I added alt text to the lead image, to help you get started. Eubulides (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looked over it, and it looks fine to me on the basis of the FA criteria. Darren23 (Contribs) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, see belowComments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "A Japan Airlines flight
headingto Narita Airport" - "The storm traveled
towards thenorthwest under" - Link and maybe spell out UTC on its first appearance in prose.
- "The JTWC also began issuing advisories on Faxai"-->The JTWC also issued advisories on Faxai
- "Around that time, the JMA upgraded Faxai to a severe tropical storm with winds reaching 95 km/h (60 mph 10-minute sustained)." The noun + -ing construction is awkward; see this excellent guide on how to fix it.
- "In the following advisory issued by the JTWC, however, they upgraded the depression to a tropical storm based on the development of a well-defined central dense overcast." Why "however"? Is this a stark contrast to what might be expected?
- No link for "sustained winds"?
- "All Nippon Airways cancelled
allday flights between Tokyo and the Izu Islands" - "Areas around Tokyo were notified about heavy rains" "about"-->of the
- "Residents were advised to stay indoors during the storm, especially after sunset, avoid possible flying debris." Is there a missing word? "especially after sunset, avoid possible flying debris" sounds strange.
- Spell out JST
- "The rainfall in Miyakejima came close to surpassing the record daily rainfall for October 27." "came close to surpassing"-->almost surpassed
- "Damages from cyclone totaled
to" - "Three crew members had neck injures, one of whom also was cut in her thigh."-->Three crew members sustained neck injures, and one was also cut in her thigh. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything should be fixed. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but "Differences among warning centers" seems to be too small. It either needs some of the information about the differences moved down, or to just have the heading removed and be part of the previous section. I say this simply because it aesthetically puts forth a breach between two sections that seem to be close together. Two or three sentences from the last paragraph of the previous section could be pulled down if you want to preserve the "Differences" section. Also, the line "took off from Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport and was heading to Narita International Airport," could simply be put "Airport, heading to Narita International Airport,". The "and" distracts from the purpose of the sentence. "was hit in the head" By what? The woman? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with most of that, aside from your final comment, which I'll leave to the nominator to sort out. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled with the prose. OK now; I've made a few little tweaks; do watch your omission of "to" or other little grammatical words in long sentences in which two clauses are joined by "and"—here, the fix was grammatical to convey the causality more smoothly. If you're to continue to present nominations, can you take steps to tighten it up, and/or to work with good writers on articles?
- Which ENGVAR is it? I see "travelled" and "traveled".
- "One woman sustained serious injures, and five others received minor injuries."—No male was injured?
- Probably remove "also" in the lead, as redundant, and join the two sentences with a semicolon ("injuries; the plane").
- "($1.5 million USD)." Is that the correct placement of the currency signifier? You can probably dispense with "US" as the international default—check MOSNUM. And the D is definitely redundant. Why link it? And there it is further down, linked as well ...
- "Three crew members sustained neck injures, and one was also cut in her thigh."—last clause a bit weird (sounds like chicken for lunch).
- "esidents were advised to stay indoors during the storm, especially after sunset, and avoid possible flying debris." Probably "to" before "avoid". Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned up these examples, and will try to preform a more thorough copyedit in the morning. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a. The prose quality is fine, but it isn't "engaging, even brilliant". Rather, it's quite dull. It's researched from a handful of meteorological reports, most or all of which should be considered primary sources. From a brief search in ProQuest Newspapers, this storm doesn't appear to have made news an any English-language sources other than a blurb in London's Independent. As such, I'm not even convinced that it meets notability guidelines for having its own article, unless you can produce evidence that secondary sources, English or otherwise, covered it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how they could be considered primary sources to be honest; it's not like the storm self-published. That said, the article definitely meets notability requirements, both by WP:WPTC and Wikipedia-wide standards, but notability issues are irrelevant to FAC. I don't think there's really anything we can do about its dullness. Personally, I find the article fascinating, but to each his own. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are primary sources because they are first-hand data written by people who are paid to record it. By nature, limited prose can be written from them, and no analysis, interpretation, or critical commentary is possible. This is where the dullness comes from—we have essentially a weather report in article form. It's short because no English-language media covered it. To compare, would you accept an article about a crime that was written entirely from the police reports or court documents? No. It would be dry and, likely, not comprehensive. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Last time i checked the Independent and Bloomberg were English-language media so that takes out "It's short because no English-language media covered it." Also as JC said it passes all the notability critera for WP with secondry sources. Jason Rees (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was hyperbole. I acknowledged The Independent above; the blurb is 62 words. I'm still not convinced this even meets general WP notability requirements. And Julian, notability is indeed relevant at FAC. From the criteria page: "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes." --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should clarify: Notability is not my only, or even primary concern. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The storm is notable, it killed one person and caused $1.5 million in damages. It definitely has enough sources to make it notable. Since notability is not your primary concern, can you clarify on what your primary concern (quibble in this case) with the article is? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quibble? At any rate, my primary concern is that the sources are almost entirely primary, making this little more than a re-hash of weather reports. As such, it's lacking any analysis, interpretation of data and events, or commentary. Also, I can't take your word for it that the storm is notable. For these two reasons, secondary sources are needed to balance out all the primary sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is bad how? It makes all the information in the article reliable. I'm a bit confused as to how the secondary sources are needed, what do you mean by balance out? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a policy here entitled Wikipedia:No original research. From it: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." The page is thorough in its explanation of why we don't rely on primary sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out in response to Laser brain's snide attacks on my support on my talk page, FAC is not about notability concerns. Therefore, mentioning notability at FAC is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ← I'm genuinely confused. Staff writers at news agencies are paid to cover news events. Does that make the Associated Press a primary source? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no matter, I've withdrawn my opposition. Have fun. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion going on at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1 applies here, too. [71] is undecipherable to most readers. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an article on How to read HURDAT, which is the same format as most best track files. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for this article, I changed the BT link to the ATCR which is easier to read and understand. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS Although I'm not opposing, I do note that this article is on the small side for a FA. I urge those in the storm project to identify more meaty storms for working up to nomination. Tony (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have several in the works right now, Hurricane Emily (1987), Hurricane Earl (1998), Meteorological history of Hurricane Georges and Effects of Hurricane Georges in Cuba. They need to be cleaned up a bit more before they can come here (once my other nominations close that is) but they're much longer than this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comment: After my and others' actionable concerns have been addressed, I'm fairly certain this meets the FA criteria. I sympathize with Andy's (Laser brain's) comments to a degree. Notability and whether a certain article "deserves" to be an FA are valid but messy issues that have arisen several times. However, the truth of the matter is that bare bones meteorology (basically what this article is) is not interesting for many, and when you aren't interested, the article won't engage you no matter how well-written it is. Although "brilliant" prose is part of the criteria, if there's nothing that can be done to address the problem, then we just have to accept that and make the article as good as we can in all other respects. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhat-involved support - I feel Dabomb87 hit the proverbial nail on the head. Granted, I'm familiar with the text to an extent where I an unable to identify any issues, but I'm confident it meets the criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:44, 28 July 2009 [72].
Wildfire
- Nominator(s): MrBell (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because of its importance as a global topic. MrBell (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment - stunning imagery Fasach Nua (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment agree with Fasach Nua, if it was only a question of images, this article would deserve promotion without further ado!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- another comment Where does the definition in the first sentence of the article come from? I don't see it in ref 2.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Ref 2, slide 35 and Ref 1, page 4 have the definition. Wildland is just a US term for the wilderness/outdoors. MrBell (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sitting here thinking about it, the definition in the ref is kinda odd, because in the US, wildland fire includes wildfire, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire. Basically, a wildfire is any uncontrolled fire of the wildland fire type. And since wildland fires occur in the wildland (aka wilderness), then a wildfire is any uncontrolled fire in the wilderness. MrBell (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Ref 2, slide 35 and Ref 1, page 4 have the definition. Wildland is just a US term for the wilderness/outdoors. MrBell (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The images are so good that there is a danger that people will look at these and not read the article. I found myself doing this. I will read it; meantime, I couldn't understand the caption under the tryptich ("Forest development in the Bitterroot National Forest...") How exactly does one interpret these pictures from this caption, and why is it in quotes? Brianboulton (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about now? I hesitated rewording the direct quote from the text, but you were right, it was difficult to interpret. MrBell (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, would the picture fit better after the discussion of fuel build-up in the suppression section? MrBell (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Makes sure that the ISO-style dates in the citations are formatted correctly: I've seen several that are YYYY-M-D, M-D-YYYY, etc., instead of YYYY-MM-DD. Scripts or bots might not notice them all—you may need to go through by hand (ugh), and I'd rather not, at least yet (sorry). I agree that there's great images here.--an odd name 08:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) done[reply]
- Comments -
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.donePlease spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted NIFC, NWCG, USDA, etc.doneNewspaper titles should be in italics, and the articles should be in quotations marks.doneIn your notes, titles of books should be italicised, such as "Are Big Fires Inevitable, 14" where the title should be in italics, to match the form given in the references.done
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done At least I think I fixed them all. Let me know if there are others I missed. MrBell (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On first glance, this article looks fantastic. I'll have some comments for you as soon as I have time to edit. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please don't use templates such as {{done-t}}; they slow down loading time of the FAC page. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. I was aware that the use of the image templates {{done}} and {{notdone}} was discouraged in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates ("Supporting and opposing"); however, I was under the impression that the use of the non-image templates {{done-t}} and {{notdone}} was encouraged, per Wikipedia:Peer review "How to respond to a request." Is this not true, and should their use be discouraged on the peer review page as well? MrBell (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though those are "non-image", they are still templates, and they can still cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about peer review, as I don't follow what goes on there much. I just know that SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) doesn't like them on FAC because of template limits and FAC's load time. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good job overall, great images. But broadly speaking, there are large parts where US-specific situations are described as if they were broad generalisations. Specifically:
- Lead
- General comment - the lead reads more like an introduction and less like a summary of this article.
- Better?
I don't think the first sentence requires three separate refs to support an uncontroversial statement of what a wildfire is. Not a fan of refs in the lead (since it's a summary of the article, anything in the lead should be supported by refs in the body of the article), but that's neither here nor there.
- Better with only two?
- Yes and no. All three are very similar - they appear to be standard US government definitions, and they're linked to fire management laws. But wildfire has a meaning in English that's fuzzier than this one, I suspect. Unfortunately, most people who write about wildfire seem to assume it's a common English word that doesn't need to be defined. One thing though - if you're using US government definitions, I would recommend that you stick a bit closer to them, and use "wildland" rather than "wilderness"; it's more accurate "wilderness" has an element of "pristine", while "wildland" is merely uncultivated land.
- How about now?
- Yes and no. All three are very similar - they appear to be standard US government definitions, and they're linked to fire management laws. But wildfire has a meaning in English that's fuzzier than this one, I suspect. Unfortunately, most people who write about wildfire seem to assume it's a common English word that doesn't need to be defined. One thing though - if you're using US government definitions, I would recommend that you stick a bit closer to them, and use "wildland" rather than "wilderness"; it's more accurate "wilderness" has an element of "pristine", while "wildland" is merely uncultivated land.
sentence 2: Greek fire really doesn't deserve more than a hatnote here, but if it's mentioned at all it should be further down in the lead. It's not central to the understanding of the article, it doesn't deserve second billing.
sentence 3: "bushfire" (in Australasia) - bush fire has much wider usage than just Australasia (see here, for example); phrasing it like that suggests that it's a local usage, which creates a misleading impression.
para 2, sentence 1: e.g., as a Latin abbrev, should be italicised
para 2, sentence 1: "peat, shrub, trees" goes from a collective noun ("peat") to a singular noun ('shrub") to a plural noun ("trees")
para 2, sent. 2: "or an action of man" - non-gender-specific language is preferable, as it something other than passive voice.
para 2, sent. 3: "nine out of ten" - is the source speaking globally, or only about the US?
para 2, sent. 4: there's a shift in tense in this sentence: "are common" to "occurring"
para 3, sent.1: "Along with the direct damage" - damage hasn't been mentioned yet, so you can't talk about "along with...damage"
para 3, sent.1: "direct damage...beneficial effects" - you can't really contrast "direct damage" with beneficial effects; if I see "direct" damage specified, I'd expect to see it contrasted with indirect damage. Alternately, you could contrast "damage" with "beneficial effects"
para 3, sent.1: "as many plant species are dependent on the effects of fire for growth and reproduction" - while strictly speaking this is true (every system has got to have at least a few pyrophytes), the idea that fires are important for plant regeneration isn't true of all systems. This should be re-phrased to make it clear that this observation is a (broad) local, rather than a global generalisation.
para 3, sent. 2: "too much wildfire may cause other negative ecological effects" - "too much" isn't an appropriate term for wildfire. "Too many"/"too frequent" (too short a return time) or "too large" (in areal extent), but not "too much"
- para 3 in general is too North-American-specific; the following can't really be generalised outside of the US or, at best, the developed world:
- "The strategies ... have varied over the years"
- "now incorporate techniques that permit and even encourage fires in some regions"
- "Wildfires generally do not involve property"
- "with extensive urbanization of wilderness"
- I've made some changes. I agree that the above statements may not apply to countries that don't have the resources to fight fires. However, I have yet to find anything discussing their actions one way or the other. What do you suggest?
- I realise the source is quoted correctly, but are there really such things as "arched power lines"? "Power line arcs" seems more likely to me. Maybe we can find a different source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed; new ref and wikilinks added. Better?
- Yes. that looks good. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Distinction from other fires
para 1, sent. 1: "peatlands" rather than peat, for consistency with grasslands. woodlands, scrubland...
para 2: the "defining characteristics" seem local rather than global. Ref [14] does not appear to support the assertion that "wildfires" are 100k+ acres, it simply calls them "large fires"; I couldn't find anything in my skim of ref [15] to support the assertion that speed was a distinguishing characteristic of wildfire.:Additional ref, page number added
- I still don't see it.
Some of the defining characteristics of wildfires are the large area of burned land, from hundreds of acres
- is supported by ref [2], the "definition of map terms". It only defines a wildfire as "Any nonstructure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland"; it says nothing about size. The previous term, "Large Incident", is defined as "A wildfire of 100 acres or more occurring in timber, or a wildfire of 300 acres or more occurring in grass/sage". I don't see this as supporting the idea that wildfires can be defined as fires that burn "hundreds of acres". The second ref supports the assertion that wildfires can be much larger, but it doesn't support the idea that they are by definition large fires. It simply lists "Large Fires (100,000+ fires)". The idea that wildfires can be large isn't the same as the idea that wildfires are, by definition, large. The same issue with the speed of spread - the Otways fire speaks of one that spreads quickly, but doesn't appear to say that especially rapid spread is a characteristic of wildfires.
- These two sites[73][74] suggest that, at least in the US, wildfires could mean just a few acres (USFS site, average of 31 acres ~ 0.12 km2). Should the "definition" of hundreds of acres be removed altogether, or can the term "features" be used instead and just point out certain "general descriptions" of wildfires?
- Is the additional ref after "continuous fuels, thick vegetation and continuous overhead tree canopies" sufficient to claim wildfires have rapid spread?
para 2, sentence 3: you should provide some context for the "Mann Gulch fire" - where is Mann Gulch, at least identify the country it's in.
para 2, sentence 3: after using imperial units earlier in the para (acres) the article switches to SI (°C)
Question: If a reference uses either units, should I convert it to one standard unit, or would that interfere with verifiability?- Use one standard. That's fine. Conversion is a simple mathematical operation. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Physical properties
para 2, sentence 1: "required to evaporate the contained water" - "the contained water" isn't really normal English usage.
para 2, sentence 5, 6: these sentences are grammatically inconsistent
I've made some changes, but I'm not sure what you meant; could you elaborate further?That's fine
para 3, sent. 1: In the previous section, you clocked the fires at 11 km/6.8 mph, while here a speed of 10.8km/7mph is used, based on the same source. While part of the problem is inconsistent specification of the number of significant figures in{{convert}}
, there's also the problem of inconsistent rounding. These need to be fixed.
- Fuel type
Photo captions aren't specific enough - "Utah" and "Northern Cascades" - should specify countrypara 2 ("Ground"), sent. 2: "which was a result" (or something such) rather than simply "a result"
para 3 ("Crawling or surface") - this is unreferenced
para 4 ("Crown, canopy, or aerial") - six references to support an uncontroversial statement is a little excessive
- Those references are all the sources that contributed to the section. Should they stay there or where they are now?
The slow-moving wildfires that are causing major changes in the Amazon need to be mentioned here, as should the synergism between logging, ranching and small-holder cultivation in the advancing frontier in the Amazon.
- Mentioned in the ecology section; see next note...
- Climate change is mentioned in the next section (the ecology section) but would probably fit better in this section.
- I'm not sure I understand. I was under the impression that climate change is an ecological focus. Could you elaborate?
- Ecology
para 2, sent. 1 (and continuing) - these statements about fire-dependence and fire-suppression are specific to the US (and perhaps a few other areas); they should not be presented as broad generalisations
- Moved to the Plant adaptations section. It is appropriate there?
- Plant adaptations
Why is plant defense against herbivory linked as a "see also" here?
para 1, sent. 1 - "wilderness" in unnecessary here, since the operation concept here is "ecosystem", not "wilderness"
Many of the "see [xxx]" are capitalised (like "pioneer species", "serotiny") - these are not proper nouns and should not be capitalised mid-sentence
What about those in the{{see also}}
templates, should those be lower case as well?Those are fine, IMO.
- Prevention
para 1, sent. 3: "Current policies often..." - again, which policies, where? (This sounds US-specific)
para 3, again, seems overly tied to the specific case in the US, but is written as if it's a broad generalisation
- Detection
- Again, it sounds like the US situation is being generalised too broadly.
- Should I add statements and citations that name countries in particular? (see [75], [76], [77]) MrBell (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added some further comments in blue; more later. Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.To help you get started, I added alt text to the image included via {{Wildland Firefighting}}. Eubulides (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the text I added appropriate? MrBell (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding it. I tweaked it a bit to try to improve it. Hey, that's the Ionian Sea, not the Aegean! Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
There is no History section or subsection, could be very useful just below the Characteristics.Brandt 08:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What should a history section or subsection include? Should it be combined with the ecology section, or perhaps move the Fossil record info to the history section? MrBell (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that there's now a History section in progress. Suggestion: add a summary of the historical record (which basically begins where Fossil record leaves off). For example, how about when the ancients set wildfires deliberately, as part of hunting or raising crops or fighting wars? How about wildfires in mediaeval Europe or ancient China or 19th century America? that sort of thing. (I'm no expert, but surely there are sources about this.) Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some detail; is it suitable?
- Deliberate fires such as this are already covered in Causes through a link to Slash and Burn. I'm not convinced that it needs to be duplicated in History, but a {seealso} link and a short summary could provide a useful addition to the History section.Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks fine now. Brandt 12:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that there's now a History section in progress. Suggestion: add a summary of the historical record (which basically begins where Fossil record leaves off). For example, how about when the ancients set wildfires deliberately, as part of hunting or raising crops or fighting wars? How about wildfires in mediaeval Europe or ancient China or 19th century America? that sort of thing. (I'm no expert, but surely there are sources about this.) Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I reviewed this article sometime ago and having read a few papers since then I think that there is another 'point' that could be added to Ecology. A Wildfire in Heather in Fylingdales Moor, in 2003, in the UK, stripped the moor of peat back to bare bones and exposed prehistoric archaelogy, which was good for the archaeologists in the short term. One of the problems (not mentioned in this article) was continuing severe wind errosion which could have had serious consequences, especially with rain and frost errosion compounding the problem. The decision was made to manually 'seed' the affected area with grass and heather seads to stabilise the surface and to allow the heather to regrow. I have a reference for this. On a non-wildfire topic, Iceland has also experimented with manually 'seeding' areas of desert affected by volcanic debris to minimise losses from wind errosion (I don't have a reference for this).Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can add that info if you'd like (if you're too busy). Could you direct me to the ref regarding the peat burn/heather reseeding?
- Nice ref, thanks for adding it.
- Support. I reviewed this article at WP:GAN back in March 2009 and was impressed by it's quality, which appeared to me to be a Good WP:GAN. It has been further improved by the nominator since I reviewed it; particularly as a result of this WP:FAC. Having seen several recent articles progress from GA-level through to FA-level, I am very happy to support this one at WP:FAC.Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for the reminder. MrBell (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: See my comments here. --Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:30, 16 August 2009 [78].
Ralph Bakshi
- Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been significantly expanded and improved since its last nomination. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incredibly, the article appears to have regressed in regards to one significant claim: that Fritz the Cat "gross[ed] over $100 million worldwide". This claim--solely sourced to a passing phrase in a Variety obituary of the film's producer--ignores multiple WP:V-standard sources that contradict it. I've raised this issue multiple times with the nominator: twice during the previous FAC nomination ([79], [80]) and on his Talk page between nominations (User_talk:Ibaranoff24/Archive_1#Bakshi). Steve then solved the problem, moderating the claim in the article text and adding a note referencing the wide variety of figures given for the film's box-office gross ([81]). The nominator has seen fit to revert Steve's work and restore the claim he seems inalterably wedded to. DocKino (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that two sources print that the film grossed more than $100 million - Variety and Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi - gives the figure more credibility than any of the other figures suggested. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: DocKino has not made any edits since June 29, when he was warned against edit-warring. This user, by the way, did not object to the sourcing of a book that I strongly suspected to have been copied from or researched from a Wikipedia revision giving a gross sourced from a user-edited IMDb page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- My choice about when and whether to edit is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not this article meets FA standards. (And, by the way, this is Wikipedia: anyone can go ahead and warn anybody about anything at any time. Would you like me to stick a warning tag on your Talk page? How about one for incivility? You've certainly earned it over the past few months.)
- Your response is inadequate. (1) It is unclear even where in Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi this claim is based. The citation is one of a remarkable twenty-eight citations that reference eight different pages in the book. Please cite the specific page on which this claim appears. While you're at it, please cite the other specific pages on which other specific, discrete bits of information appear. (2) Even ignoring the book you "strongly suspect" is itself poorly sourced, we still have multiple high-quality sources giving very different figures for the film's box office take. Steve made sure those sources were acknowledged; you have made sure they are not. (3) You continue to refuse to do what I advised a while back. Research the actual, authoritative Variety box office reports.—DocKino (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? It cites the chapter relating to the film, conveniently labeled "Fritz the Cat". The statement occurs in the last two pages of the chapter (80-81). And Variety backs this up. I refuse to do what you advise because you have no idea what you're talking about, and I refuse to cite inaccurate figures. The figures cited in this article are accurate and will stay. Your comments are unhelpful and disruptive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I would also like to see this issue resolved, but I doubt it's paramount to the article becoming a featured article. It raises a question though: What should be the authoritative source on a film's gross if sources differ? Or do we just give a range in the article and say sources disagree? --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that several of these sources seem equally reliable. Back when I gave this a copyedit a month or two ago I attempted to implement a compromise; it was swiftly reverted, so I'm not sure what the solution should be. Steve T • C 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the figures reflected in the article are the accurate ones. The figures in the citations you added are out of date and questionably sourced. Unfiltered and Variety both state that the film grossed over $100 million, therefore, the figure has more authority than a book like Planet Cat, added by you, which is not only not about animation history or Ralph Bakshi, but is sourced from a Wikipedia revision sourced from Internet Movie Database, edited by some random person. And how does this qualify as "swiftly reverted" when your edits sat there for months before being changed to reflect what is factually accurate and verified? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, less than one month actually; I considered that swift in the scheme of things. Though I accept that my choice of wording could be seen as antagonistical, I hope that given the time I spent copyediting the article my good faith in helping you get it to FA standard is clear; the question over the film's box office shouldn't be allowed to hold the nomination up, and I only wanted to pursue a solution that would satisfy everyone. Good luck, Steve T • C 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for coming across as accusatory/aggressive or anything else, that really wasn't my attention, and I do feel that you put in a lot of good work into the article, and I did accept the compromise enough to apply it to other articles covering the film's production before reading Unfiltered, which is more recently researched, and is the only thorough discussion of Bakshi's career (although I was initially under the impression that it was an art book with very little text, and I was unable to find a copy for quite some time), which is why I feel that it is more authoritative in regards to the film's gross...and the fact that Variety agrees with Unfiltered confirms this... (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, less than one month actually; I considered that swift in the scheme of things. Though I accept that my choice of wording could be seen as antagonistical, I hope that given the time I spent copyediting the article my good faith in helping you get it to FA standard is clear; the question over the film's box office shouldn't be allowed to hold the nomination up, and I only wanted to pursue a solution that would satisfy everyone. Good luck, Steve T • C 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the figures reflected in the article are the accurate ones. The figures in the citations you added are out of date and questionably sourced. Unfiltered and Variety both state that the film grossed over $100 million, therefore, the figure has more authority than a book like Planet Cat, added by you, which is not only not about animation history or Ralph Bakshi, but is sourced from a Wikipedia revision sourced from Internet Movie Database, edited by some random person. And how does this qualify as "swiftly reverted" when your edits sat there for months before being changed to reflect what is factually accurate and verified? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- The problem is that several of these sources seem equally reliable. Back when I gave this a copyedit a month or two ago I attempted to implement a compromise; it was swiftly reverted, so I'm not sure what the solution should be. Steve T • C 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: DocKino has not made any edits since June 29, when he was warned against edit-warring. This user, by the way, did not object to the sourcing of a book that I strongly suspected to have been copied from or researched from a Wikipedia revision giving a gross sourced from a user-edited IMDb page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ralph_Bakshi.jpg should be looking into the text, otherwise images fine Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: I've reverted your mirroring change to RalphBakshiJan09.jpg. MOS:IMAGES says "images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should you be replying to me, considering that it was MacMed who made that decision? I considering flipping the other photo, but I decided that it wasn't necessary, since simply changing the placement is much easier. And I really don't understand why either of these images should "face the text". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- No it was an explanatory comment to Fasach Nua or anyone else who might be wondering why File:RalphBakshiJan09.jpg has been flipped (again) and is no longer facing the text. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should you be replying to me, considering that it was MacMed who made that decision? I considering flipping the other photo, but I decided that it wasn't necessary, since simply changing the placement is much easier. And I really don't understand why either of these images should "face the text". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: I've reverted your mirroring change to RalphBakshiJan09.jpg. MOS:IMAGES says "images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to comment on the FLC for Ralph Bakshi filmography suggesting that it be merged into this article as it isn't very long. Would anyone object to that? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The filmography has been merged. Hopefully that shouldn't change things too much. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.I added it to the lead image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed most of the dabs; however I cannot find the link to Ralph Bakshi filmography, which is a redirect to Ralph Bakshi. The toolbox says the article links to the redirect, but I could not find it with a WikEd search. MacMedtalkstalk 20:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The filmography was merged into and redirected to this article. The link was from the navbox at the bottom; I removed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I admit I was wary when I saw this here for the 8th time, but it looks like a lot of great work has been done since the last nomination. The prose is way better, and the research appears more thorough. A couple comments:
A couple of the details in the Early Life section struck me as inane and unrelated to Bakshi's development and body of work—especially the bit about the city noise soothing him to sleep. I can see mentioning how he dug through trash cans to get comics, but do we need the bit about cutting his hands? It seems more anecdotal than encyclopedic.- Clipped. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
"Bakshi was sent to the principal's office, where a transfer to Manhattan's School of Industrial Art was initiated" Unclear. Did the principal initiate the transfer? On his own or in consultation with Bakshi's parents? The subject of the sentence is unclear due to the passive voice, as are the reasons for sending him to that particular school.- I tried to clarify this. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. I've done some more work on the prose, especially in the latter half which tends to get less attention. It looks good to me, although I've been through it several times and might be blind to further problems. --Laser brain (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. EDIT: Struck pending resolution of new concerns. Steve T • C I've had this watchlisted for a while now. The main issues at the last FAC were legitimate prose niggles; it's had a lot of attention since then by the nominator and several other editors, and it's looking good now. The issue over the $100 million claim for Fritz the Cat is more or less resolved with the addition of the new source that backs up Variety (though it would be interesting to find out why those other sources said something different.) Glad to see this one back here and passing muster. Nice work, Steve T • C 10:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incredibly, I've encountered many mainstream journalists who don't understand the differences between gross and profit, nor worldwide and domestic, and so on. They don't let this misunderstanding stop them from writing about films. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The article's generally quite good, although there are bits and pieces that can be improved. Here are a few comments:
- "and would often dig through trash cans to get ahold of them"-->and often dug through trash cans to get a hold of them
- "At the age of eight, Bakshi overheard a loud noise while sleeping at a friend's house, and later learned that a neighbor had committed suicide after murdering his unfaithful wife." This seems like a random fact. Did this incident affect him in any way (his work, life, relationships)?
- "Schudde was surprised that Bakshi was still arriving at work" I'm probably being dense, but what does it mean to "arriv[e] at work"?
- "Elaine disliked his work hours, which often left Mark in the care of Ralph's mother." Not as clear as it could be (the hours didn't actually put him in the her care). Maybe "Elaine disliked his [insert adjective here] work hours, which meant that Mark often had to be left in the care of Ralph's mother."
- "an argument ensued between the three, with Schudde eventually taking Bakshi's side." The noun + -ing construction is awkward. See Tony1's excellent guide on how to fix this issue.
- "Bakshi wanted to leave Terrytoons
in orderto form his own organization" - "Although Hampft was prepared to offer Bakshi a severance, Bakshi immediately ripped up the papers." What "papers" are being referred to here? Don't assume readers will know.
- "to learn Crumb's distinctive style
in orderto prove that he coul" Those two words will almost always be redundant. Scan the rest of the article for them. - "After pitching the film to every studio in town, Warner Bros. bought the film and promised an $850,000 budget." I think you meant "After Bakshi pitched the film to every studio in town..." (otherwise it sounds like Warner Bros. was pitching the film).
- "Arkoff threatened to pull the film's budget unless Krantz rehired Bakshi, who returned a week later." What does it mean to "pull a budget"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bakshi described Coonskin as his best film." Could this be cast more concisely as "Bakshi called Coonskin his best film."? (you can't really describe something as the best) If so, you might consider putting quotes around "his best film" (or whatever the source text says). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fails 1a. While major improvements have been made to the article since its previous nomination, the quality of the writing still does not meet our standards. Here's some examples, just from the first section of the main text:
- "Ralph became fascinated with the city's structure". What does this mean? He became fascinated with the city's architecture? With its neighborhoods and other aspects of land use? With its political and economic structure?
- "At the age of eight, Bakshi overheard a loud noise while sleeping at a friend's house, and later learned that a neighbor had committed suicide after murdering his unfaithful wife". As Dabomb87 noted above, this anecdote is presented without any suggestion that it is significant to Bakshi's later life and career. If no such significance can be explicated, the anecdote should be cut.
- "Ralph's father and uncle traveled to Washington D.C. in search of new business opportunities". If there is going to be a reference to "new business opportunities", we should previously have been given some idea what sort of business Bakshi's father was involved in.
- "Because Bakshi felt that it was not fair for him to walk several miles every day to attend Greenleaf Elementary School while all of his friends attended segregated schools..." Awkward introduction of Greenleaf Elementary School, which--if it was, as we are forced to presume, an all-white school--was itself a segregated school. It is also strange to give the name of the school where his attendance was unremarkable, but not the name of the school where his attendance was exceptional.
- "While most of the students had no problem with Bakshi's attending the school, the teacher sought advice from the principal". The school just had one teacher?
- "Suspecting that segregated whites would riot if they learned that a white student was attending a black school..." Did the police really "suspect" this possibility? I suspect they "feared" it or were "concerned" by it.
- "Meanwhile, Ralph's father had been experiencing anxiety attacks and stress". Most people experience stress. Perhaps we can do without that datum.
- "Within a few months, Ralph's mother sold their store". Store? What store? Where did this store suddenly come from?
- "At the age of 15, Bakshi took up cartooning as a means of detailing his experiences". Better to say he took up cartooning as a means of "recording" or "communicating" his experiences.
- "Because the principal viewed Bakshi as a troublesome student who was unlikely to succeed, he transferred Ralph to Manhattan's School of Industrial Art as a last resort". Very ungainly. We've just read evidence that Bakshi was a troublesome student--that's how he wound up before the principal; the notion doesn't need to be explicitly articulated here. And what does the hyped-up phrase "as a last resort" add to our understanding? Note also the infelicitous switch from "Bakshi" to "Ralph" in this sentence--a problem that runs through the entire section.
Again, all these points are from just the first, relatively brief section of the main text. Similar 1a deficiencies appear throughout the article. DocKino (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tony (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)—Unprofessional appearance in the extreme over-referencing. The prose looks ok.[reply]
- "Adult-oriented productions" sounds dirty. But I guess it doesn't mean that.
- 1 1 1 1 1 – and more. This is way over-referenced. I've removed a few of the redundant numbers from the lead. Please audit the rest for repeated numbers every sentence. It's disruptive and unnecessary (unless there's a contentious statement). The next one to go comes after "mistakes"; there are NINE [5]s in a row. Please audit throughout. Then I see 25 [11]s in a row. Come on, please. Tony (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS It is a different matter when different page references are provided sentence-by-sentence from the same source. See Siward, Earl of Northumbria, reviewed below, for a good example. Tony (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that "over-referencing" is a problem that is major enough to warrant an opposition. I think you're nit-picking. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I do think it is. See the discussion overleaf. Tony (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added alt text to the lead.
Can someone please add it for the remaining images?Alt text is required for FA status, for accessibility by the visually impaired. Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review article, and please see WP:ALT for advice about alt text. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone pinged DocKino for a revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Consider me a Support if Dockino withdraws his oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revisit Ten days ago I recorded my opposition based on an appraisal of the article's continuing, substantial 1a problems. I noted, in bullet-point style, ten issues in the first section of the main text alone (plus the unbulleted issue of the recurrent, unmotivated switching back and forth between "Ralph" and "Bakshi"). In the ten days since, not the slightest effort has been made to address the issues I raised. And, as I noted, similar 1a deficiencies appear throughout the article; these, too have been left unaddressed. Here are some examples, from just the first paragraph of the second section of the main text:
- "Bakshi commuted for four hours a day to arrive at the offices, where he had begun work as a cel polisher." This simple thought is expressed in as clunky a manner as possible. Try this: "Bakshi commuted four hours a day to the studio, where he worked as a cel polisher." (Or, to more accurately reflect the chronology: "Bakshi was hired as a cell polisher; he commuted four hours a day to the studio.")
- "He carefully removed dirt and dust from animation cels as a base level position." This is not idiomatic English. What the writer means is: "In this low-level position, he carefully removed dirt and dust from animation cels." Or this: "The low-level position required Bakshi to carefully remove dirt and dust from animation cels."
- "After a few months, Schudde was surprised that Bakshi was still showing up to work, and promoted him to cel painter. While employed as a cel painter, Bakshi began to practice animating, sneaking ten of the cels that he was given into the "to-do" pile of a neighboring cel painter, Leo Giuliani, in order to give himself additional time to practice animating." The writer has managed to unnecessarily repeat "cel painter" in the span of eight words and "to practice animating" in the span of one run-on sentence.
Given the continuing, extensive prose issues with the article, which the nominator has completely ignored for the past week and a half, I must maintain my opposition. DocKino (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as it's so close, if the nominator doesn't incorporate your suggestions—or offer a rebuttal of them—I'll take a stab at the remaining 1a objections tomorrow. Steve T • C 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
Could you please also add alt text while you're at it? It's needed for criterion 3, and is easy to add. Please see "alt text" in the comments above.Eubulides (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Sure, I'll have a swing at that. Here's my first attempt at one. I'll look at the others shortly; stop me if I'm making things worse. :-) Steve T • C 09:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, they're ready for another look. Most are simple city skylines, so shouldn't require much more attention. One is a patent drawing for rotoscoping, the alt text for which I've deliberately kept simple despite the image's detail; opinions on this one in particular would be appreciated. All the best, Steve T • C 10:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it's excellent. For future reference, alt text doesn't have to be quite that long; many readers prefer it briefer (as was already done in the infobox image). But some do prefer it longer and I wouldn't bother to trim it unless asked. Eubulides (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, they're ready for another look. Most are simple city skylines, so shouldn't require much more attention. One is a patent drawing for rotoscoping, the alt text for which I've deliberately kept simple despite the image's detail; opinions on this one in particular would be appreciated. All the best, Steve T • C 10:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I'll have a swing at that. Here's my first attempt at one. I'll look at the others shortly; stop me if I'm making things worse. :-) Steve T • C 09:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
- Comment. There are several sections that reply completely or almost completely on a single source. I do not know if this is in the "spirit" of 1c. For example, these three sections are sequential: Unproduced projects and retirement (1983–86) and Return to television (1987–89) and Return to film, continued television projects and retirement (1990–present) and rely very heavily on Ref 36. —mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well done so far with the copyedit, Steve. If you had the the inclination, energy, and time to go through the whole article as you've done to this point, there's no question it would be FA-worthy. DocKino (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. I think I've covered the specific points you raised above, with the exception of those that will probably require the nominator's access to the offline sources. For clarity, these are: the need to work out what "Ralph became fascinated with the city's structure" is referring to; what the "business opportunities" were; a note about the previously-unmentioned family store; and the description of Bakshi's job that has his removing "dirt and dust from animation cels as a base level position". I'm not entirely sure whether "base level position" refers to Bakshi, or the cels in preparation for another procedure. As for a further copyedit, I can go through the rest of the article for similar issues, though it wouldn't be before pr/ar tomorrow, and I don't know how much longer this is going to be given. With all these issues in mind, if I can't find the time to get it up to snuff by precisely this time tomorrow, I'll switch to neutral. Steve T • C 00:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well done so far with the copyedit, Steve. If you had the the inclination, energy, and time to go through the whole article as you've done to this point, there's no question it would be FA-worthy. DocKino (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just found a substantive conflict between the lead section and the main text. The lead states, "Beginning his career at the Terrytoons studio as a cel polisher, he eventually became the studio's Director of Animation." The main text identifies Bakshi as having held several jobs at Terrrytoons, including "director" and, for The Mighty Heroes, "creative director", but nowhere refers to the title "Director of Animation". The terminology needs to be reconciled and/or corrected by someone with access to the sources. DocKino (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another substantive problem, in the Heavy Traffic section: The Street Arabs project is introduced, then disappears without explanation. This only takes a sentence to address, but again, we need someone with access to the sources. DocKino (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Street Arabs is a poem Bakshi wrote preceding the production of Heavy Traffic. It's clearly stated in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- It was not clearly stated in the article--thus the problem. Now it is. Terrific. DocKino (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Street Arabs is a poem Bakshi wrote preceding the production of Heavy Traffic. It's clearly stated in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- All of DocKino's issues with the article have been clarified. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself, Mr. 24. Yes, these two substantive issues have been resolved, but the article still requires a significant amount of copyediting. However, with Steve's yeoman work making it readable, and the final polishing I'm doing in his wake, the end is actually in sight. And you should stay available, as well--I found these two substantive issues after poring over only the first third of the article. That leaves two-thirds to go. DocKino (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another substantive issue (still in the first third): According to the second paragraph of the Fritz the Cat section, Bakshi always foresaw--as a purely aesthetic choice--that the film would use backgrounds derived from traced photographs: "Preparation began on a studio pitch that included a poster-sized cel featuring the comic's cast against a traced photo background—as Bakshi intended the film to appear." However, the fourth paragraph relates how this "major breakthrough" occurred in response to "production limitations". Which is it? It could plausibly be both--if the limitations made Bakshi's initial preference the only possible approach--but that would need to be stated clearly. Please check the sources. DocKino (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarity. The reference to Gene Deitch should be clearer. The article states that as Bakshi "perfected his animation style, he began to take on more jobs, including creating design tests for Gene Deitch." Deitch was apparently the head of Terrytoons into 1958 (though the article currently gives no hint of this). Please check the sources--did Bakshi do these "design tests" while Deitch was still at Terrytoons or after he had left? If the latter, do the sources indicate for what project or company the tests were created? DocKino (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources do not indicate the project. It was for Terrytoons. Why would another studio be discussed in the middle of a paragraph on Terrytoons? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Have you ever heard of moonlighting? That is a possible reason why. The failure to properly identify Deitch is what led to the confusion. DocKino (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another substantive issue. The discussion of Wizards says Bakshi "return[ed] to the fantasy drawings he had created in high school for inspiration." The earlier discussion of his high school–era drawing makes no mention, however, of fantasy material. In terms of content, all we have is the fact that "at the age of 15, Bakshi took up cartooning to document his experiences." Reference to the fantasy drawing needs to be added to the high school section. Please check the sources to see how this would best be characterized. DocKino (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another substantive issue. The coverage of The Lord of the Rings is four paragraphs long. Toward the beginning of the first, we learn that Bakshi took over the project from John Boorman, who was planning to adapt the entire story in one film. Only in the fourth paragraph do we learn that Bakshi's version was an "incomplete story". This structure obviously doesn't work, and crucial information is missing: When was it decided that Bakshi would do a multipart version? As soon as he took over, or during production? How much of the story does the movie tell--the first-third (which would be in line with the original trilogy and the later Peter Jackson film versions)? About half? More than half? Again, we need direct reference to the sources. DocKino (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An inadvertent plagiarism query. The following passage sounds like it might well have been lifted straight from the source: Junktown "focused on misfit technology and discarded ideals". Ibaranoff, could you please quote us the relevant passage from Gibson and McDonnell, so we can verify the status of this phrasing? DocKino (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, there's a problem. The same phrasing pops up in a Bakshi quote from years later, concerning a TV special based on Junktown: "We were trying something different—discarded ideals, misfit technology—but a series didn't make sense." To avoid plagiarism, which is what we currently have, please rephrase the earlier passage as appropriate OR quote it and clearly attribute it. Now, are you sure you haven't similarly misused your sources elsewhere in the article? Such cases usually don't appear in isolation. Ibaranoff, please go through the entire article and make sure you haven't introduced any other instances of inadvertent plagiarism.DocKino (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A major structural concern. There is great inconsistency in how the critical reception of Bakshi's feature films is treated. For instance, four contemporary reviews of Coonskin are quoted; similarly, five contemporary reviews of The Lord of the Rings are quoted. On the other hand, the only reference to Heavy Traffic's reception is that "Vincent Canby of The New York Times ranked [it] among his 'Ten Best Films of 1973'". As for Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice, not a single critical opinion from the time of their respective releases is cited. The balance does not have to be exact, but for a Featured Article it has to be significantly better than this. DocKino (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm doing the best to reflect the sources I have. I cannot go farther than that when the materials are limited. Do you expect me to go back in time and grab several major newspapers? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- You are expected to structure the article so there is a sensible balance in the coverage of the films' critical reception. You are not expected to go back in time. You are expected to perform research and writing commensurate with a Featured Article if you seek that status. Are you claiming that it is not possible with reasonable effort—online, at the library—to find any contemporary reviews of Heavy Traffic, Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice? That's not credible.DocKino (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just used my magical time machine and found some contemporary Heavy Traffic reviews from major publications. Got one for Hey Good Lookin as well. See, it can be done. You can take care of the remaining three films, right? DocKino (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm doing the best to reflect the sources I have. I cannot go farther than that when the materials are limited. Do you expect me to go back in time and grab several major newspapers? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- A query. In the "Unproduced projects and retirement" section, one passage reads, "Bakshi Productions crewmembers worked on cartoon takes concerning pulp fiction". What does that mean? Please explicate here or directly rephrase for clarity in the article. DocKino (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what you think it means. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I have told you I don't know what it means. Do try not to be a jerk. What are "cartoon takes"? What does it mean that they "concern[ed]" pulp fiction? Did these "takes" relate to Bakshi and Zingarelli's projected feature about Golden Age Hollywood or not? The language you have used here is not idiomatic, so your intended meaning is entirely unclear. DocKino (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what you think it means. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- For the opening section of the main text, it would still be good to know what sort of "business opportunities" Bakshi's father and uncle were pursuing and what sort of "store" the family owned in Washington. We should also have the maiden names of his two wives, Elaine and Liz. DocKino (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know them. The sources don't have them. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Something else should also be made clear, if possible. The article tells us that Bakshi asked Geisel (Seuss) to storyboard The Butter Battle Book. Did Geisel actually do so? DocKino (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Connection between lead section and main text. The second sentence of the lead claims that "the American animation industry declined in the 1960s and 1970s", but there is simply no discussion of or support for this claim in the main text. The closest we get is that Paramount closed its animation division in 1967, but that in of itself is hardly indicative of an industry-wide decline. Either the lead needs to be recast or the main text needs to be amplified on this point. DocKino (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clipped. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Both Steve and I have now gone through the entire article. If the issues I've raised above are properly addressed, I can switch to support. DocKino (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still another issue. The "Return to television" section gives two very different interpretations of Bakshi's experience with Nickelodeon, which many readers are likely not to realize refer to the exact same production. Paragraph 4 refers to Christmas in Tattertown and quotes Bakshi to the effect that the projected series for which it was originally intended as a pilot "didn't make sense. It just didn't work." Paragraph 6 informs us that though "Nickelodeon had initially been willing to greenlight 39 episodes of Junktown, the Wildmon controversy led the project to be renamed and eventually abandoned." I was able to add a bit to paragraph 4 to make matters clearer, but my access to relevant sources is limited. The rest is up to you. Please recast this section as appropriate so the discussion of the Nickelodeon project is coherent and clear. In particular, we need to be clear about this: Was the series abandoned because "it just didn't work"? Or because of the Wildmon controversy? Or is that an unresolved question? DocKino (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the lack of information on some of the films: a 1983 Ocala Star-Banner article from the time has something to say about American Pop and Fire and Ice; it fills the gap in the coverage of the latter's commercial reception ("failed to catch on") as well as including something of Bakshi's response to that. It also includes an interesting couple of quotes about Bakshi's opinion of the market for animated films, as well as his assertion that he was abandoning them in favour of live-action. The piece also contains the curious statement that American Pop was a financial failure, which conflicts with the statement in this article. In addition to all that, there's a 1983 Christian Science Monitor capsule review of Fire and Ice that might be of some use. Oh, and this turned up too, another Ocala Star-Banner article, this one a profile piece. Very interesting and of definite use, it also tells us that Fire and Ice was a "critical and commercial failure". Steve T • C 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. OK, so I initially let my support stand as I hoped that DocKino's concerns could be resolved quickly. That hasn't turned out to be the case, so I've regretfully struck it for now. In addition to those issues, a five minute check revealed the sources I've listed just above this statement, so there's definite scope for fleshing out these niggly gaps in the coverage if a more comprehensive source search could be performed. I'm also a little concerned at the huge reliance on Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, which the Los Angeles Times called "a sloppily written paean that reads like the product of a vanity press" and "a superficial apologia"—looking at it again with those eyes, I can sort of see what their reviewer means. Almost none of the problems with Bakshi's career are attributed to the man himself; an excuse is always made for the critical failure of this, the commercial disappointment of that. With a whopping 95 cites to this book, we need to be sure we're not just parroting a puff piece. Steve T • C 20:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That was my concern above. At the time it was ref 36, but it is now ref 37. Way too many references to a single source, Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, unleavened with other sources. —mattisse (Talk) 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you already did say that, sorry. I missed your comment due to the flurry of posts from DocKino; had I seen it, I'd certainly have checked the source sooner. Steve T • C 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're going to take the word of one reviewer who doesn't know what he's talking about over the established consensus that Unfiltered is a better source than anything else? Any reviewer referring to the book as a "puff piece" is clearly trying to slam Bakshi. There's absolutely no puffery in the book or this article. Everything written is factual and neutral. Opposing the FAC of what is clearly one of the best articles on Wikipedia is one of the biggest mistakes you will ever make on here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Ibaranoff? Is that a threat of some kind? I'm having trouble understanding this behavior when DocKino and Steve seem interested in improving the article and helping it pass. Why antagonize? Bad form. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're going to take the word of one reviewer who doesn't know what he's talking about over the established consensus that Unfiltered is a better source than anything else? Any reviewer referring to the book as a "puff piece" is clearly trying to slam Bakshi. There's absolutely no puffery in the book or this article. Everything written is factual and neutral. Opposing the FAC of what is clearly one of the best articles on Wikipedia is one of the biggest mistakes you will ever make on here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Sourcing issues - I have some concerns about the sources, but I have not been able to check them as most of the sources are to a single offline source. Mostly, I am wondering about them because of number. For example, one source is "22-25; 28-29". Two pages are missing and yet information is presented as linear. The information that follows the first paragraph is cited to the same book but much later "pp. 106; 108-109; 114". That is a 70+ page gap in what amounts to only 8 years later in time. Since this is childhood years, I would not expect a 70 page gap to account for 8 years (or be that in-depth over those 8 years). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to the Gibson and McDonnell book either, but there's not necessarily a problem here. It appears that the book is unsually organized. The references to pages 22–25, 28–29, as you can see, are to the chapter on "Brownsville", Bakshi's primary childhood home. The references to pages 106, 108–109, 114 are to the chapter on Bakshi's film Coonskin, which deals with issues of racism and the African American experience--apparently the authors treat his few months living in a black neighborhood in Washington, D.C., and his encounters with racial prejudice in that chapter. Thus the book's coverage of his D.C. period is placed thematically rather than chronologically. (As for the "missing pages", I imagine they are devoted to images, rather than text.) DocKino (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to get independent verification of the book and then for the passages to be checked. This is not standard for academic biographies. According to the Amazon reviews, the work seems to contain a lot of art and is more of a tribute than biography, which gives me doubts about the content. I will try to hunt down a copy unless someone can get to one first. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good for your Ottava. As you say, this is not a standard biography. It appears to me to be based on Bakshi's memories (the police dragging him out of a classroom, etc.) and there are close to 100 references in the article to that one book (which is only 280 pages long and full of graphics). —mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For context on how the book is organised, this video may be of use. :-) The additional review quotes that call this a "tribute", along with the comments of Stephen Worth of ASIFA ("It's just pictures, pictures and more pictures ... along with just enough text to put them in context") in addition to the LA Times review I cited in my "oppose" statement, all make it clear that the use of this source needs to be considered very carefully. Steve T • C 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I toned down the segments on Fire and Ice and American Pop. I disagree with these statements. There is a lot of biographical information in the book, and it is cataloged as a biography in my local library. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Indeed there is a lot that can be gleaned from the book, and in no way am I suggesting that it shouldn't be used, just that care should be taken to make sure its highly positive tone isn't reflected in this article—which is where more neutral citations can come in for support. Steve T • C 21:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And keeping in mind that it is not a standard biography and appears to lack a bibliography and notes on sources. Perhaps the book makes it clear specifically from where the biographical and other information comes from. —mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be wandering the stacks of a reasonably-sized library tomorrow, as it happens. It seems to have been released in the UK, so I'll see if I can find a copy; barring that, perhaps I can at least look at it in one of the larger bookstore chains. Steve T • C 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And keeping in mind that it is not a standard biography and appears to lack a bibliography and notes on sources. Perhaps the book makes it clear specifically from where the biographical and other information comes from. —mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed there is a lot that can be gleaned from the book, and in no way am I suggesting that it shouldn't be used, just that care should be taken to make sure its highly positive tone isn't reflected in this article—which is where more neutral citations can come in for support. Steve T • C 21:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I toned down the segments on Fire and Ice and American Pop. I disagree with these statements. There is a lot of biographical information in the book, and it is cataloged as a biography in my local library. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- For context on how the book is organised, this video may be of use. :-) The additional review quotes that call this a "tribute", along with the comments of Stephen Worth of ASIFA ("It's just pictures, pictures and more pictures ... along with just enough text to put them in context") in addition to the LA Times review I cited in my "oppose" statement, all make it clear that the use of this source needs to be considered very carefully. Steve T • C 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly feel that the article is neutral. I also feel that Unfiltered does not over-praise Bakshi to the point of puffery, and that the reviewer who described the book as such may have been biased against Bakshi. Also, I had absolutely no intention of threatening anyone, I was merely being arrogant. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- That's lovely. But... It's been more than three days now, and you still have done nothing to address the major issue of the article's failure to deal with the contemporary critical reception of Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice.
It's been more than two and a half days now, and you still have done nothing to clarify the unintelligible statement about "cartoon takes concerning pulp fiction".It's been more than two and a half days now, and you still have done nothing to reconcile and consolidate the discussion of the Nickelodeon Junktown/Tattertown project. - As for Unfiltered, you have said that the Los Angles Times reviewer who called it "a sloppily written paean that reads like the product of a vanity press" and ""a superficial apologia", in your carefully considered view, "doesn't know what he's talking about". In a pleasant communication you sent directly to Steve, you further explained that said reviewer is an "idiot". That reviewer is Charles Solomon, a well-established scholar of cinematic animation history, whose books include Enchanted Drawings: The History of Animation and Disney Lost and Found: Exploring the Hidden Artwork from Never-Produced Animation. Please explain how you concluded that Mr. Solomon "doesn't know what he's talking about". In contrast, you have claimed that there is an "established consensus that Unfiltered is a better source than anything else". In your pleasant communication to Steve, you similarly announced that a "majority of film and animation historians" approve of Unfiltered. That's wonderful! Please share with us your evidence for the existence of this "established consensus", your evidence for the positive opinion of the "majority of film and animation historians". Obviously, you must have access to many favorable reviews of the book by scholars much better respected than that ignorant, biased Mr. Solomon. Please direct us to those reviews so we can resolve this issue forthwith. DocKino (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that I did resolve the issues regarding those films. I rewrote the pulp fiction statement. The source is used neutrally, and doesn't have to be considered. And Charles Solomon doesn't know what he's talking about. His books are riddled with false statements and are poorly-researched, and he's very biased against Bakshi. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- That's lovely. But... It's been more than three days now, and you still have done nothing to address the major issue of the article's failure to deal with the contemporary critical reception of Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice.
- In The Animated Movie Guide, Jerry Beck states that Wizards and American Pop were successful while discussing Hey Good Lookin'. Adding Beck's book as a citation should clear up any concerns of puffery. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- There is still zero progress on addressing the contemporary critical reception of Wizards, American Pop, and Fire and Ice. There is still zero progress on reconciling and consolidating the discussion of the Nickelodeon Junktown/Tattertown project. We must assume your claims that Solomon's "books are riddled with false statements and are poorly-researched, and he's very biased against Bakshi" are as baseless as your claims that an "established consensus" and a "majority of film and animation historians" regard Unfiltered as a superb source. Given your continuing failure to provide a shred of evidence for these imaginative claims, yes, please do continue to seek out additional sourcing for the article. DocKino (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to reflect an attitude towards me, considering how long and how thoroughly this article has been researched and edited. There is absolutely no need to add further commentary, nor to remove content from the article just because you say so. You are not the dictator of Wikipedia. Your increasingly negative attitude towards editors and articles you are biased against will not be reflected in the outcome of this FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [82].
Siward, Earl of Northumbria
- Nominator(s): Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has received quite a lot of work, and I think it's ready for FA status. Most of the preparation was done several months ago, though then I held off nominating for a variety of reasons. I am satisfied the important points about this figure's life are now covered in reasonable depth, while the article has benefitted from the copy-editing and review talents of several other users, most notably Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) and Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs). You will note that the interesting but dubious saga-material about this figure has been included but not incorporated into the article by placement in text boxes. This is a good solution to the problem this poses, while it follows a growing convention in mainstream history writing to make use of such boxes (after the manner of Norman Davies) for such purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
File:Edward the Confessor 1042 1066.jpg is in the public domain one way or another, but my thought is that as a reproduction of what is effectively a two dimensional work it should be tagged differently, as User:PHGCOM may not have had any rights to it in the first place to release into the public domain.
- Disagree with image review. The object is not two-dimensional. I had an image of a 4000 year-old shallow bas relief rejected as not PD-old because it was deemed to be 3-D and therefore the photographer's copyright, which seems bizarre, but technically the photo is the uploader's copyright to dispose of. jimfbleak (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is whether the threshold of creativity is met in photographing a work. For that purpose, I can't see how either a coin or a shallow bas relief would be considered as three dimensional. Do you happen to have a link to the discussion where this occurred? Anyway, it's public domain one way or another, so this isn't a huge deal, but I'd like to make sure the tagging's done right. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This sort of case was mentioned and the decision (relief of coins are considered 3D) in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kensington Runestone Kens3.gif. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, okay then. Striking this issue. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:EmpireNorth.JPG is derived from File:Cnut 1014 1035.jpg, which is tagged as being in the public domain in all jurisdictions in which copyright term is life of author plus seventy years, but the file has no information on the lifespan of the author (it's also unclear whether William R. Shepherd is the cartographer of that map, or the editor of the atlas, or what).Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- William R. Shepherd died in 1934 and appears to have been the cartographer and author, so still scrapes in the 70 year limit jimfbleak (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image in question isn't a big deal to the article. Just there to nice it up. I can easily replace it with another. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the concern has been stricken, the explanation that Shepherd died in 1934 and scrapes the 70 year pma is not correct. Shepherd is American and the atlas is an American publication; by US copyrights, publication date is the primary criteria. Luckily, the map in question was published at least as early as 1911 (allowing hosting on Wikipedia). A German company (its country of origin) holds the copyright, but they have never identified authorship, hence allowing the assertion of {{Anonymous-EU}}. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments (minor: expect to switch to support)Support
- This article has developed well, since its already good standard when I reviewed it at GAN.
- That is a fabulous "sources and background" section.
- 1) Should "Uhtred the Bold" be wikilinked to Uhtred of Bamburgh?
- 2)...that Siward's attack may be interpreted in the context of royal aggression". Can this be more explicit in some way - is the point that Siward's attack may have been an action undertaken on behalf of his king against a rebellious Eadulf? My point is to go beyond saying "in the context of" and explain that Siward was siding with one against the other - if I have read this correctly, of course!
- 3)"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that Siward had to call up reinforcements, but despite this, King Edward was successful..." The phrase "but despite this" here leads us to expect that, despite using reinforcements, Siward was unsuccessful. Better I think would be: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that, although Siward had to call up reinforcements, the campaign against Earl Godwine was successful and led to his temporary banishment."
- 4)"dating to 1053 x 1055". I'm not familiar with this symbol - what is being denoted here, a date range?
- 5)"...Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, recension D:" There's that word again :-) Have you considered using the word "version", but wikilinking it to the entry on recension?
- 6)The very last para of this section on the "Expedition against the Scots" seems out of place (the one beginning "The Annals of Lindisfarne and Durham, written in the early 12th-century..."). This seems a discussion of the event that belongs near the start of the section, rather than after the analysis that precedes it. But I may be wrong.
- 7)"Siward died more than a decade before the death of Edward the Confessor, but despite this the Domesday Book recorded ..." I'm afraid as an ignorant person, I didn't get why this was "despite" anything. Something to do with chronology of events?
- 8)I work on two different computer monitors. On one the text in the text boxes is small but (just) readable; on the other it is literally too tiny to form legible letters. Add to that the possibility of a vision-impaired (not blind) user, and I wonder if something can be done about the text box character size? I realise this may create a layout issue, particularly for the long passage under "Emergence and rise to power under Cnut", and it may be that that passage would be best edited in some way. It is a colourful story, but not the shortest of extracts.
- Really enjoyable article, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Wikipedia article take their names after certain conventions. In articles of this nature and time period, these are hardly ever the best for the text of articles, thus I find it that I mostly use redirects or pipes. "Uhtred the Bold" is his nickname and probably how he is best known. Maybe that article should be renamed, maybe it shouldn't, but I just thought it made more sense to call him Uhtred the Bold in this Northumbrian context than "Uhtred of Bamburgh". Not a biggie though.
- I musn't have made myself clear. I am happy with Uhtred the Bold, it just wasn't wikilinked at all. Don't want you to change the name in the article, piping is good. I just wanted a link. I ran a search and didn't find it earlier in the article. Did I miss one? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) reworded
- 3) reworded. The "despite this" was used for "despite having needed to call up reinforcements, Siward's side still won"
- 4) this "x" is used by historians to indicate that something cannot be dated to a specific year. Here "1053 x 1055" means [dates to] some point between 1053 and 1055 [inclusive].
- Suggest change to "between 1053 and 1055". hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 5) Recension is the standard terminology in relation to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It is less ambiguous than "version". Actually, rendering it "version" might be thought misleading. I think if someone's gonna ponder the point, rather than just skim over it, it is worth learning the meaning of the word. Learning the English language is after all a life-long experience. While I don't ever support making things unnecessarily obscure, the rough meaning of "version" will surely be picked up from the context.
- OK, I'm pursuaded. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 6) I will rework this later, probably using a new source (Aird, Normans and St Cuthbert)
- 7) The Domeday book records property owners and the values of property 1) on the day of King Edwards death and 2) in 1086. Thus, if Siward died ten years before Edward, he wasn't alive on the day of Edward's death. I added the date 1066 to make the contradiction clearer
- 8) Adjusted. Had to merge two paragraphs, but this worked out ok.
- Cheers for the comments. I drop a note here when I'm done with 6). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I trust you will deal with 6 and my minor other points, and have switched to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, done. I think I've addressed the remaining points. Take a look and judge for thyself. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, done. I think I've addressed the remaining points. Take a look and judge for thyself. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport - Much improved.The article currently has many problems. The largest being poor phrasing and organisation. Explanations throughout the article seem confusing and badly ordered.- The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:
- Siward or Sigurd (Old English: Sigeweard) was an earl in 11th-century northern England. The Old Norse nickname Digri ("the Stout") and Latin translation Grossus ("the Fat") are given to him by near-contemporary texts.[1] The English name Siward or Sigeweard was cognate to the single Old Norse name written variously as Sigvarðr and Sigurðr.
- Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations?
- Siward's origins and early life, covered by some saga-like tales, is obscure to historians.
- Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing.
- Probably of Scandinavian origin, perhaps a member of Earl Ulf's kindred,
- We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses.
- Siward emerged as a powerful regional strongman in England during the reign of Cnut (1016–1035). Cnut was a Scandinavian ruler who conquered England in the 1010s, and Siward was one of the many Scandinavians who came to England in the aftermath of that conquest.
- This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name.
- By 1033 Siward was in control of what is now Yorkshire, governing southern Northumbria as earl on Cnut's behalf. Siward's entrenched his position in northern England by marrying Ælfflæd, the daughter of Ealdred, Earl of Bamburgh.
- Again, confusing. Would be better as: "..Siward was in control of southern Northumbria, that is, present-day Yorkshire, governing as earl on Cnut's behalf."
- After killing a different Earl of Bamburgh in 1041, Siward gained control of all Northumbria. He exerted his power in support of Kings Harthacnut and Edward, assisting them with vital military support and counsel.
- "a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.
- Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.
- Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.
- Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long. The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is:
- Cnut died in 1035, while his son Harthacnut remained in Scandinavia. As Harthacnut was geographically unable to take the crown for himself in good time, Harold Harefoot was able to take the kingdom for himself. Although he successfully resisted trouble from the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready — Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later known as King Edward the Confessor) — Harold died just as Harthacnut was preparing an invasion.[43] Harthacnut reigned in England only two years before he himself died and was peacefully succeeded by Edward in 1042.[44] Frank Barlow speculated on Siward's position during this period, guessing that Siward assumed "a position of benevolent or prudent neutrality".
- This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.
- Another example: The section "Expedition against the Scots" has this passage:
- The origin of Siward's conflict with the Scots is unclear. According to the Libellus de Exordio, in 1039 or 1040—a year before Siward attacked and killed Eadulf—the Scottish king Donnchad mac Crínáin attacked northern Northumbria and besieged Durham. Within a year, Mac Bethad had deposed killed (sic) Donnchad.
- Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.
- Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"? Xandar 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:
- This is valid I think. I've reworked it, though I don't know how you want me to fit York in. I can't think of a way. :(
- We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses
- Earl Ulf is introduced in the text. The article summary in the lead links him. And yes, he is important as his kin-group is the strongest one in Denmark after Cnut's own, and indeed his descendants (as pointed out in the text) ruled Denmark after Cnut. :)
- Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations
- Hmm ... the normal translations of both words aren't identical, but I think it's fair to say that Grossus here means "stout" more than "corpulent", so I've merged the translations to avoid the possible confusion you rightly point out.
- Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing.
- Don't see that. Yes, I wouldn't have written it in if we didn't.
- This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name.
- We don't know that Siward came to England with Cnut. His first appearance in reliable sources comes when he is already a regional strongman. Put King Canute in brackets btw.
- "a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.
- Yep, I agree. Fixed this.
- Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.
- I split this. I don't see the problem with the sources section. Could you elaborate? The explanations of earl and thegn are there because another reviewer asked me to put them there. I don't really know what to do; removing it might cause the other reviewer displeasure. I think the order in the background section is otherwise fine and logical: one para for England of the time and one specific to Northumbria. That makes sense ... no?
- Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.
- OK. Trimmed it.
- Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long.
- I've put most of the in-article stuff here into the footnote.
- The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is: ... This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.
- I've fixed this a little, and incorporated your suggested rephrasing. Regarding name dropping ... what names to you feel need more detail to be helpful?
- Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.
- There is no known linkage between the two events. This suggestive [subliminal] style--common in historical writing-- is one I'm fond of, works better if you follow the story. It was quite easy to change this though, and I have done so. This should be a more explicit read now.
- Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"?
- Usually a church has two names, one of the saint and one of the place. E.g. St Paul's Cathedral is also London Cathedral (though that's ambiguous now). Should have just written "St Olaf's at Galmanho", which is what I've done now.
- Thanks for the comments. Anything else? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes you've made so far are a big improvement. Some issues remain though. I haven't time to do a thorough run through now. I will get back with more detailed responses, hopefully tomorrow. Xandar 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still quite a few problems with the prose. I may make a few smaller corrections myself, rather than list everything here, and you can see what you make of them. As to my read through:
- Lead
- It might be useful to add something like: "Several historic sites in the English city of York have connections with Siward."
- Sources
- "non-representative" - why not "unrepresentative"?
- "annalistic" Confusing word. Why not "annal-style"?
- "compilations of John of Worcester (compiled between 1124 and 1140)," Compiled used twice.
- Background
- "Beginning in the reign of Cnut, and lasting through Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the reign of Edward the Confessor, Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs." Would read better as something like: "Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs. It began during the reign of Cnut, and lasted through those of Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the early years of Edward the Confessor."
- "poor hereditary links to the West Saxon royal house". "weak" links might be better.
- "In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon official who ruled a territory, usually a shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king. The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century." Too much digression to explain word-meaning breaks up the narrative of this passage. I would suggest:
- "In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls
".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon officialwho ruled aterritory, usuallya shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king.The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century" - "(though there were other earls)" This bracket phrase is ugly and probably unnecessary.
- Ancestry
- "Historians generally claim Siward to be of Scandinavian origin, something supported by the Vita Ædwardi Regis which says Siward was "[called] Digri in the Danish tongue" (Danica lingua Digara)" Better to say "which states that" rather than "which says".
- Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut
- "There is little known about Siward's arrival in England," This is very vague. Why not put the more specific; "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown."
- Xandar 02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! All good suggestions, and I have implemented them. I did add "and context" to "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown", as more than just date was meant, and the next piece about the Vita Waldevi wouldn't make sense otherwise. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. I think we've dealt with most of these points. I've also made some clean-up edits to the article - which is actually easier than listing all the points here. Whilst doing this I noticed two very vague sentences:
- In the English affairs under Edward the Confessor section: "Besides the help of their retinues, this act was carried out on the "advise" of the three earls." I'm not sure what this means? The retinues were the armies? We already know they joined in the attack. "advise"?? Does this mean "advice". or something else? Why the quotation marks?
- In the Death and legacy section: "This, or something else about Siward's career, made the Anglo-Saxonist Frank Stenton declare him "not a statesman, but a Danish warrior of the primitive type." Again very vague. If there is no connection its probably best not to try to force a link with the previous passage, and just use Stenton as a summing up. Xandar 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! All good suggestions, and I have implemented them. I did add "and context" to "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown", as more than just date was meant, and the next piece about the Vita Waldevi wouldn't make sense otherwise. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The advice part was there because the ASC says Edward carried this action out on their advice. I suppose it isn't necessary, so I removed it. I followed your second suggestion too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Well I think that concludes my concerns with this article. It is certainly improved enough for me to withdraw my objection and support. Xandar 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for improving the article! Let me know if you can think of more ways to improve the article.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Well I think that concludes my concerns with this article. It is certainly improved enough for me to withdraw my objection and support. Xandar 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The advice part was there because the ASC says Edward carried this action out on their advice. I suppose it isn't necessary, so I removed it. I followed your second suggestion too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotta be honest, never previously heard of that. But I've had a go at adding alt text. Deacon's sockpuppet (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the 1st cut. Still needs work, I'm afraid. Alt text should describe only appearance, and should not say anything that's not immediately verifiable by a non-expert sighted reader who's looking only at the image. For the first image File:Death of Earl Siward (cropped).jpg for example, the current alt text says "Face of Earl Siward from Smetham's 1861 painting" (my italics), but almost none of this alt text describes the appearance of the image. Only the italicized word talks about visual appearance. This italicized word should be kept and the rest of the alt text replaced with text that talks only about visual appearance. For more, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (especially the 3rd example). Eubulides (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, had another go. Deacon's sockpuppet (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's much better, but it still needs work. File:Death of Earl Siward (cropped).jpg has alt text "A bearded man wearing a helmet", which is OK but a bit terse for the lead image. How about "Head and shoulders of bearded man in the gloom, wearing a medieval helmet"? The alt text for the 2nd image, Image:EmpireNorth.JPG focuses on unimportant visual details "red color" while omitting the most important gist of the image: namely, where were Cnut's dominions? The alt text for the 3rd image doesn't say that it's a copper coin, which is the first thing you see. The alt text for Image:Death of Earl Siward (Smetham).jpg contains details like "Smetham's 1861" which are not visually apparent, and words like "painting" which aren't needed. Could you please have another go? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How 'bout now? Deacon's sockpuppet (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done, and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, the notoriously named Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Dabbed. Thanks. Deacon's sockpuppet (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments, leaning toward supporting. It's looking good on a surface reading. A couple things:
- "The region however was more fragmented than this might indicate." Quite an ambiguous "this"; I'm not sure what you're referring to. You have a bit of a penchant for "this", but the others are mostly clear.
- Should the long quotation in the "Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut" section begin with "[A]fter"?
- Yes, I think the logic of the point Bolton was making (namely, that the picture often given of two ealdorman controlling the whole region is wrong) was being followed more closely than the article text. I've adjusted here.
- Is this something that is done? I gotta be honest, never noticed that. Good device! Yes, as you can probably guess, "a" is in lower case because I started quoting the text midway through a sentence.
- I'll watch out for "this" in future. Writing takes longer than reading, so the writer and reader operate in a different time-zones. I thought I sorted most of such repetitions when I warped into the reader time-zone, but I didn't catch a proliferation of thises. Is this particularly noticeable? ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, it is looking good. Thanks for all your hard work! --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—'Tis good. Tony (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [83].
Charles Carroll the Settler
- Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article's in good shape - just finished adding some more sources and clarifications. One note - the peer reviewer of the article suggested a legacy section, which I chose not to do simply because the legacy can be summed up in a sentence or two. If reviewers here disagree with that assessment, one could certainly be added in. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Geraldk (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched the Citation template to cite encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing that out, hadn't known not to mix them. Appreciate the review. Geraldk (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. How many founding fathers of Maryland are you aiming for? I have a number of Maryland ancestors which would be cool to see done well... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As many as I have time for. It helps being in relatively close proximity to the University of Maryland libraries for sources. Anyone in particular I should add to my list? Geraldk (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. How many founding fathers of Maryland are you aiming for? I have a number of Maryland ancestors which would be cool to see done well... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched the Citation template to cite encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing that out, hadn't known not to mix them. Appreciate the review. Geraldk (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the faulty dashes in the page ranges in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request placed. Thanks for the suggestion. Geraldk (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He just ran it. Thanks again for the suggestion. Geraldk (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good from a prose point of view. I can't speak as to comprehensiveness, but it seems like a useful resource. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. Geraldk (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- Early life and emigration:
- "whose family had lost much of their land" watch for redundancy and passive voice. Would be better without "had".
- Link Aghagurty?
- "Some of the family property near Aghagurty had been obtained by a friend" change "had been" to "was".
- "fostered out to" - better as "fostered to"?
- "and both civil and canon law" - "both" is unnecessary here. "May of 1685" another redundant word.
- Wikilink call members to the bar?
- "who was at the time" is unnecessary
- James II is a disambig, as is James I and John Coode.
- "Maryland had been founded in the 1630s" had been->was again.
- Wikilink Protestant?
- You might like to wikilink Parliament to a more specific article.
- Career and rise to wealth in Maryland:
- "If he hoped to find a greater level of religious tolerance in Maryland than he had experienced in England, he was to be sorely disappointed" sounds a bit odd.
- No need to repeat wikilinks, such as James II and Glorious Revolution.
- "15 year old" hyphenate?
Overall: there were quite a few typos I fixed but may have missed some - please check through. Also, why was he called "the Settler"? When did that come about? Majorly talk 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thorough review. I think I've addressed all of the comments. Aghagurty is a red link, unfortunately, and I think it will remain so for a while. I desperately tried to find an alternate name that had a wikipedia article, but to no avail. The gaelic variant did a number of the search engine - it was kind of entertaining. I have added a little bit to the lead concerning the use of 'the Settler' after his name. The only explanation I found was in Hoffman, who claims it was used to differentiate him from his descendents of the same name. However, Hoffman does not mention whether Carroll himself used it in his own lifetime or when it began to be used. I did not specifically mention his son and grandson's name, because I think it would make that first sentence of the lead unwieldy. Let me know what you think on that. Will also do another thorough copy-edit in the next hour or two. Geraldk (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- "English Catholics. was As a result" Could you double check whether this is just a typo left over from a cut and paste, or perhaps something else is wrong here?
- "to an associate of his,an associate of Charles Calvert," here too. TwilligToves (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack! Yeah, those were both from cutting and pasting between Word and Wiki. Thanks for catching them. Here I try to fix a confusing paragraph and it ends up even more confusing... Geraldk (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a.The prose isn't bad on a sentence level, but the article suffers from a lack of clarity and organization in many places. It almost feels like things were chopped up and moved around at times without consideration for the surrounding text. "He and "his" are bandied about in confusing ways when multiple men are being discussed. This requires more than a surface copyedit—it needs substantial revision, probably by someone unfamiliar with the text. I became confused reading the text at times; for example:- The entire first paragraph in "Career and rise to wealth in Maryland" is a muddled mess. You say Carroll was to be disappointed with the tolerance for Catholics, then move into tensions, then the economy, then more tensions.. but you never actually get around to following up on the opening of the paragraph.
- "During the rebellion, Carroll was recovering from the "hard seasoning" often experienced by immigrants to the new world whose bodies were acclimatizing to local conditions." This is kind of hanging out there with no obvious purpose. It doesn't seem related to anything else you've been discussing. Are you implying that he was unable to act against the rebellion because of his physical condition? This requires clarity.
- "The money he accumulated through this and other means was used among other things to begin making loans, and after 1713 he became the largest mortgage lender in the colony, in addition to personal loans he made." Oof. This behemoth conveys many things, some of them more than once.
- "His case may have been undermined as well when he came to the defense of his nephew, who had raised a toast to the Catholic James Stuart." The placement of this sentence is such that we have no idea who "he" is; the last "he" named was Hart, and he had taken a "case" to the legislature. Surely you don't mean Hart?
- "His eldest son Henry had died a year before" Again, the last person you name is Hart. Hart's son died? But the following text confuses the issue even more.
- comment - Ref 11 is broken. ceranthor 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through again, and had a friend go through, to try to modify it for clarity. Take a look and let me know what you think. I paid special attention to those portions where multiple actors made it difficult to keep the he's straight. Thanks for your review and comments. Geraldk (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I think it's ready now. Good work on this! --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Geraldk (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I hope you don't mind, but instead of posting a list here, I took a swing at some prose tweaks myself. The intermediate edit summaries give rationales for each of those, by the way; feel free to disagree with any change I've made. I like the way this article is written, though I'm positive others would find it verbose. I'd normally be one of them, but the wordiness occassionally works to the article's advantage. It's probably still worth giving it a pass to eliminate some of the more flimsily-justifiable redundancies, but overall this is very nice work. All the best, Steve T • C 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the read-through, and for the support. I'll do a pass specifically looking for redundancy. 71.99.117.141 (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on image concerns:
- File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg is an American painting. Justus Englehardt Kühn was naturalised as an American before painting this.[84] Accordingly, the painting comes under US law, which is primarily based on publication rather than life of author. Creation is not publishment. As far as I can tell, this painting was not published (i.e. no copies were sold or given to the public or for display), remaining in private collections until it ended up in the Maryland Historical Society. It was then published on p. 60 of Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland (1999), supplied by the courtesy of said society. Under the interpretations of Hirtle at Cornell,[85] works published "From 1 March 1989 through 2002" and "Created before 1978 and first published in this period" are copyrighted for "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry [70 years after the death of author] or 31 December 2047". Unless proof of publishment is given, this work is still copyrighted under US law.
- Can anyone check if this painting appeared in The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937 (Libraries holding this book)? If yes, on which page and is there a copyright notice in the front pages of the book? Jappalang (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Benedict Calvert.jpg: a European painting with unclear authorship and date.[86] Although put as a series of "Six Lords Baltimore", the paintings (others are 17th–18th century) are collected from different sources.[87][88] This might be public domain but we need to ascertain by what evidence and with what sort of license we can attribute this. Brought up at commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Benedict Calvert.jpg to clarify its status.- There is a concensus that it is very likely this painting has lapsed into public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other images are verifiably in the public domain. A note for all editors: please check on the background and information provided for the images before using them in the articles (the ones here were very lacking). Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the issue isn't that I didn't check but that you've gotten into public domain law that I was apparently unaware of. I will follow the discussion of the Benedict Calvert picture, and will look into the Charles Carroll picture. Please clarify for me on the Charles Carroll image - I've been under the impression for a couple years that any photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art was covered by the copyright of the original work, as it describes in the tag:
Is this no longer true? Geraldk (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).
- The PD-Art tag applies to photographs and scans of public domain artwork. The position is that photos and scans (as reproductions) of paintings, which are in public domain, are effectively in public domain as well. Therefore, photographers or scanners cannot claim to have copyright over such reproductions. PD-Art does not apply to the paintings themselves. In effect, if a painting is not in public domain, photos and scans of it cannot be covered by PD-Art. Jappalang (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But doesn't an artwork enter the public domain 70 years after the death of its author? This painting is from the early 18th century, Kuhn was dead long before that 70 year limit. Geraldk (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for US works. US works are based primarily on publishing date. Most other countries follow a 50- or 70-year pma (after death of author). When a US work is first published after 2002 (or created after 1977), then it follows a 70 year pma. Ref: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Jappalang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But this was painted in the early 1700s. With paintings, aren't they 'published' when they are painted? So the copyright would have expired long, long ago. The fact that it was re-printed in a book should have no bearing on its copyright, since that reprinting is a copy of a two-dimensional work. Geraldk (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From 101. Definitions of the US Copyright Laws (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html),
- Creation: "A work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work."
- Publication: "'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
- A painting that exists on its own is not published until "copies" of it are made available to the public. Creation is not publication. Note that the reprinting in books constitute "making copies available to the public"; hence publishing. Jappalang (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it defines copy as "“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like it's using the word copy not to refer to a xerox copy of it but to the original object. Geraldk (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The object itself is a copy of the work, but publications requires "copies of a work" (plural). Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From Wikipedia:Public domain: "Furthermore, the publication must have had the consent of the author/creator or copyright holder of the work." The artist has been dead for hundreds of years. There is no possibility that the author of the book got his approval before publication. Therefore, doesn't that mean that the publication of the image in Prince of Ireland, Planters of Maryland does not constitute publication under U.S. copyright law, and therefore that the work is considered unpublished and is in the public domain because its author died long before 1939? Geraldk (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyrights of an author can be transferred, either through law or estates. In this case, the Maryland Historical Society has the copyrights (Kühn surrendered his to the Carroll family, who transferred it to the Society on donation), which is why the painting was published in Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland by the society's courtesy and permission. It would be more helpful to check if the painting was published in The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am working on that, and have been communicating with the Maryland Historical Society to get permission as an alternative. I'm out of town, and have had limited access to computers, so it's going slowly. I am simply trying to understand your interpretation of the copyright law, which I believe to be a misinterpretation. It seems fundamentally ridiculous to me that a 300 year old painting could be under a current copyright, and worry that if your opposition on this nomination, and I assume opposition to other articles on similar grounds, is based on an overzealous interpretation of the law, it could be detrimental to my work and the work of other editors. Geraldk (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyrights of an author can be transferred, either through law or estates. In this case, the Maryland Historical Society has the copyrights (Kühn surrendered his to the Carroll family, who transferred it to the Society on donation), which is why the painting was published in Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland by the society's courtesy and permission. It would be more helpful to check if the painting was published in The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From Wikipedia:Public domain: "Furthermore, the publication must have had the consent of the author/creator or copyright holder of the work." The artist has been dead for hundreds of years. There is no possibility that the author of the book got his approval before publication. Therefore, doesn't that mean that the publication of the image in Prince of Ireland, Planters of Maryland does not constitute publication under U.S. copyright law, and therefore that the work is considered unpublished and is in the public domain because its author died long before 1939? Geraldk (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The object itself is a copy of the work, but publications requires "copies of a work" (plural). Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it defines copy as "“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like it's using the word copy not to refer to a xerox copy of it but to the original object. Geraldk (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From 101. Definitions of the US Copyright Laws (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html),
- But this was painted in the early 1700s. With paintings, aren't they 'published' when they are painted? So the copyright would have expired long, long ago. The fact that it was re-printed in a book should have no bearing on its copyright, since that reprinting is a copy of a two-dimensional work. Geraldk (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for US works. US works are based primarily on publishing date. Most other countries follow a 50- or 70-year pma (after death of author). When a US work is first published after 2002 (or created after 1977), then it follows a 70 year pma. Ref: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Jappalang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But doesn't an artwork enter the public domain 70 years after the death of its author? This painting is from the early 18th century, Kuhn was dead long before that 70 year limit. Geraldk (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The PD-Art tag applies to photographs and scans of public domain artwork. The position is that photos and scans (as reproductions) of paintings, which are in public domain, are effectively in public domain as well. Therefore, photographers or scanners cannot claim to have copyright over such reproductions. PD-Art does not apply to the paintings themselves. In effect, if a painting is not in public domain, photos and scans of it cannot be covered by PD-Art. Jappalang (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but Jappalang's statement that "Justus Englehardt Kühn was naturalised as an American before painting this" is problematic from a historical perspective, which therefore makes me wonder about his follow-up statement that "Accordingly, the painting comes under US law." He may be entirely correct in his conclusion, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that the painter was a British subject and never a US citizen, that there was no US for decades after his death, and that there was no such thing as being "naturalised as an American" at the time. These points may be irrelevant to the copyright status of the painting, but I mention them in case this information is helpful. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) Geraldk, please take a look at Circular 15a (underlined portions for emphasis):
Works in existence but not published or copyrighted on January 1, 1978: Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978 automatically are given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for new works: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection. The law specifies that in no case will copyright in a work of this sort expire before December 31, 2002, and if the work is published before that date the term will extend another 45 years, through the end of 2047.
- There is no misinterpretation. On Janurary 1, 1978, all works not published or copyrighted but created before then are given 25 years of copyright protection. Hence the 70-year pma ruling called forth by the 1976 law (which was supposed to take effect on January 1, 1978) is superseded for these works.
- Kevin, I think you are correct in that there is no America at that time (hence "naturalised as an American" would be wrong), but as the painting is first published in the US, the US copyright laws apply here. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do painted copies of a painting count as publication? Geraldk (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, because wikipedia image policy is about as comprehensible as quantum physics, in what way should I ask the MHS to release the painting? Geraldk (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Painted copies, as in reproductions like those sold on artnet? If those copies are legally authorised and are given to be exhibited or sold to anyone, then yes, the painting has been published in the year the first copy (excluding the original) was distributed. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, an affirmation that the painting has lapsed or they release it into the public domain and that anyone can freely make copies or derivative works of it for any purpose. Alternatively, as the copyright holders, they can license the work under Creative Commons by 3.0 or sharealike (meaning anyone can do the same as with the previous, but they have to attribute the copyright holder). Their intent to do so must be clear. Ref: commons:Commons:OTRS. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is certainly public domain. The rule for unpublished works is life of the author plus 70 years or 120 years after creation for anonymous works.[89] Rmhermen (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as stated above, the pma rules apply post-2003. When the law came into effect on 1 January 1978, all unpublished works that have not been published at that time are copyrighted for 25 years and if published during 1978 and 2002 gains further copyright protection. It is on 1 January 2003 that we can use the 120 years for unpublished works guideline to gauge if works still unpublished from that date on are in public domain. Also take note that the Cornell site follows the law, "1978 to 1 March 1989/From 1 March 1989 through 2002" ... "Created before 1978 and first published with notice in the specified period/Created before 1978 and first published in this period" ... "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047". Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalang - are you really saying that 300 year old paintings are copyrighted in the US? I'm afraid I just can't take that at face value. As far as I can tell, any possible claim of copyright for the painting expired before 1855, and the paintings from before 1789 were never subject to US copyright law, because the US did not exist when they were created. From the circular 15a you previously quoted - "Works already in the public domain cannot be protected under the 1976 law or under the amendments of 1992 and 1998. The Act provides no procedure for restoring protection for works in which copyright has been lost for any reason." Smallbones (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Works already in the public domain" applies to works published before 1923 and those published from 1923 to 1978 that did not follow copyright requirements; they have passed into the public domain before 1978 and are unaffected. Circular 15a applies to unpublished work before 1978: "all works in this category (Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978 automatically are given federal copyright protection.) are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection." There is no lapse. US copyright law before 1978 considers first publishing not death of author. As such, on 1 January 1978, unpublished works are not considered to have lapsed into public domain yet just because their author died 70 years ago—they are given at least 25 years of protection. Jappalang (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fiddle-faddle. You've already said that the consensus at Commons was that it is in the public domain. To repeat the Cornell website info:
- "Type of Work Copyright Term What was in the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2009
- Unpublished works Life of the author + 70 years Works from authors who died before 1939"
- I don't know what point you are trying to make here with your completely novel theory, but please take it to a forum on copyright questions. It is inappropriate here. Smallbones (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say the concensus at Commons for this painting of Charles Carroll is in the public domain? You are mistaking laws as retroactive. 1978 laws would not apply to a time in 1945; otherwise there would be cries of complaint that a 1945 copyright registered work (whose author died in 1874) would be in public domain, which is not true. Again, Cornell's interpretation already abides by this law, otherwise there would not be their "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry [70 years after the death of author] or 31 December 2047" for works published between 1978 and 2002, which you have conveniently overlooked. Jappalang (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll start a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where you can argue your completely novel theory that 300 year old paintings can be protected by US copyright laws. Let's please leave this FAC review out of it for the time being. If you can get agreement there (!) then you can always come back and ask for the FA on this (and on every other FA with 300 year old paintings in it) to be reviewed based on your theory. Smallbones (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say the concensus at Commons for this painting of Charles Carroll is in the public domain? You are mistaking laws as retroactive. 1978 laws would not apply to a time in 1945; otherwise there would be cries of complaint that a 1945 copyright registered work (whose author died in 1874) would be in public domain, which is not true. Again, Cornell's interpretation already abides by this law, otherwise there would not be their "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry [70 years after the death of author] or 31 December 2047" for works published between 1978 and 2002, which you have conveniently overlooked. Jappalang (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the images are the holdup for this FAC to be closed. I've read the discussion at WP:Media copyright questions, which seems to be a rehash of the arguments already here. Would this image qualify for fair use (assuming it is not PD)? If so, the easiest way to resolve this problem may be to add a fair-use rationale. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion at WP:Media copyright questions seems to be over and settled. By my count only 2 editors supported the concept of a copyright on a 300 year old painting and 7 were against. A similar question was also settled at commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Benedict Calvert.jpg. Let's move on. Smallbones (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus isn't determined by number of !votes, however, especially when this concerns a legal matter. Karanacs (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use is an acceptable solution, as a rationale of "identification of a long-deceased subject who is the focus of critical commentary and has no visual representation except for this portrait" (or such) would be valid. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus isn't determined by number of !votes, however, especially when this concerns a legal matter. Karanacs (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead with fair use if you'd like, but I've asked User:Rlevse to make a note at commons that the issue has been discussed and File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg found to be in the public domain, as he did for File:Benedict Calvert.jpg - it's really the same issue, 300 year old copyrights are just not possible in practice. I think it's time to move on and accept that this will never be an issue for any 300 year old artwork. Smallbones (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) It's now confirmed at Commons that this is public domain. Can we please move on? Smallbones (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COI and thus moral Support - I am CoI'd from really participating even though this is a borederline but an interesting CoI of mine. Regardless, I would say that I would support it and make some minor suggestions, but I could not do so directly in clean conscience. I did want to say that I feel that the above image concerns are a false interpretation of law, especially with the law being based on death of the artist unlike UK law. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well written prose, properly footnoted, good background material and well structured. And I hope nobody minds if I say that I like the pictures. Smallbones (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linking issues et al.. But the prose looks generally OK.
- Why are "France" and "England" linked? See MOSLINK.
- the only Catholic signatory to, not signer of, I think.
- "he had moved to London"—unless London, Ontario is suddenly within the realms of possibility, "London" should not generally be linked.
- "George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore"—It's linked just above (although piped there, and I wonder why not the full term first, and no link second time). Tony (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dante (Devil May Cry)/archive2