This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this 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:
actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared.
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 Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.
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 {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.
Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
The Rainbow Trout is a complex species in many ways. Although having a fairly limited native range, it is now a global species that is both threatened in some of its native range, highly successful and regarded in others and invasive in some. It can't be ignored. It is not only of interest to scientists, but sportsmen, agriculturists, environmentalists and economic developers. As a ubiquitous and global species, it deserves prominence in our encyclopedia. Mike Cline (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article just had an extensive Peer review.--MONGO 12:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Rajzwyn
After reading through and looking at each aspect of the entire article, it is obvious that it deserves to be promoted to FA status. Specifically, there is an large amount of quality information both scientific and general. The table of contents is full of good options to choose from and from reading the article I feel like I have achieved a full education on what a Rainbow trout is. In addition, there are a lot of good photos that describe the many different looks, sizes, and habitats of the rainbow trout. Finally, my favorite part that was extremely well done is the large table describing all the different subspecies with information like each different geographical group with their common name, scientific name, range, and an image. The one thing I would still add however if possible is a picture for each subspecies as some seem to be missing. However, there are an extremely high amount of references which is really good where I'm sure a reader can find another article with a picture of the specific species they are looking for if they care enough.
I am glad to support this article here for promotion to FA status.--Rajzwyn (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2014 (PST)
Support. Having worked on many river articles with links to rainbow trout, I'm delighted that it now meets the FA criteria. In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I took part in the peer review and made a few nitpicky edits. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't feel ready to evaluate an FA candidate based on all the criteria, but I will say that this article is very comprehensive, well illustrated, and thoroughly sourced. I have made these edits to the article (mostly copyediting) and I gave recommendations at the peer review. Jsayre64(talk) 05:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supportive comment - As one of the peer reviewers, and having done some minor edits to this article during that process, I am too involved to be a neutral reviewer, but I fully support this FAC. Mike has done some fantastic work here! Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from MONGO
(1)...I made a few adjustments and I saw that McCloud River redband trout had been moved by Mike Cline from the previous name which was McCloud River redband, so I adjusted that in the subspecies section to avoid the redirect. Another subspecies Sheepheaven Creek redband lacks the trout ending and has not been moved...I thought if he was so inclined Mike might do the favors on that and fix the article to avoid the redirect.
Article move made and winklinks adjusted --Mike Cline (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(2)...Under the section Description, the first sentence might need rewording...by "Resident freshwater rainbow trout" do we mean riverine to distinguish it from lake-dwelling and anadromous forms?
added "in riverine environments" to 1st sentence to clarify. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(3)...United States according to MOS does not to need to be written out the first time but we need consistancy...so the article should use United States or U.S. throughout. If we are also using similar abbreviations such as UK for the United Kingdom, we need to follow that format, meaning no periods. I prefer the use of the format with periods, meaning U.S. I would spell out United States (U.S.) in the intro and one more time then use U.S. afterwards. We never need to wikilink major English speaking countries in featured articles...so those wikilinks should all go too.
(4) some instances of overlinking such as Wyoming linked a few times...the rule of thumb is once in the introduction and one more time in article body but any more than that is usually excessive.
re 3+4 I think I got all the U,S, referenced consistent and some wikilinks delinked. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(5) reference #2 is used about a dozen times which is fine as it is an authoritative source but some reviewers may wish to see the exact page of that book that backs up the specific item it supports rather than a page range of 65-122. It isn't a deal breaker though.
Support....article appears to meet the criterias for promotion to Featured Article. Kudos to Mike Cline for all his efforts here. I didn't know a thing about steelheads until I read this article..I consider my 15 edits to this article to be minor, for the record..--MONGO 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the photo in the infobox is a good choice. It is an oblique view and does not show the fins or tail well. Axl¤[Talk] 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I wasn't fond of the image at peer review, either, but a search at Commons didn't reveal anything better of a live, properly identified rainbow that illustrated the "rainbow-ness" of the fish. One possibility might be to crop out the person in this image I've posted at right, (much as I like the shoutout to the Rocking R Bar in Bozeman) but I'd want someone to check the licensing first. The fish is atypically large, but it is a pretty nice example. Maybe. Thoughts all? Montanabw(talk) 19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Taxonomy": "These names faded, however, once it was determined that Walbaum's type description was conspecific and therefore had precedence (see e.g. Behnke, 1966)." I don't think that the information in parentheses is helpful. Perhaps just delete it? Interested readers could seek out the reference. Axl¤[Talk] 15:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "Taxonomy", I suggest that the meaning of the (current) species name is moved up to follow the sentence about Walbaum, and separated into its own paragraph. Axl¤[Talk] 15:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence moved, but not separated into paragraphs as their was considerable energy spent by peer reviews in consolidating sentences into larger paragraphs. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving the sentence. Would you also move the sentence explaining the genus name up as well please? The paragraph is currently a large block text. I am suggesting a paragraph space between "mykizha." and "Sir John Richardson". But if you insist that this should not be added, I won't argue further. Axl¤[Talk] 15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence moved and paragraphs separated --Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl¤[Talk] 17:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "Taxonomy", subsection "Subspecies", at the bottom of the table, a photo of a golden rainbow trout would be helpful. Perhaps this photo could be cropped and used? Axl¤[Talk] 15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I was looking for more photos of Rainbows, I came across these, perhaps they could be added in the article. Not saying they should but @Mike Cline: just a heads up that they exist and may not have been seen earlier. May be plenty of good reasons not to use, but if licensing is OK (@Curly Turkey: might be worth looking at? No agenda, just a proposal. Montanabw(talk) 19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to add to "Freshwater life cycle" gallery that has three images, this is a fingerling
This might be a better steelhead to replace the Lake Erie partial that's in there now?
this little fellow might be good to add to the chart if he's different from the other two goldens in there now.
They're properly tagged & licensed, though the third one lacks categories. I won't comment on if they're appropriate or not---I don't know nearly enough about the subject, but they all look nice enough. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the Golden trout image. Contemplating the other two. #1 looks really dead BW! --Mike Cline (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right... in which case, never mind... Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, your first suggestion (when appropriately cropped) is an improvement over the current photo, but as you mentioned, it may be unusually large. Axl¤[Talk] 21:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Taxonomy", subsection "Subspecies": "Pacific basin subspecies of Oncorhynchus mykiss are listed below." Are there subspecies of other groups (Atlantic basin, etc.)? Axl¤[Talk] 22:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, with one minor exception all Oncorhynchus species/subspecies are indigenous to the Pacific basin. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete "Pacific basin" from the sentence. If there is one other subspecies, add it to the table. Axl¤[Talk] 12:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The outlying subspecies is already in the table. It is the Athabasca which is found in a tributary of the Arctic ocean. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl¤[Talk] 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Axl, I'll let Mike make the call on the photos, I just am a peer reviewer who found them. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Images: 1st we really need a good taxobox image displaying the distinctive red stripe that gives the rainbow its name. It also should be a live, wild fish, preferably from its native range. The current image does that. However it is not the best angle as AXL says. But most if not all the images currently in commons (other than drawings) are either dead, hatchery fish, or juveniles.
Please look at the rainbow trout images being hosted at these links. I have permission to use them if we can use them in the article. If you find one that would work well in the Taxobox (even if it needs cropping), let me know and I’ll get it moved to the commons. I respect these guys as professional photographers so I am judicious when asking for photos for the commons. Be specific when recommending a photo (a link would be good). The large photo from the Kenai is nice, but far from being a typical fish. Some probability that it is a hatchery steelhead, not a wild fish.
I noticed those two as well. All would need assorted cropping and color-balancing. Also consider [2], [3], [4], [5] (if rotated AND cropped), [6]
My take on all of the above is that I agree with Mike that the image 1) Must show the color, 2) Should be a live fish, 3) Ideally is a wild-caught fish, not a hatchery one, 4) Not a steelhead, 5) Of respectable but typical size. My concerns with the current image are 1) The red is too red, most rainbows are more of a shade of pink 2) The entire body is not complete, 3) I hate the way it's being held, not ideal for a catch and release shot (trout to be released need to be handled as gently as possible), I'd prefer to see people with a gentler-looking, two-handed hold. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, of the five photos that you suggest, I prefer the third one. It shows the head a little better than the others do, while still showing the tail and fins. The fish looks alive, even looking towards the camera. Axl¤[Talk] 11:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded BW's #3 to the commons. It is pending OTRS confirmation by the author. Once OTRS clears, I will include in the taxobox. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image cleared ORTS and has been included in taxobox. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl¤[Talk] 14:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Life cycle issues
There is not enough information in the "Description" and "Life cycle" sections. Compare the "Life cycle" section of "Salmon". The "Salmon" article describes its eggs as "roe". Are the eggs of rainbow trout also called roe? How large are the eggs? The "Freshwater life cycle" subsection implies that the eggs hatch into fry. The "Steelhead" subsection mentions smolts. Do the young also pass through the parr form? It may be better to put common features in the general section "Life cycle", and specific differences into the subsections. The article "Juvenile fish" also mentions "fingerlings" and "post-smolts". Axl¤[Talk] 15:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start sorting this out. Indeed it is again complicated by the various forms rainbow occur in. The term "smolt" is generally used only with anadromous salmonids and refers to the process of "smoltification" which simply means whatever biological changes occur when young fish begin their migration to the sea. So in freshwater resident forms, the term "smolt" doesn't apply, but it does apply to steelhead that migrate to sea. All the other terms that describe the transition from egg to adult can be clarified. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, here are the accepted life cycle terms for salmonids (trout and salmon)
Egg
Alevin
Fry
Juvenile
Adult
These terms are more colloquial and reflect processes, more than accepted life cycle stages
Smolt - used to describe a salmonid in the process of smoltification (the transition from fresh to saltwater by anadromous fish) Smoltification can occur with both fry and juvenile salmonids. The current text is incorrect re steelhead, as a fish does not become a smolt until it begins the physiological transition to saltwater. Thus remaining in freshwater as smolts is incorrect. The use of this term is problematic since it is widely misused in non-scientific sources. Additionally, it is unclear whether freshwater steelhead (ie Great Lakes) go through a smoltification process (doubtful)
Parr - used to describe Juvenile fish because salmonid juvenile typical develop parr marks after the fry stage. Not a life cycle stage other than a synonym for juvenile.
Fingerling - Juvenile trout not yet at a size to make them catchable in typical angling situations. More a hatchery term but often used as a synonym for juvenile
On the issue of "roe". Fish eggs and roe are synonymous. Roe is generally used to refer to the complete ovary sac filled with mature eggs, instead of individual eggs after spawning. Roe is also a culinary term and a term used to refer to salmon eggs and clusters used as bait and that can cause confusion. The text in the salmon article is not incorrect, but would be better if the term eggs was used. It appears to be a near verbatim copyvio from the USFWS webpage. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several changes and additions made. See if they fit the bill. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Life cycle", subsection "Freshwater life cycle", paragraph 2: "During spawning, the eggs fall into spaces between the gravel, and immediately the female begins digging at the upstream edge of the nest, covering the eggs with the displaced gravel." When does the male release sperm? Axl¤[Talk] 14:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to add that. Done. This is getting down right pornographic! --Mike Cline (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any possibility of a photo of eggs/alevin/fry? I had a look at Wikimedia Commons, but I didn't find a suitable picture. Axl¤[Talk] 14:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a drawing of alevin and eyed eggs from an old FWS hatchery brochure --Mike Cline (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved that drawing up into the life cycle box, and rearranged the photos from spawning ot adulthood. Hope that helped. Toss it if it didn't or ping me to fix it if needed.Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. The drawing is useful. Axl¤[Talk] 11:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Life cycle", subsection "Steelhead life cycle", paragraph 2: "survival rates for native spawning adults is less than 10 percent." Does this mean that of adults that have successfully spawned, 10% will spawn again? Axl¤[Talk] 14:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation of Behnke, ~90% of first time spawners die before spawning a second time. They may die soon after spawning, enroute to or sometime after returning to the ocean. I suspect it is essentially impossible to access whether or not a returning fish (tagged I guess) successfully spawned the first time. I think the statement, supported by the way Behnke describes it, really means "Yeah, they are iteroparous, but natives aren't really that good at it."--Mike Cline (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I have adjusted the text. Axl¤[Talk] 13:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Life cycle", subsection "Steelhead life cycle", paragraph 2: "Juvenile steelhead may remain in the river for one to three years before smolting and returning to sea." "Returning"? Axl¤[Talk] 15:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Should have been "migrating" - change made --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Smoltification" describes the physiological changes that occur when juvenile steelheads transition to sea water. Is there a reversal of this process when adults return to freshwater to spawn? Axl¤[Talk] 15:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of question I like. I don't know, so I will see what I can find. In the paper on smoltification I linked below, the authors talk about a rapid de-smoltification process (a reversal of the physiological changes) when some event prevents smolting juveniles from completing the migration to salt water. Whether a similar process takes place with adults and what it might be called, I don't know. Will do some research.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of information in that source. "Smoltification" deserves its own article in Wikipedia. Axl¤[Talk] 17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are the physiological changes of smoltification? Axl¤[Talk] 15:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will frankly say that I am in no position to explain that in any accurate, coherent way. I'v read a lot about it over the last few weeks and I can conclude that its pretty complex when boiled down to the "exactly" point. This paper is probably the most comprehensive I've read. Smoltification Most of the stuff written for general readership, does little more to describe smoltification than we currently do in the article. If you think it needs more exact explanation, please try but as it only applied to steelhead, not rainbow trout in general, it doesn't need undue emphasis. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple of sentences about smoltification. Axl¤[Talk] 21:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a stub article for "Smoltification" and moved the relevant text there. Axl¤[Talk] 21:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Artificial propagation", subsection "Aquaculture", paragraph 2: "Worldwide, in 2007, 604,695 tonnes ... of farmed salmon trout were harvested." "Salmon trout"? Axl¤[Talk] 22:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Salmon trout is a relic common name from the 19th century when male and female steelhead were thought to be different species of salmon. It is one of many historic common names for steelhead. It still appears in a lot of European descriptions of anadromous rainbow trout. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "salmon trout" is not used anywhere else in the article. It should either be explained, or better still changed to a meaningful one—perhaps "anadromous rainbow trout" or "steelhead trout". Axl¤[Talk] 12:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the fact that the term was already in the article. Actually I couldn't find it in the source. Thus I changed to "rainbow trout" instead of "salmon trout". Must have been legacy text from when the article was unbalanced to steelhead. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl¤[Talk] 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Artificial propagation", subsection "Aquaculture", paragraph 2: "Rainbow trout farming is one of the largest finfish aquaculture industries in the U.S." Is the qualifier "finfish" necessary? Although the source states "the industry is now the second largest finfish aquaculture industry in the U.S.", isn't there any other source that doesn't use the qualifier? Axl¤[Talk] 19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "finfish" adjective is important as aquaculture includes a lot of non-finfish species--clams, mussels, squid, shrimps, etc. As far as #1 or #2, I'll have to sort out, I'd didn't write this section. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my point: would the following statement be true? "Rainbow trout farming is one of the largest aquaculture industries in the U.S." If so, is there a suitable reference to support such a statement? Axl¤[Talk] 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement is correct and I think either of these as sources would support it.
I don't think that either of those sources support the statement. Axl¤[Talk] 02:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Conservation", subsection "Hybridization and habitat loss", paragraph 2: "Within the range of the Kern River golden trout of Southern California, hatchery-bred rainbows introduced into the Kern River have diluted the genetic purity of the Kern River rainbow trout (O. m. gilberti) and golden trout (O. m. aguabonita) through intraspecific and interspecific breeding." "Interspecific breeding"? I note that the reference names the species Salmo aguabonita." Axl¤[Talk] 18:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded slightly to remove "interspecific" which doesn't apply in this case. The Behnke paper here is dated 1971, thus the reference to Salmo instead of Oncorhynchus (changed in 1989) Behnke (2002) put aguabonita as an O. m. subspecies instead of its own species. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am particularly unhappy with the recent changes to the description of the conservation organizations in the "Conservation" subsection. I improved the accuracy of the statement and eventually reached an agreement with Mike Cline. Now Montanabw has changed the text to direct quotation of the mission statements, which he justifies by two weak arguments. In my opinion, there is no need to include mission statements at all in this article. It is adequate to state that these organizations are involved with trout conservation. Nevertheless I am willing to compromise with a short paraphrased statement of their activities/aims. Axl¤[Talk] 12:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored text to last version by AXL on March 2. That text is supportable with sources, does not rely on quotations and is sufficient for FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping to reach an agreement with Montanabw. Axl¤[Talk] 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it's not worth my time to argue over, so do whatever you want, but the old wording sans quotation marks was a close paraphrase that could give rise to a copyvio complaint; I've seen it happen. My second concern was Axl's edits changed a mission statement, and I know enough about non-profit organizations to say that mission statements are often fought over every single word, so paraphrasing may change the nuance of what the organization intended. But like I say, I don't actually care that much, though it's snotty and bitey to dismiss my arguments as "weak." Do as you please. Montanabw(talk) 05:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be taking this personally. I am approaching this article in the spirit of collaboration, with the aim of improving the article, as indeed we all are. When my edits have been reverted, I have approached the reverting editor with a view to reaching an agreement. I have not reverted anyone else's edits.
Yeah, "justifies by two weak arguments" is pretty damn snarky on your part. Not AGF, really quite insulting. Montanabw(talk) 06:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the specific issue of this edit, the best solution to a close paraphrase is not to change it to a direct quotation—it is to change it to a distant paraphrase. Identifying an organization's "mission" does not mean that a verbatim quote is appropriate. Paraphrasing is usually appropriate. Axl¤[Talk] 18:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could ping Moonriddengirl on this for clarification. As it sits, and I say this having worked on some CCI cases, it's a too-close paraphrase; changing a word or two does not a true rephrasing make. I'm not going to sic CCI on you for this, but I do think you are wrong and I advise rewording. That said, if you don't agree, I also don't give a flying fuck about it in the cosmic scheme of things. Montanabw(talk) 06:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not going to sic CCI on you for this." I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by this thinly veiled accusation of copyright infringement. WP:CCI states "Contributor copyright investigations is a process intended to identify users who have repeatedly introduced copyright violations into many articles or uploaded many copyrighted images, typically over a long period of time.... This process is intended only for large-scale systematic copyright violations." If you believe that I have undertaken systematic copyright violations in many articles, you certainly should report me to that process. However you haven't even undertaken a search of my edits, have you? If you had, you would know that such an accusation is utterly ridiculous and a report to CCI would just make you look foolish.
"We could ping Moonriddengirl on this for clarification." If you think that she would be happy to help improve the article, please do so.
"I do think you are wrong and I advise rewording." I welcome a suggestion from you for a suitable rephrasing, i.e. one that is not a direct quote and of course not a close paraphrase.
The California Trout text prior to my edit: "Other high-profile organizations involved in rainbow trout conservation include California Trout, whose mission is to protect and restore wild trout, steelhead, other salmon and their waters throughout California."
The text of my edit: "Other high-profile organizations involved in rainbow trout conservation include California Trout, whose mission is to protect and restore wild trout and other salmonids in waters throughout California."
The source's copyrighted text: "To protect and restore wild trout, steelhead, salmon and their waters throughout California."
The Steelhead Society text prior to my edit: "The Steelhead Society of British Columbia advocates for the health of all wild salmonids and wild rivers in British Columbia."
The text of my edit: "The Steelhead Society of British Columbia advocates for the health of all wild salmonids and rivers in British Columbia." I deleted the second instance of the word "wild" as it confused me and I was unaware of the meaning of "wild rivers". In Montanabw's reversion edit summary, he clarifies that "wild rivers" means "undammed".
The source's copyrighted text: "The Society has evolved to advocate for the health of all wild salmonids and wild rivers in British Columbia."
I leave other readers to consider the extent of my "copyright violation". Axl¤[Talk] 14:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of moving forward with the article, I am going to suggest alternative text:-
"Other high-profile organizations involved in rainbow trout conservation include California Trout, which protects wild trout and other salmonids in the waters of California."
"The Steelhead Society of British Columbia promotes the wellbeing of wild salmonids in British Columbia."
If these suggestions are unacceptable to you, please make your own suggestions. Thank you. Axl¤[Talk] 15:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Solves my concerns; All I can tell you is that a wikipedian I request had an article pulled off the main page for a too-close paraphrase not much longer than this, I offered this in an abundance of caution and in good faith; I was not happy to be treated dismissively. So yes, let's move on. Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I'm taking this as an appropriate juncture to close this discussion and the review as a whole (I'm assuming the new wording will be added, can be done so post-FAC). Thank you one and all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. HalfGigtalk 00:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - looking pretty good - comments below. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is there anything on what are its closest relatives within the Oncorhynchus group?
It might be pretty difficult to explain in simple encyclopedic language with a simple citation because the taxonomic history of Salmo and Oncorhynchus has proven pretty complex as it has moved from a morphological basis to a genetic/genomic one over the last 150 years. The easiest statement to support (but not explain) is that Cutthroat trout and Rainbow trout are closely related. But those close relationships are more at the sub-species level, not species level. In other words, O. m. aguabonita was once thought to be more cutthroat O. c. ssp than rainbow and the Columbia river redband O. m. gairdneri was once thought to be more closely related to the westslope cutthroat O. c. lewsi. I think the important relationship here that is already in the article, is that there are Oncorhynchus trouts and Oncorhynchus salmon. With ~14 subspecies of rainbow and ~14 subspecies of cutthroat plus a few other trout species on the geographic edges, it is a taxonomic minefield. All the Oncorhynchus trouts are very close (taxonomically speaking) to each other, but not as close to the salmon.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mike on this; trout taxonomy has done a 180 just in my adult life (which isn't as short as I wish it were, but still...). I tortured Mike about this section pretty bad during peer review before he finally educated me as to the current status of the taxa, and getting the existing section as readable and clear as it is was a significant accomplishment on his part. I think letting sleeping dogs lie is advisable. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally looks ok, but needs more nitpicking and polish to meet FA standards. More comments soon (reviewed to the end of "Artificial propagation"). Sasata (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't address the more complex issues until tomorrow afternoon as I am aways from my library. Will get to them as soon as I can. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
WP:Overlink: Pacific Ocean, North America, Asia, Antarctica, South America
Comment: Most of these are linked once, are you saying they should not be linked at all? Clarify? Pacific Ocean is linked twice, but the second is to "Pacific Basin" (which redirects to Pacific Ocean, admittedly) - This was my edit, not Mike's, made out of concern that someone would wonder what the "basin" was. I can chop that if you think it should be. --Montanabw
Per the linked guideline, in "what generally should not be linked": "the names of major geographic features and locations". Sasata (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying to unlink all of them? what about "pacific basin"? --Montanabw
Yes, I think they should be unlinked per the guideline (Pacific Basin link is ok). Sasata (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
possibly useful links: introduced, tributary, subspecies, threatened, endangered, state fish
Done. --Montanabw
"…average between 1 and 5 lb (0.45 and 2.27 kg)" the output numbers of a unit conversions should not contain more significant figures than the input; these are approximate values anyway (and see below about use of "average between")
I'm not sure I agree with that, but do you have a suggested way to structure the convert template to get the output you are requesting? ;-) --Montanabw
Yeah, thinking about it some more "average between" doesn't sound as unusual as it did last night, without coffee, so I'll take that part back. Try this: {{convert|1|and|5|lb|1}} to chop off a sig fig. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a piped link to that article at "sport fisheries" - will that do? If not, recommendations as to where to add it? --Montanabw
"Other introductions into waters previously devoid of any fish species or with severely depleted stocks of native fish have created world-class sport fisheries such as the Great Lakes and Wyoming's Firehole River." I think this sentence is oversimplifying the process of "world-class" sport fishery creation
There’s actually two comments I’d like to make relative to this question: "Other introductions into waters previously devoid of any fish species or with severely depleted stocks of native fish have created world-class sport fisheries such as the Great Lakes and Wyoming's Firehole River." I think this sentence is oversimplifying the process of "world-class" sport fishery creation FYI: World-class definition: “among the best in the world”.
1) One, I think history actually supports the contention that indeed the “creation” of a world-class fishery (where one didn’t exist naturally) is actually a very simple process. It goes something like this. 1) Introduce a suitable fish into a suitable environment. 2) Let the fish and nature go to work. If the fish is something that anglers pursue, then a fishery has been created 3) Looking at the historical record for introductions of rainbow trout into ideal waters such as the Great Lakes, in Patagonia, in New Zealand, and the Rocky mountain west, it takes about 5-10 years for the trout to generate healthy population densities that would warrant the “world-class” caveat. Man did little more than dump a bunch of fish into the water and hope for success. (not all introductions are successful) If the trout don’t thrive or only thrive marginally, then the fishery never gets a chance to compete for the “world-class” caveat. I think “sustaining” a World-class fishery is the part that isn’t simple. I can identify dozens of fisheries that were once or would have been considered “World-class” in the 19th and early 20th century that no longer are—for a multitude of complex human and natural reasons. One of the most striking examples of this demonstrated in the movie Rivers of the Lost Coast. The salmon and steelhead fishing along the northern California and southern Oregon coast rivers was “world-class” by every definition of the term in the early 20th century. Created by nature over centuries, man and nature couldn’t sustain it.
2) The content about Rainbow trout introductions creating “world-class” fisheries is unequivocally supported by reliable sources of all genera—sporting, biological, cultural and environmental. However when I started working on this article several months ago it was in horrible shape, not only from an organizational standpoint, but from a pure content standpoint. It was inaccurate in so many ways, especially the taxonomy. It contained much environmental POV, bias and downright false statements as well a cultural bias related to steelhead. It demonized introduced rainbows and aquaculture while bemoaning threatened steelhead natives, yet said nothing about the introductions that have created or sustained remarkably successful fisheries that obviously generate economic benefits for the region they are introduced in. Our articles need balance and accuracy. The brief addition of the success of introduction is not only accurate, but essential to offset the heavy dose of environmental bemoaning about those introductions the article contains. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except, Mike, (grinning, ducking and running...) your comment "environmental bemoaning" is itself POV and suggests an anti-environmental bias (noogies!) - and I must note that I think the article over-downplays the problems of introduced rainbows leading to trouble for cutthroats and the problems of hybridization. (Though I agree about the steelhead bit) But nonetheless, even though I am clearly in the tree-hugger camp, I do think you have done well in the article to balance everything and I continue to support this FAC - just remember: NPOV ≠ "my POV" (NOOGIES!). Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a person that was a NPS ranger in Grand Teton and Glacier for 10 years I would have to say that much of the bemoaning by about Rainbow introductions is unwarranted. Lake trout is the real threat and has been for decades.--MONGO 05:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the threat of Lake Trout. (Can't we hang bucket biologists for doing stuff like that??) I do fret about the Westslope Cutthroat, though none of this is relevant to this FAC, I was just commenting that Mike phrasing was not as neutral as he may have intended it to be. (grin) Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BW - You mean my POV in my comments above, not POV in the article, right? --Mike Cline (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I have no concerns with POV issues in the article and continue to support this FAC. It's well balanced with all major issues mentioned. I just think cutthroats are cooler than rainbows, but rainbows are cooler than browns, and all trout (except Lake Trout, which are evil) are cooler than any other fish in Montana, though they might tie with the grayling! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
please list the synonyms in the taxobox
Taxonomy:
"Walbaum's original species name, mykiss, was derived from the local Kamchatkan name mykizha." Was mykizha the Kamchatkan name for the fish, or for something else?
Done, clarified
"These names faded, however, once it was determined that Walbaum's type description was conspecific and therefore had precedence." a description cannot be conspecific; rather, the specimen that was described was conspecific. Also, it might be useful to link or mention the Principle of Priority hereabouts.
Done, text changed, link added.
"In 1989, morphological and genetic studies by Gerald R. Smith, the Curator of Fishes at the Museum of Zoology, and Ralph F. Stearley, a doctoral candidate at Museum of Paleontology (University of Michigan)" why list the credentials and affiliated institutions of these individuals?
Done, credentials removed from text, although they were specifically suggested to be included in the GAN for this article. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment - credentials in text annoy me and I agree here)
ensure bi- and trinomial names have non-breaking spaces in them to avoid unsightly line breaks
Done - I think I've got all the necessary non-breaking spaces included in the prose
"… are listed below as described by Behnke (2002)." Only giving this fellow's last name is inconsistent with the full naming used in the previous section
Done, name clarified
as we discussed in the GA review for another trout species, "type species" is not the correct term to describe O. m. mykiss; rather, it is the type subspecies
fixed
link Aleutian Islands, endemic on first occurrence
Looks like someone got those, they are linked now at first text occurrence as far as I can tell-Montanabw
link variety, headwater, lateral line
variety reveals no appropriate links to animal varieties, only plant. Suggestions? Headwaters and lateral line now linked. --Montanabw
I don't think it's appropriate to use "~" as a shorthand for "approximately" in formal writing (2 instances)
Fixed. -- Montanabw
what were the proposed trinomials names for Athabasca rainbow trout and Sheepheaven Creek redband trout?
Don't think there are any! My investigations reveal with some confidence that no specific trinomials have been proposed for these two forms. They were first discussed during a period where taxonomy was transitioning from solely morphological/geographic basis to more genetic/genomic. I can't find any literature that discusses these two forms using any specific trinomials which is consistent with Behnke (2002).--
I don't think incomplete sentences in the "range" column of the subspecies subsection should end in periods (similar to the guidelines suggested for WP:CAPTION)
Agree and text in table has been expanded/sourced to explain that the taxonomy of this group is unsettled and under research. But I don't trying to explain the situation in any kind of detail is appropriate for this article. An article on the Mexican trouts is warranted.
"The golden rainbow trout should not be confused" sounds like a breach of WP:NOTHOWTO
It isn't really (grin), but I changed the language to say "is not the same subspecies as" - If anyone else can do better, go for it. --Montanabw
"rainbow trout adults average between 1 and 5 lb (0.45 and 2.27 kg)" an average is one number, but this is describing a range of weights
So says the source, I think, and in this context, a range can be an "average" in the colloquial sense, if, as here, there are individuals over and under but the bulk falling in the specified range. that said, if you have a recommendation for a better way to say it, let us know?--Montanabw
Sorry, this reads ok to me now. Sasata (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere should be capitalized
Done
Life cycle
please adjust the image sizes in the triple-image so they are the same height (instructions at template:Multiple image)
That was a surprisingly annoying pain in the butt, somebody thank me for doing that one! (LOL) --Montanabw
"adequate shallows and vegetation for good food production." ambiguous: is the food or the food production good?
Done, reworded
"The eggs usually hatch in about four to seven weeks; however, the time of hatching varies greatly with region and habitat." suggest "The eggs usually hatch in about four to seven weeks although the time of hatching varies greatly with region and habitat."
Done, reworded as suggested
link yolk sac, sea cage
Done, linked
"they are the approximate size of a human finger." suggest "they are approximately the size of a human finger."
Done, reworded as suggested
"Two general forms exist–"Summer-run steelhead" and "Winter-run steelhead"." why capitalize (not capitalized in later usage)?
Done, caps removed
"Winter-run fish general spawn in shorter" fix
Done, fixed
Feeding
"crayfish, shrimp and other crustaceans. missing "and"
Fixed
That was a run-on sentence, I broke it up into three and rearranged it a bit - Mike, check my work, I did some rearranging for prose flow that may not work perfectly. Sasata, you check me too... --Montanabw
Looks fine, one small change
"Some lake-dwelling lines" what is meant by "lines" here?
Fixed, this was a typo, should have read "forms".
Artificial propagation
both "United States" and "U.S." are used throughout the article
For prose flow, I don't see this as a problem, I know MOS has its guidelines, but the length of the article argues for an IAR here, IMHO. Nonetheless, if you want "U.S." used exclusively after the first time, say so and I guess we can fix it. --Montanabw
link Indian council
rephrased to match source, which says "tribal government" ("Council" incorrect for modern tribal govt anyway... ) linked to Tribal sovereignty in the United States --Montanabw
* BW, this [7] would argue that Tribal council is a perfectly acceptable term, but I am satisfied with the change --Mike Cline (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is "ocean cage" the same as "sea cage" used previously?
Yes. Sea cage, ocean cage, sea pen, etc. are all synonyms. Sources used terms inconsistently. Changed text to "sea cage" for consistency
link Pennsylvania earlier
Fixed --Montanabw
"Rainbow trout farming is currently the second-largest finfish aquaculture industry in the U.S." what is "currently" – the source is from 2006
Probably the most current stats, but I'll let Mike tackle that one. --Montanabw
Rewrote sentence to make it less dated. Current source is probably the best secondary source for this. The National Agricultural Statistics Service conducts the U.S. Aquaculture Census every five years. The results of those census don't show up in reports for much later. I can't find any evidence that the latest census (?2012) has been published. The last published census was 2007. A 2009 summary of U.S. trout production [8] does not provide discrete data for rainbow trout.
"On the international scene, the U.S. produces" suggest "Internationally, the U.S. produces"
Fixed --Montanabw
"The disease does not affect humans." sure it does; do you mean it does not infect humans?
Fixed --Montanabw
Temp break
should the description section include information like: number of vertebrae, # of dorsal spines, soft dorsal rays, anal spines, soft anal rays, and caudal rays? I do not know enough about fish to know if these characteristics are different from other trouts, but the FAO page saw fit to include these details …
See the biology question below; I think this could be a spinoff article, Biology of the rainbow trout or something. JMO. --Montanabw
The inclusion of these Meristic characteristics may or may not be appropriate for the article. The FAO characteristics are problematic because they are generalized for cultured rainbow trout, not wild natives. We know from Halverson (2010) that cultured rainbow are "entirely synthetic" and don't closely resemble any given rainbow subspecies. From Behnke (2002) we know that he believes that there are no consistently distinguishing meristic characteristics between O. mykiss and O. clarki. This may actually be true for all of the Oncorhynchus species. A bit of cursory research reveals a lot of work describing the "variability" of meristic characteristics within salmonids. If we include the FAO description, it should be clear that these are the characteristics of "cultured" not "wild native" rainbows. Thoughts? --Mike Cline (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Other significant trout-producing countries include the U.S., Iran and the United Kingdom." the UK is not a country
It is an independent nation with a flag, a government, a UN membership -- not sure what you are getting at? --Montanabw
half of the aquaculture section is devoted to practices and production in the US. Where does most production occur in Asia? How do farming practices there compare to the US? The previous paragraph indicates that Chile is the largest producer. Why no discussion about the Chilean industry?
Probably lack of sources, Mike? --Montanabw
Accumulating a few sources and contemplating what to write.
I'd urge caution in going too much into aquaculture as fish farming has its own articles; I'd only comment on anything unique to rainbow trout. @Mike Cline: I found this from the FAO, may offer the needed international perspective. Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
most of the discussion about conservation is about the US, with a sentence about the Kamchatka Steelhead Project. Are these the only instances of rainbow trout conservation?
If you consider conservation efforts in relationship to the native range, then Russia, U.S. and Canada (BC) are the major regions where conservation efforts are ongoing. BC is mentioned in the paragraph. I've added a sentence to highlight Truchas Mexicanas which at this point is more a research cooperative aimed at the eventual conservation of the Mexican trouts. I am unaware of any significant conservation efforts aimed at rainbow trout outside their native range (where for the most part, many consider them invasives). --Mike Cline (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"(O. m. gairdneri, newberrii, and stonei)" - unitalicize "and"
Done
links: siltation, life cycle, immunity, cohort, Thunder Bay, subcutaneous
Done
there are still some missing non-breaking spaces in Latin names
Got them all within content. Do I need to include in citation titles??--Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"even more resistant species in the same area, such as S. trutta," full name should be used for this species, as the genus name has not been mentioned since the Taxonomy section
Done
"M. cerebralis was first recorded" should not start a paragraph with an abbreviation
Fixed
"most likely due to inadvertent human intervention." source?
reworded slightly for clarity and cited.
"The mud snail was first detected in the U.S. in Idaho's Snake River in 1987. The mud snail has" reword to avoid repetetive sentence intros
Fixed
"samples have been discovered" samples or specimens?
legacy text. Samples and specimens would considered synonymous in this context. I've changed text to read: "the snail" has been --Mike Cline (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"however, a recent genetic study of fin samples" avoid using "recent" (when will a 2007 study not be recent?)
fixed
"found that despite the fact that" suggest "found that although"
fixed
"The highly desirable rainbow trout life cycle" they have a desirable life cycle??
Legacy text, reworded for clarity
link game fish, antioxidant
Done, game fish already linked twice.
uncap "Vitamin"
Done
is a "netpen" the same as a "seacage"?
Legacy text. Same as above, seacage, etc. are all synonyms. Changed as above to sea cage for consistency.
"A chardonnay is often recommended as a suitable wine to go with trout." a single mention from one source does not justify "often recommended"
Legacy content. Rewrote with new citation to make it a bit more generalized. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
why is the references section called "Notes"? I didn't see any notes in there other than the bit about the finfish.
Thousands of wikipedia articles use "Notes" for the "Footnotes" section; it's a matter of editor preference in wide use.--Montanabw
authorities should be linked (once) in the taxobox (in the synonyms list). Also, it looks like there's an asterisk after each of the synonyms?
Links in content removed, relinked in synonyms
might want to convert all ISBNs to the recommended ISBN-13
All sources with 13 digit ISBNs are listed as such. No all the books have 13 digit ISBNs
the 57 page range for ref#2 (Benke 2002) is quite broad and will make it difficult for readers to verify facts from this source. COuld you perhaps cite more specifically to page numbers?
Behnke 2002 references broken up
It seems references 2 and 3 are different chapters in the same book. Please add the book editor.
No editor, Behnke is sole author. Use of chapter parameter does not required editor.
accessdates are not required for print sources available online
removed from the one I found
journals do not need publishers included (cf. ref #7)
publisher removed
ref#11 should have Latin names italicized; the bare url in the citation looks odd too, perhaps include this in the publisher field? Also, how does this qualify as a reliable source? AFAICT, "SGER" stands for "small grants exploratory research", so this is a grant proposal (?) and as such, has not been peer-reviewed.
Latin italicized Source replaced with peer reviewed source.
ref 14 is not a reliable source and should be removed
Looks like it is the source for the photo that is used in the chart; should it be moved over to the photo? --Montanabw
Source moved to image
ref #15 uses 97 pages to cite a single fact! specific page number please…
fixed
the editors of the Fishbase reference are included but not those who authored the page? Also, I can't tell from the page that this is the "February 2006" version, where is that info?
Legacy citation. Re cited to exact Fishbase page with the information.
please check the author formatting for consistency; for example, some references include "and" before listing the final author while others don't. Also, compare the formatting of "Hale, MC; Thrower, FP;" vs. "Tyler, C.R, Pottinger, T.G.,"
All multiple author citations should now have a consistent format
ref#22 (Wisconsin Trout Fishing: Trout Stream Classifications) should include the last revision date
revision date included
ref #24 appears to be a product brochure, how is this reliable? Also, perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where this source supports the fact "they are commercially propagated in sea cages"
Source replaced with one that supports both facts in the sentence
another detail to check for consistency: page range format. Compare "pp. 250–51" vs. "437–454"
fixed the two instances I found
include last updated date in ref#32; looks like the title should be "The National Fish Hatchery System"
Not sure what source you are referring to. Numbers change as citations are changed so just listing the # leaves one guessing.
ref #36 does not support the cited statement, is perhaps the url incorrect?
same comment as above, no idea which source/statement you are addressing
Yes, for the food and recipe stuff that it sources, the other place it's used is as a backup, and I'll let Mike make the call if it's needed there. --Montanabw
My take is that this source is just as reliable as ANY source that purports to describe the taste, etc. of trout as a culinary subject. There's no science here, no peer reviewed journals. We could list at least ten different NY Times articles that essentially say the same thing, despite the highly subjective nature of this type of content.
ref #43 needs authors and last revision date
Fixed. --Montanabw
both authors should be listed individually in ref#46
fixed, I hope I guessed the right citation
ref#52 should include the doi
Not sure which citation you are addressing
I tweaked the low-hanging fruit here, Mike will have to do the more complex and detailed stuff. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the issues raised above have been addressed in some form--either through comments, sourcing, formatting or changes in content. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata:, I think these were all your questions? Can you strike the ones you think we've addressed here and comment on the ones we have yet to fix to your satisfaction? Montanabw(talk) 03:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The coverage is excellent, nothing seems left out. I feel it is perfect for FA status, though I do agree that the above issues need attention. Cheers! Sainsf<^>Talk all words 11:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assorted biology questions
Shouldn't this article include at least a little bit about the fish's internal organs? This page, though not the best source, explains the basic salmon anatomy, and some of that information (ideally from a different source) could be added under the Description section. Jsayre64(talk) 04:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:JMO, but I'd say only where the Rainbow Trout has some markedly different internal organ from most other freshwater game fish. But I also don't know if there is anything (?) Montanabw(talk) 05:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that there is nothing unique about individual fish species internal organs (see Fish anatomy) below the Class (biology) level. At the genus level: Oncorhynchus in this case, one set of fish guts look a lot like the next (sexual organs not withstanding). --Mike Cline (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nice to see a Fish article as FAC. Shouldn't there be some mention of trout's predators? LittleJerry (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Predators: Pretty open-ended when it comes to trout, and nothing specific to the rainbow. Trout (really all salmonids) and probably all of their predators are “opportunistic” feeders. Any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish that is in any way piscivorous would be considered a predator of trout. Any list of specific predators would be extremely long and significantly variable by habitat, geography and life cycle stage. This would include man and the rainbow trout itself. In fact it is highly likely that young trout have fallen prey to cnidaria and cephalopods when in saltwater environments. I know of no specific predator/prey relationship for rainbow trout that would rise to a level where we should include it in the article. Additionally, because the rainbow trout is now a global ubiquitous species in suitable environments (to which it is highly adaptable), it is very difficult to even generalize survival/feeding behaviors. Simply put, rainbow trout live an “eat or be eaten” world, regardless of age, size, habitat or geography.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
I have to admit I'm struggling a little to tell if there are still outstanding issues above. @Sasata: are you satisfied with the responses to your comments?
Mike, you have some duplicate links in the article. Some may be justified by the space between them but pls review in any case. If you haven't seen it, this script highlights the dups. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. Using the script, all duplicate links have been identified and removed. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from John
The prose was looking pretty good; I took out a couple of words and reordered a couple of sentences etc but generally this passes my standards. I will sleep on it and probably come back to support tomorrow. Nice work! --John (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I raised my eyebrows when i saw this in the lead: "Introduced populations may impact native species by preying on them, out-competing them, transmitting contagious diseases (such as whirling disease), or hybridizing with closely related species and subspecies, thus reducing genetic purity. " Is 'genetic purity' the best way to describe this? --John (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, it’s an excellent question. Whether “genetic purity” is the scientifically correct term I don’t know, but conceptually it is accurate. What is happening through hybridization is the loss of pure genome sub-species. Through introgression, pure native forms of a population are diluted and changed genetically. Although their outward appearance may retain the morphology of the pure subspecies, the genetics are different as the entire genome is changed with the introduction of genes from another species through interspecific and intraspecific breeding. Taken to the extreme, hybridization can and has caused genomic extinction of subspecies. (ie. Yellowfin cutthroat trout) Halverson (2010) has an excellent discussion of this in his chapter: A single new mongrel species as it relates to the rainbow and westslope cutthroat. This subspecies assessment for the Westslope Cutthroat trout (2009) illustrates that not all populations of a subspecies are genetically pure (see pages 7-8) --Mike Cline (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well put this down as an open query; I'm not a biologist but 'genetic purity' and 'genomic extinction' raise flags with me. I'll continue to try to read up on these or ask a biologist if I can think off one. Still looks great otherwise. --John (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here's a specific reference to "genomic extinction" related to westslope cutthroat: Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Hybridization, and the U.S. Endangered Species Act. From page 1324 "The WCT are threatened by widespread genomic extinction.” They also note (p. 1207, see also abstract) “all of the progeny of a hybrid will be hybrids,” where they define hybrid as (p. 1204) “any individual that is either a first generation hybrid or whose recent ancestry (within the last 100 years or so) includes at least one first-generation hybrid individual.” (To put this definition in proper perspective, assume an F1 hybridization event [WCT x RT] occurred 100 years ago. After 100 years [approximately 20 generations] of repeated backcrossing with WCT, the predicted proportion of a descendant’s genes derived from RT would be approximately [0.5]20, or < 0.0001%. Such an individual would be considered a hybrid, according to Allendorf et al. [2004]). The implicit interpretation is that any genetic introgression will result in “genomic extinction.” --Mike Cline (talk)
I absolutely support Mike's position on this; the risks posed to the Westslope cutthroat by hybridization are significant. They are a genetically unique species and genome. Montanabw(talk) 03:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Genetic purity and Genomic Extinction
Both terms are used in peer reviewed literature:
In “Silent Fields: The Long Decline of a Nation's Wildlife”, Roger Lovegrove, Oxford University Press (2007), p. 202
The docile Ferret is still widely kept in Britain both as a pet and for rabbiting although the albino form has lost favour latterly to the Polecat-ferret. Escaped individuals will mate freely with wild Polecats to produce the hybrids which, although varying in pattern and colour, frequently resemble pure Polecats. Without doubt, some records over the centuries, including the present time, refer inadvertently to these hybrids, but this fact does not alter the overall picture significantly, since the number of hybrids at any time is relatively small. Birks (pers com) points out that the domesticated Ferret is not well adapted to life in the wild and it is therefore unlikely that it will threaten the integrity of the Polecat. It is interesting that the Polecat has never been known to occur on the Isle of Wight, although a bounty was paid for one at Freshwater in 1791. The genetic purity of that individual can never be known.
In “Conservation Biology: Evolution in Action”, Scott P. Carroll, Charles W. Fox, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 132
This phenomenon is accelerated if hybrids have higher fitness than parentals (in other words, hybrid vigor). It may require decades, but there are several well documented cases in which genomic extinction or near extinction occurred in as few as three to seven generations (for example, California cordgrass [Wolf et al., 2001], Pecos pupfish [Rosenfield et al., 2004]). Rapid introgression of the rare Pecos pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis with the ubiquitous sheepshead minnow C. variegatus, an accidentally introduced bait fish, is effectively driving the Pecos pupfish to genomic extinction.
--Mike Cline (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supporters?
Hey everyone, this FAC is getting pretty long and complex, and per Ian Rose's comments above, I'd like to ping those who have weighed in here to see if most/all concerns have been met- or not; @Sasata:, can you strike what we've addressed of your concerns above and let us know if you are ready to support? Ditto @Axl:, @John:, @Casliber:: Did we address your concerns yet?. Am I correct that we have support from @MONGO:, @Rajzwyn:, @Jsayre64:, @Finetooth:, @HalfGig:? Montanabw(talk) 07:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging - I was a little concerned when I first looked and planned to revisit...alot of water has passed under the bridge since then! Will have another look now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I shall certainly let you know if/when I am ready to support. Axl¤[Talk] 11:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion still stands; find it under here. Jsayre64(talk) 16:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Note the sinister placement of the apostrophe—according to a reliable source with his own Wikipedia article, this book will hurt your children, and is the "the darkest, ugliest book [he has] ever seen". It is a Faustian tale of an aspiring artist who sells his soul for a magic paintbrush. A tale told entirely in pictures, it was the best selling American wordless novel, and probably the best remembered today. In recent years it has been rebranded as a graphic novel, and has seen a renaissance of publisher and reader interest. Enjoy, fellow editors! Enjoy your doom! Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from ColonelHenry
I had the good fortune of reviewing this article at GAN, and have benefited from Curly Turkey's coverage of graphic and wordless novels by being inspired to look into the genre more. So, seeing it pop on my watchlist with a FAC nomination, I wanted to offer my support and few comments here.
With regard to the featured article criteria, this article definitely well-written, informative, intriguing, and in this case has all the potential of being a bad influence. :-) CT's work provides a great analysis of the themes and symbolism of the novel. Writing, structure, and summary are all clearl, well-organized, and in compliance with MOS and appropriate guidelines Based on a review of its sources, and compared to other articles available online and in print on the book, this article covers all the major aspects of the work sufficiently and neglects none. The sources cover a comprehensive survey of information available on the subject, the citations are consistent, and the article complies with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE, and the article is both stable and entirely neutral discussion of the subject.
I am glad to support this article here for promotion to FA status.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Midnightblueowl
Looking good so far, but just a few concerns:
In the introduction, we refer to "New York" but do not specify if this is a reference to the city or the wider state; we also don't add a link.
Also in the lede, we use the abbreviation "US" and I think that in this instance "United States" would be more explicit, particularly for an international readership.
The use of the wording "other Americans to try their hands at the medium" is perhaps a little colloquial; non-native English speakers might have trouble understanding "try their hands"; could we replace it with something a little more straightforward ?
In the Content section, we read this: "Each image moves the story forward by an interval Ward chooses to maintain story flow; Ward wrote in Storyteller Without Words (1974) that too great an interval would put too much interpretational burden on the reader, while too little would make the story tedious. Wordless novel historian David A. Beronä likens these concerns with the storytelling methods of comics.[2]" Is all of this information contained in that single reference at the end, and if so, maybe we should duplicate it after the first that I just quoted. A similar situation is apparent in the paragraph following on from it.
Done. Sorry, I missed this before. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to link to Plautus twice in quick succession ? And the quote would (in my opinion) read better if it was included directly in the prose paragraph.
Done. I considered it a different context in a quote template, à la image captions, but since I've merged it into the prose it's a moot point now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"he attacks one of them, who happens to be a police officer" – maybe consider replacing "who happens to be" as it seems fairly superfluous in the text.
Well, in the context he didn't realize he'd attacked an officer until it was too late. I've reworded it to "turns out to be a police office"—is that better? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lead is meant to be more-or-less redundant to the body, so I'm not sure it's an issue. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could do with adding further biographical detail on Ward into the Background section.
Why add the original German titles of publications in a separate "Notes" section ? Why not do what we do over at the likes of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets and have the original language titles in brackets ?
A couple of reasons:
I prefer keeping glosses out of the text, as it interrupts reading flow.
With the Tintin articles, Le Vingtième Siècle is the actual title of the newspaper, and "The Twentieth Century" is a gloss we provide for convenience, but isn't an official title of the newspaper (there was no English edition, was there?). The books in this article do have official English translations under which they've been published, which makes the original titles trivial in the context. As a convenience I include the original titles anyways, but as per above I prefer to kick them into the notes section to keep the prove clean.
I wasn't the original or primary editor of any of those Tintin articles, so I didn't want to enforce my own preferences on the articles, especially since I know my preference isn't widespread, and it's a pretty fine point to start an argument over. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I think that this is a fairly strong contender for FAC, although admit I am no expert in assessing such things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The genre has so few examples and so little literature on it that you could become an expert without unreasonable effort. ;) Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, looks like I forgot to say Support in bold text. Sorry! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Image review: question first. Did the initial printing have a copyright notice, and was the copyright renewed?
Oh, that's tantalizing. This image on eBay clearly shows it was "Copyright 1929 ... by Lynd Ward". I think it's unlikely he wouldn't have renewed—he spent his life in publishing (even a few years as a publisher), and Gods' Man was one of his best-known works. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork is executed in black and white; the images vary in size and dimension, up to 6 by 4 inches (15 cm × 10 cm), the size of the opening and closing images of each chapter. - this begs the question of page size
According to the editions at AbeBooks, the book was octavo size. My other sources don't specify. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting anything at WorldCat regarding size. I did find a source, however. [17] — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
told in sixty-three silent woodcut prints. - silent implies sound. Technically, all prints are silent (until you drop them). Wouldn't "wordless" work best?
You're confusing "whose" with "who's": "whose" is a relative pronoun whose meaning includes "of which" or "belonging to which". Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a relative pronoun. The issue is, it's a relative pronoun which is usually used for people, and its use for inanimate objects is disputed at best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed at worst, I'd posit. I can certain imagine people disagreeing with it on a gut level because of its homonymity with "who's", but it's been firmly a part of the language for centuries—going back to Middle English, in fact. Fowler larfs at those who proscribe it: "In the starch that stiffens English style, one of the most effective ingredients is the rule that whose shall refer only to persons; to ask a man to write flexible English, but forbid him whose 'as a relative pronoun of the inanimate', is like sending a soldier on 'active' service & insisting that his tunic collar shall be tight & high." Basically, it's "disputed" by the same starched shirts who insist on such wince-inducing unEnglish constructions as "It is he". Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This convinces me that all the authorities that matter are on board. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since that was written in response to another article, on the same site, I'm still fairly certain that it's disputed. Personally I'd never use it. Why not something like "The work inspired Ward to create a wordless novel of his own, with a story stemming from his "youthful brooding" on the short, tragic lives of artists such as Van Gogh, Toulouse-Lautrec, Keats, and Shelley" or something similar? Avoid the pronoun altogether. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because this usage of the pronoun is well established, natural English, and I have a problem with giving in to artificial proscriptions. English is complicated enough without these pointless, unnatural rules against split infinitives and stranded propositions. It's a matter of fixing what ain't broken. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, I'll leave the question up to consensus. If other reviewers have no issue with it, then I'll hold my peace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gods' Man was the best selling. - The way this is phrased, it sounds as if it was the best selling of the time, which, being the first, it obviously was. "proved to be" or something may work
What does his TB have to do with anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It explains why the family constantly moved when he was young. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what does that have to do with this article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since this is his first major work, and because Midnightblueowl asked so nicely, I thought it was best to give a capsule history of the man as context for how he came to create this unusual book.
Perhaps, but I'd expect the background to be limited to things which could feasibly have influenced him. Otherwise it feels a bit wandering. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any other part of this background you'd cut? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just that one sentence, "Ward suffered from tuberculosis and persistent inner ear and mastoid infections as a child, and his family moved frequently in search of an environment that would promote his health." It doesn't really, explicitly or implicitly, relate to the work and/or the contents of the work. Everything else, sure, keep it. At least it lets us know some of of the social and biographical aspects which shaped his development as an author/artist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and I've merged the first two paragraphs, as the second one's now kinda short. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A nice, succinct, article, although I should note that this is likely available on Jstor, and you should give it a shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look carefully, it's already cited. Thanks for the support, by the way! Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Jim Personally, I'd prefer the three German notes as parenthetical translations, I don't think they justify notes which add no other info. I'm certainly not going to oppose on the strength of that, though. Nice article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about one of the most important clause of the Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the war between Germany and the various Allied powers. The clause facilitated the payment of reparations and ignited controversy over if the article blamed Germany, solely, for the outbreak of the war (the war guilt question).
I have nominated the article as I feel it meets the requirements of FA, and has recently passed its Good Article review. All images contain alt text, there are not disambig links on the page, and all external links are working.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not my area of expertise, but a recent review of WW1 books suggests that Luigi Albertini's assessment is worthy of inclusion. - hahnchen 20:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been that long since I started my study of the ToV (several years ago), that I had forgotten about that guy (the first - iirc - to state Germany was to blame for the outbreak of the war tackle the war guilt question) as he is pretty much overshadowed by Fritz Fischer. I have quickly checked google books, his works are unavailable to preview and I don't own them. However, I have noted that several accessible sources talk about his work so I will look through them and see if there is anything I can add.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few sentences noting his conclusions and its place in the historiography.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the are very serious substantive problems that greatly weaken the quality of the article. The major position of John Maynard Keynes--very widely adopted in Britain & the US -- is never mentioned, despite the large literature. Even worse the lead misrepresents the issue and confuses the technical legal issues that the authors of #231 (especially young John Foster Dulles) were trying to solve with the reading that was overwhelmingly held in the 1920s in Europe and USA that #231 ascribed "guilt" for the war to Germany without using the word. The main editor has repeatedly rejected efforts to make improvements, most recently today. Rjensen (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a FA review, ambiguous wording and generalities are not helpful. You state that the article misrepresents information, please highlight specifics and if necessary provide sources that state information to the contrary.
As far as I am aware, Keynes' place in the Treaty of Versailles story is his opposition to financial side of it (where the large literature comes in): not the wording or the controversy surrounding this clause (the focus of this article). For example, his objections to the financial repercussions of the treaty are well discussed on his article and that of his book: The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Therefore, the World War I reparations and Treaty of Versailles articles would be the most appropriate place for his arguments. On the other hand, if you would care to highlight a source - since I am unaware of his proposed objection to this article or his involvement in the vast literature surrounding the war guilt question - that provides his vocal opposition to the wording of the article (or the issues surrounding war guilt), and not his overall opposition to what he perceived as the harsh financial terms, then it can be included.
As for the assertion that I have repeatedly rejected efforts to improve the article (unfounded considering the improvements made by the outside opinions raised in the GA review, the comment made here, and the inclusion of material in the article that I never added), I largely reverted todays edits as they were unsupported by the text or the sources currently used (as well removed links, inserted double spaces etc, although I did retain some of them which worded the article better and removed a mistake). The article is at GA status, and this review has been opened to advance to FA. A standard now has to be kept, inserting unsupported material or opinions is not helpful. I would also like to make any reviewers aware that RJensen and I have not seen eye to eye on much in the past. He has also only ever made minor edits to the article (most of which were retained, despite some clear misuses of what the sources stated and providing only one side to the discussion), last of which was in early December and has not made any comment on the talk page. He made no comment to the massive overhaul of the article, and did not comment during the GA review. His assertion is simply not true. The revision of most of his edits today were accompanied by a message to take his concerns to the talkpage, as I am unaware of Keynes' involvement in the war guilt discussion (diff). Instead, he immediately came here to launch a string of attacks on me and the quality of the article. Rather than attempting to improve the article, I feel like he is using this as a forum to derail the review before it has even begun.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enigma has missed the very large literature on Keynes which indeed looks at #231. Heartfield (2012) says: "[AJP] Taylor's objection to the 'War Guilt' attached to Germany after the Second World War echoes the many protests against the 'War Guilt' clause in the Versailles settlement, Article 231, which held Germany responsible for the First World War. Two authors in particular made the case against the Versailles Treaty and its blaming of Germany for a war that all the powers had fought: John Maynard Keynes and Edward H Carr"; David Kennedy (1999) says Keynes said the Treaty "contained three lethal flaws" the last writes Kennedy: "Adding insult to injury, the treaty's Article 231—the notorious 'guilt clause'—forced the Germans to acknowledge sole responsibility for the outbreak of the war." Keynes himself said re the Reparation Chapter ("Economic Consequence" p 151) "There can have been few negotiations in history so contorted, so miserable, so utterly unsatisfactory to all parties. I doubt if any one who took much part in that debate can look back on it without shame." All RS agree that Keynes played a major role in shaping British responses to the Treaty. Leaving Keynes out is a major flaw in the article and it's a failure of research to state as Enigma does (above) that Keynes' place in the Treaty of Versailles story is his opposition to financial side of it...not the wording or the controversy surrounding this clause (the focus of this article)Rjensen (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source does not state what Keynes' opinion was on the matter, and is another example of you misusing sources. The source goes on to state that Keynes' focused on reparations and the impact that they could have on Europe, it says nothing on his opinion on this article or the war guilt question: link, p. 462. The only thing this source highlights is that some research should be put into finding what Carr's opinion on the article was.
Your second source is largely Kennedy's opinion on the matter, as can be seen here: link. The three flaws mentioned are: the transfer of economic property from Germany to France, the disruption of Germany's economy, and the imposition of reparations. The attack on article 231 is essentially Kennedy's position. We already have one historian in the article who states similar, are you suggesting we collect all of them that state the article forced Germany to accept sole responsibility for the war? It is interesting that, despite his use as Keynes as a source, he only provides one take on the article.
The final source is Keynes' objection to reparations, not article 231. As can be seen on the following page (link), all Keynes says about the article is what it states, and that it could be taken to be mean either an admission of moral responsibility or an admission of financial liability. Since you are hell bent, despite offering little in the way of supporting information, we could add "Keynes noted that the article could be taken ... either way" to the article.
Finally, if the literature is so vast on the issue, please present a source that outright states something to the effect that Keynes thought Article 231 was xyz, what he thought the articles (not reparations) impact on Germany was, or if Keynes thought that Germany was or was not guilty. Thus far, all we have his opinion on reparations and informing the read what the wording of article 231 states and how it could be taken to mean liability or guilty: covered in much detail throughout the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query Why would focussing the reparations on disabled veterans and War widows have reserved the larger part of the reparations for the British empire? Of the allies France and Russia both lost more than Britain, and the other allies such as Italy and the US lost more between them than Britain did. I can see that targeting the reparations on widows and disabled servicemen would benefit Britain far more than expenditure on repairing damage in her allies territory in Belgium, France, Italy, the Balkans and even Russia. But while it would have given Britain a larger share of the reparations, I don't see that it would have given Britain the larger part i.e. the largest part of the fund. Of course if this was just about the German part then that would largely remove Italy and some of the others, but the gap between Britain and France would widen as Britain's casualties included far more casualties fighting than France suffered in those campaigns. ϢereSpielChequers 23:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources all agree that due to British civilian losses and damages being minor compared to the other powers, the inclusion of allowances to widows and military pensions was a tactic to drive up the amount of reparations Britain would get at the expense of the other Allied Powers. However, thus far, I have yet to see a source that explains it more than that. For example: link, link, link, link (oddly enough, I cannot access the various pages of the books used in the article).
As that is more of a discussion for the reparations side of things, it could be removed to avoid distraction and the sentence read as thus: "He furthermore argued that reparations should include war pensions for disabled veterans and allowances to be paid to war widows."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised that the sources all agree that this was a tactic to get a larger share of the reparations for Britain. Assuming that none of them support the article saying "the larger part" I suggest we change it to "a larger share". ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just able to access Yearwood, but only via snippet view, and all that I could see was that it increased the British sum to a "substantial share". So without anything other information, I agree with your suggestion and will make the change. I guess it was a lost in translation moment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
File:Ulrich_Graf_von_Brockdorff-Rantzau.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed both issues. The German archive website that the photo links to contains no author information that I was able to ascertain, so I have changed the file info to unknown rather than leaving it blank. I have also added in the required PD tag.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first image still needs to be fixed. --Boson (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catch, got it! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Links
The Wikisource link doesn't appear to be correct, but I'm not sure what needs changing.--Boson (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catches. Of the above, I have amended the first and third.
Labelled is not showing up as a typo on my screen, unless you are referring to rewording?
As for the final point, there is no link since the issue of war guilt is essentially this article. I could reword the sentence and place the German terminology within the parentheses?
I will give the article another run over tomorrow to see if there is anything else I have missed or anything I can word better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was ambiguous. By "no article", I meant the lack of the definite article the before Kriegsschuldfrage, which is a count noun (even if it is foreign), so should have an article. Another point is that since "-frage" is best translated as " issue" in this context, we have something like the issue of the x issue (x issue). Even if you leave "question", you have "the issue of the question". As regards "labelled", I understood this was the British spelling, but the article otherwise uses American spelling. --Boson (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about what way it translates better, all I know is that the various sources use that term and translate it roughly into "war guilt question" or variants of thereof. I have, however, reworded the sentence the issue you raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
"Germans saw this clause as taking full responsibility for the cause of the war, and a national humiliation. German politicians were vocal in their opposition to the article, in an attempt to generate international sympathy while German historians worked to undermine the article with the objective of subverting the entire treaty. On the other hand, the Allied leaders were surprised at the German reaction. They saw the article as only a legal requirement to yield German compensation."
I think the neutrality of this summary could be improved. Legal issues may have been a factor in the final wording of the clause, but the leaders were hardly surprised, considering the discussions about moral responsibility. Take, for instance, Boemeke on Wilson's reaction to the German reaction: "Obviously, Germany was guilty, it was self-evident . . . that they were unwilling to atone for their sins, that they deserved to be punished". Consider also Steiner (p. 59 as cited): "a compromise . . . that distinguished between Germany's complete moral responsibility for the war and is consequences [i.e. Article 231] and its limited legal liability for reparations [i.e. Article 232]." It may be that the leaders did not expect the Germans to remonstrate so vociferously, but that does not suggest, as the introduction does, that the leaders had not been thinking about moral responsibility at all and were completely taken aback by the German reaction. --Boson (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have the backstory of the drafting of the article, which ends with the diplomatic compromise between polarized Allied opinions. Considering it remained in the treaty, without being changed, could be seen - imo, without further information at hand and something not argued in the article - as acceptance by the Allies and placing the various arguments about moral responsibility on the backburner. After drafting, MacMillan indicates that there was some surprise. She writes: "no one thought there would be any difficulty over the clause...". Binkley and Mahr also note that in response to the German protests, Clemenceau (one of the people arguing for German moral responsibility prior to the drafting of the treaty) argued along legal lines rather than moral ones.
The above supports the lede (which I believe is pretty neutral considering the controversy and the article's nickname), and the article makes clear that arguments over moral responsibility did take place. So with that in mind, what refinement would you suggest?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, what page from Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years did Wilson's comment come from? It seems pretty suited to the article, but I cannot find it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)
On Boson's questions above, "labeled" and "labelled" are both fine in AmEng per Merriam-Webster, and Kriegsschuldfrage clearly isn't a count noun in context.
I'm close to giving up on offering punctuation advice ... punctuation is changing rapidly, and what standards remain aren't followed in any consistent way, particularly online. But if I weren't giving up, I'd change "Part VIII: the reparations section of the treaty." to "Part VIII, the reparations section of the treaty."
"Article 231 was the opening article of Part VIII ... Other than "Article 231", there is no title for this article. However, the article is generally referred to as the "War Guilt Clause".": If you want to go that way, then tighter would be: Article 231 was the only title for the opening article of Part VIII .... But this doesn't feel right to me; Wikipedia articles generally begin with a list of commonly used names in bold, and "War Guilt Clause" is a common name. I think perceptive readers will know, if you say "Article 231, often known as the War Guilt Clause", that the document doesn't name that section the "War Guilt Clause" ... it's not necessary to explain that, at least not in the lead, where conciseness is important.
Hi Dank, thank you for the comments. I have implemented your advise on the above two points.
Garner's recommends against mutatis mutandis, but I'm pretty permissive (even at FAC), and I know people like to sprinkle in phrases often used by historians, in part as shibboleths. It's your call. But the phrase does raise the question: which changes?
Per your advise, I have removed the jargon and replaced it with a simple explanation. However, I have retained the term in the main body of the article due to how it has been used.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Germans saw this clause as taking full responsibility for the cause": Clauses can't take responsibility, and taking "responsibility for the cause" is unclear; more likely, we're talking about assigning responsibility for the losses incurred. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the sentence per your advise, I think that should clear up the issue. If not, please let me know. To clarify, the whole controversy surrounding Article 231 was who started the war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- As there's been no support for promotion after a month and a half, nor any activity for three weeks, I'm archiving this nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fishing Creek is a minor tributary of the Susquehanna River in Columbia County, Pennsylvania. It flows 30 miles from southern Sullivan County to Bloomsburg, and it's the main watershed in northern Columbia County. It's an interesting little stream, and an interesting article if you ask me. It's kind of obscure at first glance, but there's a wealth of information on it. That's my favorite kind of article to work on. And plenty of work has been done on it in the last 16 months. This article did fail FAC nine months ago, but many things have been fixed since then. There are now eight images instead of three, and USGS maps are used mostly instead of Google Maps for the course section. The reference formatting is somewhat better now and the lede and tributaries sections have been drastically improved. Some oppose rationales in the previous nominations are in my opinion not relevant, or information simply does not exist. Please bear this in mind. Also, it would be great for non-supporters to not come down too hard since I'm not an FA regular. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Geology image caption shouldn't end in period
File:Stillwater,_Pennsylvania.PNG: use image creation not upload date
Also, while this was not the focus of my review, a glance through suggests that the article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Period removed from geology image. I could not find a definite date for the Stillwater image, so I replaced it with an image that has a known date. --Jakob (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
I have to agree with Nikkimaria that a thorough copyedit would be in order (maybe ask at WP:GOCE?). The lead, for instance, needs some more thought for organization, and perhaps the selection of information to summarize:
"The creek is situated "in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains".": Quotes require inline citation—but why is this cited in the first place, rather than rephrased entirely?
"The creek's watershed contains gravel, shale and various loams (in particular, the Albrights soil series and the Leck Kill soil).": is this the best way to close the opening paragraph—is this likely amongst the first things a reader wants to know about the subject?
In the second paragraph, we get the monotonous "Fishing Creek" beginning nearly every sentence.
"Fishing Creek's average discharge is 615 cubic feet per second (17.4 m3/s).": jumps randomly into the middle of the paragraph, not strongly related to the preceding or succeeding sentences. Why not put it with the stats paragraph at the end?
There are a lot of inline citations in the lead, which should be avoided as the lead is meant to be redundant to the body (where the citations belong), unless the claims are controversial
Both the (short) third and fourth paragraphs deal with fish—why split them up?
Curly Turkey I have fixed all of these (except keeping two citations in the lead to support an extraordinary claim, per the previous FAC). I've also placed a request at the GOCE. --Jakob (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you're not supposed to have an article up at FAC or GAN while awaiting a copyedit. It'd probably be best to withdraw the article for now and re-nominate it when the copyedit's done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: I will probably do that unless there are other reasons anyone thinks this shouldn't be an FA yet. --Jakob (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- This nom has been open almost six weeks without attracting any support for promotion so I'll be archiving shortly; it can be renominated after the requested copyedit and a minimum of two weeks has passed after archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this article for FAC after working about a year over it and it passed GA. The article is about a debut album by Romeo Santos who was the lead singer of Aventura, a bachata-musican band in the United States. Aventura helped bachata gain popularity with the urban and younger crowd during the 2000s. After splitting up with the band two years ago, Romeo Santos released his debut album called Formula, Vol. 1 which became the best-selling Latin in the United States in 2012 and received a Grammy nomination. I need to point out that most of the sources are in Spanish. I look forward to resolving any problems or questions. Erick (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one seems to be bringing any issues up, so I'll take that as acquiescence. There seems to be very little available about the recording and composition of the album, and I wish there was a way to organize Critical reception better, but I'll say support. Tezero (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Erick (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WonderBoy1998
Oh my, there are various links that need replacement, including two dead ones. Here
I hate it when that happens. Especially when it breaks after you nominate it FA.
"Six singles were released: "You", "Promise", "Mi Santa", "All Aboard", "Rival", and "La Diabla" - "La Diabla" in the end needs to be properly enclosed in quotation marks. This sentence and the following sentence regarding the Hot Latin songs charting can be merged without mentioning all of the released singles, such as "Six singles were released from the album, four of which, "You", "Promise", "Mi Santa", and "La Diabla", reached number one on the Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart in the U.S." or something similar. The Billboard Hot Latin Songs mentioning in the existing sentence needs italicising on Billboard and linking for Hot Latin Songs.
Went with your suggestion
" an urban/bachata infused band" - I'm not sure if the usage of slash is appropriate in a normal sentence.
Removed.Erick (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think specific links to Allmusic's page on Santos would be more appreciated than the overview link --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic had a different before.
Ref 7 -""Song Lyrics Translated: "La Diabla" by Romeo Santos". mun2. NBCUniversal. Retrieved January 4, 2012." - Doesn't point to a page mentioning the song
Sourcing from the booklet as I can't find another reliable to back it up.
I will mention more detailed issues later, but these are two things that stand out- 1) The composition section in no way should include commercial performance, which the Singles section does. Hence I see no point in including it there, instead consider moving it to the Release section. Moreover, I just noticed there isn't one. My suggestion would be that there is a "Release and promotion" section, which includes the subsections "Singles" and "Tour". 2) Since this is a FA nomination, why not add the trans_title= parameter to the Spanish sources citations? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For your first point, I'm not understanding since I'm not seeing any commercial performance on that section. I have addressed your second point. Erick (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance in the sense that there are a lot of lines regarding the chart performance of the singles on the Hot latin songs etc. I think it is in no way related to composition, hence my suggestion regarding the changes in the section headers of this article, which in my opinion are not the best as of now. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that. Yeah I forgot to amend the section heading after taking WikiRedactor's suggestion. Fixed.
Three sound samples seem very excessive, considering the fact that there are specific articles for the three songs. Why not include a sound sample of only that one song which defines or is the most prominent example of the main bachata sound of the album? Even two sound samples will be fine --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "Mi Santa". I'll keep the other two since they're mentioned several times in the article. Erick (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a part of the review but I suggest not using the {{done}} template since it increases the page load time, and its usage is also discouraged at the nominations page under the Supporting and Objecting guidelines. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{done-t}} is text-only unlike {{done}}, which is allowed. ;) Erick (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot Latin Songs and Billboard Tropical Songs charts" - I'm sure they did, but the supporting refs only mention number one as their peak, not their debuts. Use this Billboard source, which also mentions some new kind of record.
"making it the second-most number one singles from an album" - This needs rephrasing since this is not grammatically correct at all.
Well the second sentence after that has a reference to that so I rearranged and cleaned it up.
"Only Enrique Iglesias - Enrique who? Is he an American recording artist or a dancer?
Specified
One thing I can easily notice is that the citation styles are lacking a lot. Some are missing dates, some contain publishers that should not be italicised. Please do a thorough check-up the citations. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take another look and see if I missed any else on the references. Erick (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer below seems to have covered that point. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" By May 2012, the tour ranked at number five on the Top 20 Concert Tours grossing over US$ 749,885 in the country according to Pollstar" - Consider mentioning that this data was collected from only North American dates --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused here since it mentions the country.
The reviews can simply be combined to form one paragraph instead of assigning different paragraphs for each review. Two paragraphs- one for the critical reviews, the second one for the awards/nominations.
It seems it won the awards at the 20th BLMA that it had previously been nominated for at the 19th BLMA. So instead of writing out the categories in full why don't you just use a word like "aforementioned" or something
I suggest doing a spot check yourself first before another editor does that so less problems are found. Double check that the charts etc are supported by the refs, sometimes we add things that seem right at that time and later turn out to be wrong
Also please find a replacement or an archived version of the Mexican Chart since I know for sure that Hung Medien site is down. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Commercial perf. section mentions that it has sold over 328,000 copies, as opposed to the Certifications section, which mentions sales figure as 291,000. It is also odd and factually incorrect since it wouldn't have been certified triple platinum if it had not even reached the 300,000 sales mark. Okay some other user fixed this
I think I am happy with the developments and since I know these comments will be addressed soon I don't see why I shouldn't support the promotion of this article --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything else. Thank you so much for taking the time to review this article! Erick (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problems! I have checked the updates and everything looks fine! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WikiRedactor
You might want to consider renaming "Music and lyrics" as "Composition", as this appears to be a standard across album articles.
Done
I believe that "Commercial reception" should be separated into the headings "Commercial performance" for the album itself and "Singles" for just the songs. This is the only instance where I've seen them under the same heading as subheads.
Done
Since the "Accolades" section isn't that large to begin with, I think it would fit nicely as a subhead under "Critical reception".
Done
With these revisions, I think that the headings should be reordered as "Background", "Composition", "Singles", "Promotion", "Critical reception", "Commercial performance", and so on.
Done
In "Credits and personnel", I'd recommend replacing the ";-" you're currently using with " – ".
Done
I'd also like to see the dates written out instead of in number form as they currently are.
Shouldn't flamenco music be linked in the lead? It isn't mentioned in the infobox
Done
Any update on the units the album sold?
Funny, I was just about to say no, but today, Billboard just posted the latest sales figures and another editor just updated it.
Any reason why the music charts are not linked in the lead?
What do you mean? They are linked.
Repetitive use of "the album" in the lead and in the article body (e.g., "The album experiments", "The album was", "Recording for the album", "The album earned", "released from the album")
Repetitive use of "the song" and "song" in the article body (e.g., "The songs were recorded", "The first song", "a bachata song", "The third song", "bilingual bachata song", "preceding the song", "is a bilingual bachata song", "first song written", "a hip hop song", "writing the song")
The number one debut fact about Santos being the 18th artist to do so needs a bit of more information: 18th of that year, overall in the charts history, etc?
More repetitive use of "the song" in the singles section.
Mixture use of dates ("January 24, 2012" vs. "March 19")
The sentence that begins with "It was also recognized as" (critical reception) is missing a word.
Fixed.
Ref#1, Ref#10, Ref#80 Allmusic doesn't need to be italicized
Closing comment -- I didn't see a media review from anyone earlier but based on my own check just now the licensing/FURs appear unproblematic. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Intimate, moving and respectful diptych portrait of Albrecht Dürer's parents. The Dürer family went through many hardships but remained close and Albrecht Dürer the Elder and Barbara Holfer were proud of their exceptionally talented son. I hope this is conveyed in the article. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my say in reviewing the article earlier. On a re-read, just a few issues.
"ageing" is also rendered as "aging".
Barbara's age, in the lede, is presented as about 36; in the body it seems to be around 39.
"Albrecht the Elder's panel is usually, but not always, thought to be the first of the two to be executed … Recent technical examination of the two panels, however, confirm that Barbara's portrait was painted later than Albrecht's." If the people who say that Albrecht's was not executed first are wrong, why mention them? There's sort of a tone contradiction here, if you see what I mean.
"although 3 cm was later removed from the left edge of Barbara's panel" Later than what? The last dated event is 1977, surely not?
Thanks for these Wehwalt - good catches - and thanks for the support! I got all of these, except Barbara's age. I'm fairly certain it should be 39 (depending on when it was painted!) but don't have that source at hand. Ceoil or Maralia can confirm. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 39 and thanks Wehwalt and for the PR Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
Reference formatting
Under the "References" section you have only "Notes"—"Citations" is a separate section. I assume this was a typo?
Probably or something. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 15:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "Citations" you format page ranges with the full numerals ("207–218"), but years are abbreviated (1978–79). Is there a reason for that?
There's only one. Up to Ceoil, but personally I like to indicate the page ranges fully. Not a big deal though and can be changed if you think it should be made consistent. Victoria (tk)
Is there some reason Ref 4 ("describes Dürer's early "excessive devotion" to van der Weyden as delaying his "inauguration [of] a new era in German painting".") is in "Citations" rather than "Notes"?
There's a bad checksum for the ISBN of "Albrecht Dürer the Elder with a Rosary"
Looks like it's been removed. Victoria (tk) 14:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now there's no ISBN, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have either of these sources, but swapped out for ISBNs I can see. Victoria (tk) 00:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The {{reflist}} specifies a hard number of columns, while the {{refbegin}} and {{notelist-ua}} specify colwidths. The "inconsistency" isn't a problem per se, but specifying a hard number of columns is unfriednly to particularly large or small screens. Specifying a colwidth for all three would allow browsers to choose an appropriate number of columns
Good point and now fixed. Victoria (tk) 15:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image replaced. Crop/detail has to be made again and re-uploaded. This probably was okay as it came from the Gemalderei website and only needed to have the "own work" removed. Victoria (tk) 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went to remove it, but started to read and thought it was helpful in terms of re-use and such and such, written in German about a German painter. Someone else can decide. Victoria (tk) 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing these! Just noticed as I was logging out, so one of us will get to them tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Working through. We'll need a new version of File:1490 Duerer Bildnis von Barbara Duerer geb. Holper anagoria.JPG I think. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the new version is now there. I have trouble editing commons w/out a SUL login, but will try to tidy the rest later today. Apologies for the slow responses here but almost done! Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Feel free to disagree with anything. You'll hurt my feelings, but sometimes that's for the best.
Lead
"either as pendants": Is there something to link to here, or can this be clarified? I assume they weren't meant to be hung from the neck. The Wiktionary entry isn't helpful either.
No we don't and probably should. I think note A explains it? Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really: "They may have been conceived as a pair, intended to hang alongside each other" only "explains" it if you already know that's what "pendant" is supposed to mean. Maybe reword it to clarify the note is meant as a definition? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Ceoil is working on this - I don't have that source. It is mentioned Pendant (disambiguation) here but I can't remember the policy about linking to dab pages. I do think eventually it should have its own article, but will have to scrounge for sources. Victoria (tk) 15:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The panels were reunited in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum's 2012 exhibition "The Early Dürer".": Is this the first time they were reunited? The wording "They have been separated since at least 1628, until Barbara's portrait—long considered lost—was reattributed in 1977" seems to imply otherwise. And shouldn't that be "had been", if they've since been reunited? Also, this doesn't appear in the body—the lead should summarize what's in the body.
Yes, I think this might have gotten lost or something. Working on it. Thanks for noting. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 14:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"but that indicative of a deeper interest": is that a stray "that", or was something else supposed to go in here?
"that is" - fixed. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"such as his drawings of the Man of Sorrows and nude drawing of 1505,": it's a lot easier and clearer to parse if you use the [[:File:Filename.jpg|blah blah]] syntax
"After her death in 1514, he wrote", again, "he" should probably be specified
Will let someone else decide. Since the antecedent is the son, not sure and too many Durers, with the son and father. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this has been rewritten. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" (or as a "pretty upright girl" depending on the translation)": I might put that in a footnote
Okay, done. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"young looking 40-year-old woman in the diptych": Not 36?
39 now throughout. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"have been described as "dark and serious".": by whom?
Attributed. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, delinked. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"shadowed with brown hatched paint": that's not hatching as I'm familiar with it—isn't hatching meant to achieve tonality, rather than simply being a crisscrossing of lines (unless you're describing the wrinkles themselves "poetically" as hatchwork)?
Can't check this - don't have this source. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Dendrochronological dating": link to Dendrochronology: And isn't "dating" redundant? "Dendrochronology" is "tree-ring dating"
Probably but dislike having unfamiliar terms that force readers to link out of the article. Leaving for someone else to decide. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "[[Dendrochronology|Tree-ring dating]]"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good solution. Ceoil (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand why so. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely a reader will click through "anonymous", which is a very common term, and if they did they'd be surprised to find themselves at the Notname page rather than the Anonymity page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got some of them, but not all. Working still. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theres are good points. I query one, and see Victoria has adressed most. This close view is much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd still like to see the "pendant" thing given a clearer explanation, but that's not enough to hold this up. Sorry it took me a while to get back to this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Curly, and sorry for the tardy responces from me; real life stepped in unfortunatly. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Real life's a bitch. It's been keeping me from making much in the way of content contributions so far in 2014. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too. Also got caught up with RL. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified re 'pendants'. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Curly Turkey has picked up small things. I wasn't able to give this a very close reading, but I thought the prose was excellent and engaging, and brings to life these charming pictures. My only pick-up is that I suggest a para in the section on Barbara be edited to remove the repetition of "terminally ill". Fabulous work. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. Thanks for taking a look. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading and for the support! Victoria (tk) 02:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Victoria and Ceoil for all your work here, and sincere apologies for being absent thus far. I came down with bronchitis a few days after Christmas, and have spent most of the time since in a sleepy daze in front of the television. I started a second course of antibiotics a few days ago and am finally feeling on the mend, so I'll try to catch up here tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - engaging read - read it while on smartphone so couldn't copyedit but nothing really jumped out as crying to be tweaked. Only minor quibble was maybe the following:
...and is rare in contemporary German portraiture - I might say " and is rare in German portraiture of the period" as it is a (a) simpler and (b) not likely to be mistaken for "modern"
Thanks Cas. This was nice to see on a very very cold week! Glad to hear it looks okay on a smartphone! Victoria (tk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cas. I reworded as per your suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool/nice work. Hot and humid here - miniheatwave just killed a rare grafted banksia in my garden :( Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Abe Waddington was a particularly grumpy, but quite popular, Yorkshire cricketer from the 1920s. He tended to promise more than he achieved but to a point he had a good career. Off the pitch, he was quite unusual for the period, and got up to quite a bit. An interesting chap who fitted rather well into a team of social misfits who dominated English cricket in the early 1920s. This article was first expanded around 3 years ago, and has been a GA for a while. It had a peer review around that time, but has been expanded somewhat since then. It has had some excellent feedback on the article talk page from Crisco 1492, Brianboulton, Tim riley, SchroCat, Cliftonian and Giants2008. Any further comments would be greatly appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images (review was done). Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the earlier review and help! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – meets all FA criteria for text IMO, and gives a full, balanced and most readable account of its subject. Fine range of sources and thoroughly cited throughout. Good stuff, and I enjoyed reading it again after the recent informal peer review on the talk page. We Lancastrians could do with a WP editor as scholarly and devoted as Sarastro is for Yorkshire CCC. Tim riley (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the earlier comments and your kind words. I seem to be on a run of Yorkshire articles, but I think the next ones will be something else, you'll be pleased to know! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice and interesting article. I was a fellow commenter at PR and had my concerns all happily addressed there. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems to meet all FA criteria for text. Well written and referenced. Mackey23 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As Sarastro said above, I was one of the editors who provided a talk page review, although I admittedly didn't find much. While this is shorter than most of Sarastro's other work, it still reaches the same high standards I've come to expect from this editor, and deserves to have the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, support and kind comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I gave my tuppence previously as Sarastro noted above and in my opinion this article fully meets the FA standards. Well done Sarastro for an enlightening, well-written and most of all entertaining read. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for earlier help and your kind support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I reviewed this earlier, and have just one outstanding gripe. It is with the sentence: "In total, Waddington made four trips to Australia, apart from his visit as a player." A total is absolute; following it with "apart from" makes no sense. I suggest you delete the words "In total", or make it "five trips ... including his". Otherwise, a worthy addition to the cricket article corpus. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done as suggested. Thanks for your support and earlier comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a prominent American rocket scientist and occultist. A co-founder of both the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Aerojet Engineering Corporation, he was also a prominent devotee of English occultist Aleister Crowley, being a follower of the Crowleyan religion of Thelema and a prominent figure in the Californian Ordo Templi Orientis. He died in a mysterious explosion when only 37 years old. This article has recently been awarded GA status, and we are now hoping to push it that bit further, and get it to FAC, in the hope that it can be presented as Wikipedia article of the day for Parsons' centenary: October 2, 2014. Any feedback would be gratefully appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Several captions need editing for grammar. Also, when using a direction like "clockwise" to identify things in an image, be sure to specify a starting point
File:P1-RocketBoys.jpg: source link is dead; same with File:Navaho_missile.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I have have replaced the "Rocket Boys" image source with a working NASA link, edited the caption, and replaced the Navaho missile photo with a more striking launching photo. JJARichardson (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Along with resolving the image and link problems, I have corrected some grammatical errors and expanded the detail of the article. JJARichardson (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I have since expanded the article with additional detail. Any feedback? JJARichardson (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been following the changes to this article and am happy to support its promotion. Jamesx12345 23:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
had been having extramarital sex with a prostitute; - Only one prostitute? "Had been having" suggests it was an ongoing thing.
It was a number of occasions according to Pendle. I have included this detail. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:HPR-Flight.jpg is completely unrelated to Parsons and appears to me to be merely decorative. He did not build this rocket, after all.
he was so scared by the event that he ceased such activities for a number of years. - why was he scared?
He thought that the Devil really was conjured up! Added this detail. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are we really sure that the sources state that he really believed that he conjured the Devil ? I was under the impression that he was simply scared by the spooky atmosphere of the rite ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of the same thing when you're a kid with an imagination. I've reworded the sentence. JJARichardson (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After graduating from high school - from where?
Washington Junior High. Added this detail. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Washingtong Junior High School is in the text. I thought he went to a senior high school, which I couldn't find in the text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand he went straight from junior high into University School, which essentially functioned as a prep school for privileged kids like Parsons. JJARichardson (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about Parsons' father comes out of nowhere, really disturbs the flow
Agreed. I have cut down this section, but it can be deleted outright if needs be. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally suggest against deleting the information outright; I think that it does add something. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down the sentence to simply note that Marvel was a psychiatric patient, which is succinct while implying that Jack may have been affected by mental illness genealogically. JJARichardson (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although some Caltech scientists continued to deride them for their work on rocketry, a field still stigmatized by its association with science fiction, they became well known on campus, earning the moniker of the "Suicide Squad" for the dangerous nature of some of their experiments, also attracting attention from the local press. - two ideas are not related enough to be in one sentence
Agreed. I have deleted the first part of the sentence as the ridicule is already noted elsewhere. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to address any other issues. JJARichardson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, RL came up. Some more comments:
hand-to-mouth - a bit familiar for an encyclopedia
magical retirement - what?
Although Parsons and Sara had always had an open relationship, she became enamored with Hubbard, causing Parsons intense jealousy. - Always? Don't think this word is warranted. They were only together for a couple years at this point.
Although Crowley warned him of such an endeavor, Parsons was committed, and retreated to the desert, where he came to believe that a preternatural entity spoke to him, to provide him with Liber 49, which he believed to represent a fourth part of The Book of the Law, the primary sacred text of Thelema, as well as part of a new sacred text he called the Book of Babalon. - Sentence is a bit too long. I'd split it
Are the addresses really necessary?
You've mentioned the company Hughes above. Why is the link only showing up in #Death
Changed sentence to "In May, Smith and Helen left for a two-room cabin in Rainbow Valley with Kwan".
Changed to "Although Parsons and Sara were in an open relationship..."
Changed to "Although Crowley warned him of such an endeavor, Parsons was committed and retreated to the desert. He believed that a preternatural entity spoke to him there and provided him with Liber 49..."
I have deleted most of the addresses, but inclusion of 1003, Orange Grove references are necessary for sentence flow.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused by this? The first reference to the Hughes Aircraft company is linked, the second not.
Should the stage play or the graphic novel really be mentioned here? None of the authors have articles, suggesting they may not be notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Parsons often hunted..."
Deleted. I originally thought it was illustrative, but I guess it's superfluous. (Another issue is that the looped central design was devised by Crowley rather than being that generally used).
Delinked.
Changed to "In 1999, Feral House published the biography Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons; author John Carter expressed the opinion that..."
Delinked, as links are already provided earlier in article.
As Parsons is an esoteric subject, and the play and graphic novel have a reasonable amount of publicity, I personally think it's worth keeping the references to them. I'm open to other opinions though.
Re: Crater: My point was not that it should be delinked (rather, by all means link it), but that names of geographical features generally don't get put in between quotation marks ("Parsons"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delink...more like dequoted. Just a typo. JJARichardson (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ẽ[reply]
Support on prose. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a fascinating biography and I read straight through (probably thanks to Crisco's review above!) I never knew any of this, though I know about JPL, so thanks for the work here. I made a few edits as I was reading but if you disagree with anything it's fine to revert. A few comments:
1934-1938
Date of father's death? Why was he at St. Elizabeths? The second isn't really necessary, but I'm curious.
He suffered a near-fatal heart attack, which resulted in a mental breakdown causing severe clinical depression. I did document this specifically, but the paragraph was viewed as too long and awkward admidst the text so was cut down. JJARichardson (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not read the comments earlier but have now. I do think that mentioning the date of death might be useful, but up to you. Victoria (tk) 00:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a little bothersome - it gives quite a lot of information about Marvel (remarriage, etc). and yet says the meeting had little impact and ends with the comment about St. Elizabeths. I don't know how, but this needs some more tweaking. Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1939-1942
"On August 21, 1941, Navy Captain Homer J. Boushey, Jr. piloted the JATO-equipped Ercoupe at the March Fields Air Corps Base in Moreno Valley; watched by such figures as Clark Millikan and William F. Durand, it proved a success and reduced takeoff distance by 30%, although one of the JATOs partially exploded and damaged the fuselage in the plane's tail.[54]" > feels like this sentence should have a full stop (period) in front of "it".
"With the U.S. having joined the Second World War," > I think this can be phrased better.
"Andrew G. Haley replaced von Kármán as Aerojet chairman and imposed payroll cuts instead of reducing JATO output.[58][59]" > might need an explanation for the cuts. Weren't they earning money?
They were earning money, but increasing salaries would have provided less money for output. JJARichardson (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense but what piqued my interest is why they'd cut salaries. Weren't they mostly government funded? Victoria (tk) 00:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The government funds were limited to an extent. JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be spun out more? Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*delink abortion?
1945-1946
delink squall?
"Epiphany", "squall" and "abortion" all delinked. JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1946-1952
Link USC?
Would probably be overlinking as the university is noted as USC earlier on. JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, missed it. Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As the Red Scare intensified, Parsons decided to migrate to Israel to pursue Rosenfeld's offer, but an alerted Hughes secretary Parsons had asked to type up a portfolio of technical documents reported him to the FBI, accusing Parsons of espionage and attempted theft of company documents on the basis of some of the reports that he had sought to submit to the Technion Society. Parsons denied the allegations, insisting peaceful intentions in the former and error of judgement in the latter." > I think this sentence would be better broken up.
Done. "Parsons decided to migrate to Israel to pursue Rosenfeld's offer, but an alerted Hughes secretary Parsons had asked to type up a portfolio of technical documents reported him to the FBI. She accused Parsons of espionage..." JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General
Try to weed out constructions like "due to" and "being" preceding a verb.
I think I saw some inconsistency in comma usage, but needs someone better than I am with commas to advise
Check for dupelinks, I think I noted a few as I was reading
I assume that means duplicates? I've noticed it myself and will sort it out. JJARichardson (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
My largest concern here is sourcing. There seems to be a large reliance on a few biographies and I'm curious whether other sources have been consulted that might have different information or points-of-view.
That's all. Nice work. Victoria (tk) 17:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parsons is an esoteric subject; there really isn't much biography of him, and scientific documentation of his work is threadbare. I'm pretty sure that the books cited in the article are the only ones available (I have only been able to find the Carter and Pendle works for purchase myself). Midnightblueowl deserves credit for doing as much as possible with what we have. JJARichardson (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There might be something in the LA Times - maybe an obituary or something to use. My sense is that Parsons the rocket fuel scientist gets a little lost in Parsons the occultist and I think a small amount of tweaking with sources can avoid that from happening. Anyway, unfortunately I won't be able to continue here (a RL interruption) but good luck. Oh, one more thing before I forget, did Arroyo Seco become the site where JPL was built? If so, I think that might be worth mentioning. Victoria (tk) 00:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a mention that their desert workplace became the JPL site. JJARichardson (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update -- In the "Legacy and influence" section I have incorporated some remarks by Pendle, which I hope effectively merges together Parsons' occult and scientific identities. JJARichardson (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my concern: it's an 8000 plus word article and is using only eight sources. Of those eight, two come from Three Essays on Freedom and the focus of six of the source is on the occult. There are a couple of inline sources which are helpful, most notably the JPL website. But my fear is that without a full search for more sources the focus of the article is skewed. I found this mention of Parsons in a history of JPL, which can be used, as can the LA Times article linked in the further reading. I also found this which might be helpful, this info from Caltech, and apparently more at Caltech. My sense is that with some searching, more sources can be found, and more sources should be used. Surely the LA Times wrote an obituary and would have other coverage? And the article mentions news articles that were written about him. It's tempting to lean on only a few sources, such as Pendle, particularly when that's what's at hand, but without a full and comprehensive search there's no way of knowing what else will be found. For instance the LA Times article linked in the further reading mentions the importance of the trial he testified at when still quite young (sorry, can't remember the name of the defendant) and hints that perhaps his death was motivated by revenge. All these angles should be weighed and if necessary added, and sources swapped out where ever possible. I'm not at all familiar with this story or this material, and truly I thought it was a fascinating read. But the dearth of sourcing is a concern for me in terms of FA quality. It's not enough to oppose, but on the other hand I can't support yet. Sorry, btw, for the absence. I'll keep this on my watch and see how you do with it. Victoria (tk) 16:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate you finding those references. I have incorporated Landis' article into the text and will see what I can do with the other links you've provided soon. I have tried to find an official link Parsons' LA Times obituary, but to no avail. I can incorporate references to it from one of the biographies though. JJARichardson (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also incorporated the references from Keane and Conway, and have consulted User:Midnightblueowl on citing the others appropriately. JJARichardson (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated Rasmussen and Westwick as references. JJARichardson (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment - you're welcome for the sources but I'd like to emphasize that I found them in a fairly quick search that lasted about 30 minutes or so. I have not been able to find an LA Times obit either, nor do I think it should be taking from the biographies. Instead I believe the editorial point of view from the LA Times would be helpful, and I strongly believe more sources are available given a longer search. As it is, I think as it is now, this fails the criteria 1 b and c. I have noticed the editing here, but this FAC has been open a long time, and that can't be comfortable. Furthermore, this page was brought to FAC a day after passing GA and imo comprehensiveness is one of the most important differences between GA and FA. My suggestion would be to allow this to be archived, spend adequate time out of the glare of the FAC to make the necessary fixes and to find more sources and then re-submit. It's a fine piece, but the lack of sourcing is a concern in my view. Victoria (tk) 22:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have resolved the issue regarding Marvel's military career/second son and depression by separating them into the early life and personal life sections. And I respect the above comments. JJARichardson (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update Just a note that I have added two more references to the bibliography (Metzger and Cashill). JJARichardson (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I've stopped by this page a couple of times in the last few weeks, hoping that it would attract more commentary but I'm afraid that with only two in-depth reviews after two months, the most recent still equivocal about promotion, it's time to archive. Also, just scanning the prose, there are some overused phrases, e.g. "a number of" (try "several" or "many", as appropriate). Per FAC instructions, pls refrain from re-nominating for a minimum two weeks, taking the time to further address Victoria's concerns, and perhaps having someone else scan the prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take the above comments into account and hope they will be resolved in the coming months (I'll contribute to doing this, of course). I should note in the meantime that I've dealt with the "a number of" issue. JJARichardson (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"The Song were", "The Song had fought with the Jin for several decades, and lost all of its": Is "the Song" singular or plural? Be consistent. Most would say it's plural.
I can't tell you how Wikipedians in general handle navboxes like {{Jin campaigns against the Song Dynasty}}, but history FAs, and particularly MilHist FAs, don't insert them into running text; if they're used at all, they go at the end of the article. If you want to introduce this information in the text, write it out, including the links.
The last paragraph covers the numbers of casualties. Is there anything in particular that is ambiguous or in need of fixing?--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 21:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not very well written, but I won't withhold support over it. Perhaps another reviewer will take a look. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Song may have surmised that the Jin were planning for a military offensive when they noticed that the attitude of one of the diplomats sent by the Jin had changed.": Don't report what was in people's heads (even if some historian puts it that way), report on what they did. (There's an exception to this advice, btw, at WP:Checklist#mindreading, but it doesn't apply here.) What did the Song do that suggests that they expected a military offensive? What did the diplomat do that suggested their attitude had changed?
Now fixed. The History of Song alleges that a Jin diplomat "behaved insolently", and that this led them to believe that Jin were preparing to invade.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 17:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Song fortified border defenses ahead of the invasion, but preparations had been delayed because of Gaozong's reluctance to antagonize the Jin.": This would be easier for the reader to parse in chronological order ... presumably, the delay came first, unless I'm misunderstanding. It's not clear to me what was or wasn't done to prepare. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see a battle from this period and region covered like this.
File:Songrivership3.jpg; I'm presuming that this will need US and Chinese licensing tags to cover the underlying image? (Jieming can approve the photograph/scan, but he didn't make the original image).
Support This is a high quality article. I've made a brief copy-edit . One point I have to bring up is that ref 23 (Tao 2009) doesn't have a page number. Other than that, I have no problem with the article. 23 editor (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport – The nominator quickly and competently solved all the issues I raised (see collapsed list below). The article is now clearly written, accurate, fully referenced, and, as far as I can tell, complete. I've read all the main academic sources carefully – Chan 1992, Franke 1994, Mote 1999, Needham 1971 and 1987, and Tao 2002 and 2009 – and didn't find a single turn of phrase taken from them in the article. There is one DAB link to saltpeter (which I added myself), but that's because Joseph Needham speaks of the "nitrate" content of a gunpowder recipe without specifying what kind of nitrate it is, and "saltpeter" refers to four different kinds of nitrate that could go into making gunpowder, so I think the link is justified. In any case, Battle of Caishi is ready for WP's main page! T'was a pleasure working with you again, Khanate General! Madalibi (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome! Madalibi (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Solved issues
Hi Khanate General! It's nice to see that you keep lifting these articles to featured status. This is again a high-quality article that should have no problem passing. I've already made a few edits to improve style and to put a number of sentences in the active voice.[25] Feel free to revert if you think I modified the meaning of anything or inserted mistakes into the text! My comments won't be as long as for Jin–Song Wars, but I've still found a few issues. Let me start with the first three paragraphs of the "Background" section, which I think are the softest.
You should probably add a few words about what the Jin and Song dynasties were. Where in the world are we? Where (with a link or two to places in modern-day China) did the Jin originate? Were the Jurchens sea invaders, nomads from the western steppes, or forest dwellers from the north? (Just a few words to situate the reader.) And where was their first capital? (This will become relevant when Prince Hailing moves it southward.)
This "Background" section is about Jin-Song relations in general. It would read better if it mentioned more people and events that become relevant further down in the article. That way it would become more targeted on the Battle of Caishi itself. Because the battle took place when the Jin army tried to cross the Yangtze, I think previous Jin attempts to cross that river deserve more attention. The 1129-1130 campaign led by Wanyan Wuzhu looks particularly relevant, because (1) it was the most successful Jin campaign south of the Yangtze ever, (2) it almost led to the capture of Song emperor Gaozong (who was still emperor in 1161 when Hailing attacked), and (3) Wuzhu and his troops had trouble with the Song navy when trying to cross back north. All three points (in two or three sentences) would enhance the background section. Most of the details and references are already in the third paragraph Jin-Song Wars#The move south.
Gaozong's fear of the Jin and his constant pushing for peace could also be mentioned, because they also become relevant below. Well, I now see that they are mentioned in the "Aftermath" section, but I'd say this is too far below.
Another relevant point is that the 1142 treaty banned the trade of horses (and many other commodities) in markets along the Jin-Song border (see Tao 2009:684), but smuggling went on all along anyway. This little detail will come alive below when you say that Hailing took the Song purchasing of horses in border markets as a pretext for war.
Wars between the Jin Dynasty, founded by the Jurchens, and the Song Dynasty had been ongoing since 1125: "wars had been ongoing" sounds a bit too colloquial for an encyclopedia, and the war had actually stopped in 1142, so this first sentence is misleading. Maybe you could explain the Song-Jin military alliance before you move on to the 1125 declaration of war? I think the narrative would flow better that way.
Now fixed. "Ongoing" changed to "commenced", and the first sentence moved to the bottom of the paragraph so that it comes after the Jin-Liao wars.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 05:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Song and Jurchens: why not Song and Jin, which are two dynastic names?
plotted a revolt in 1114: if you're going to choose an important date here, I think you should pick 1115, the date of the foundation of the Jin as an imperial dynasty. Or you could mention both.
They negotiated a joint attack with the Song against the Khitans planned for 1121 and then rescheduled to 1122: this sentence sounds awkward, maybe because its core is "they negotiated an attack planned and then rescheduled". Rephrase?
In 1122, the Jurchens defeated the Khitans and captured the Liao capital. After the fall of the Liao...: This wording misleadingly implies that the Liao had one capital, and that the Liao fell in 1122 after the Jin captured it. As you know, the Liao had five capitals, and the Jin had already taken the Liao Supreme Capital in 1120. In 1122 they captured the Central Capital and the Liao did not fall right away. The Liao only collapsed in 1123 after the Jin had taken the Liao's Southern Capital Yanjing, which the Song had failed to capture. Mentioning the Song failure would also be a great anchor for the claim (two sentences down) that the Song were militarily weak.
Now fixed. The Jin captured the Liao Supreme and Western Capitals in 1122. The Song tried to capture the Southern Capital, but failed. The Liao Southern Capital fell to the Jin at the end of that year. The Liao collapsed in 1125 after the capture of the last Liao emperor Tianzuo.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 13:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
diplomatic relations deteriorated: a very brief mention of why (i.e., Song demands for territory were out of proportion with their military contributions) would help.
established a temporary capital first in Nanjing, modern Shangqiu: using "Nanjing" here will be confusing, because you also refer to the modern city of Nanjing below. Change to "the Song southern capital" or Yingtianfu?
Qinzong's younger brother, Prince Zhao Gou, avoided capture by the Jurchens and was enthroned as Qinzong's successor in Nanjing on 1127: I think it's relevant to say here that Zhao Gou is Gaozong, who was emperor of Song when Hailing attacked.
Hailing considered himself a Chinese emperor and not a tribal chieftain: well, previous Jin emperors were also emperors, and they considered the Song emperor as a vassal, so they certainly did not consider themselves as "tribal chieftains"! This means the contrast is not between emperor and chieftain, but between Chinese emperor and something else. Could you clarify what that something else is?
The contrast is now between "Chinese emperor" and "Jurchen tribal chieftain", but this still doesn't work. Hailing was already much more than a Jurchen tribal chieftain: he was emperor of the Great Jin and was even ritually superior to the Song emperor thanks to the 1142 treaty. You make his ambitions clear, but the contrast is still misleading. Could you reword again? Madalibi (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Franke does make that contrast. He says that Hailing marks the last phase of transition from a more collective and clan-dominated leadership to monarchic autocracy. Jurchen leaders before Hailing held the title of emperor, but their governance more closely resembled the predynastic tribal council than the authoritarian Chinese-style imperial bureaucracy. Pages 269 and 270 of CHC: The proliferation of offices was greatest under Hai-ling wang, who did much to transform the Chin state from a tribal and aristocratic body politic into a Chinese bureaucracy. --Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 01:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's the word "chieftain" I have problems with, then. Franke says that Hailing wanted to become a Chinese ruler instead of a Jurchen leader. He's making a contrast between two styles of rule (Chinese and Jurchen) rather than two positions (emperor and chieftain). I think this is a different kind of comparison that the one proposed in the article. I don't know, maybe the contrast could be with "a local emperor who ruled with Jurchen institutions", or something? Madalibi (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. "Chinese emperor instead of a Jurchen leader" changed to "Chinese authoritarian ruler rather than a Jurchen leader of a tribal council".--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 20:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
conquest, absolute power, and women: interesting bit! "Conquest" and "absolute power" are reasonable one-word summaries from the source, but the plural "women" is perhaps misleading, as Tao 2002:150 says that his third ambition was "to marry the most beautiful girl in the world"! This is a very minor point, though, so feel free to ignore it.
Hmmm, no! As I said, this is a minor point, so just forget about it. Madalibi (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under his rule, the capital of the Jin Dynasty was moved...: no need for a passive voice, here. Who moved the capital? And where was it moved from? (Could echo the "Background" section.)
That year, he claimed that the Song had broken a treaty signed in 1142 that regulated the acquisition of horses by the Song. "The 1142 treaty" would be very clear, because the treaty was just discussed above. Also, "regulated" is not strong enough. Tao 2009:684 says that the 1142 "banned the export of horses" to the Song.
The mass execution of 130 people in the span of a few months: by the standards of the time, I thought "mass execution" would have meant killing thousands of people in a few days rather than 130 in a few months. Remove "mass"? Also, it should be made clearer who was executed: was it rebels, people at the court, Khitans, a mix of all, or some other group of people?
the Khitans soon revolted: all of them in an organized fashion, or just a few sub-tribes here and there? It would also be useful for the reader to know in what part of the Jin empire the Khitans lived or where he revolts took place.
Now fixed. The revolt took place in Manchuria. The article already describes the revolt as disorganized and fragmented.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 13:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the run-up to the war: too colloquial for an encyclopedia?
Gaozong's reluctance to antagonize the Jin: this is the first time we hear the name "Gaozong" (see my comments on the "Background" section above). Tao 2009:708 says that in 1161 Gaozong "chose to continue to believe in the peace with Chin, despite reports of an impending invasion". This theme of Gaozong's belief in peace is important in Tao's article on Gaozong, and I think it's relevant here, at least as much as Gaozong's reluctance to antagonize the Jin.
The Jin vessels did not have the capacity to ferry the number of soldiers needed for fighting a naval battle with the Song: did they need a larger quantity of soldiers to fight a naval battle, or do you mean something else?
the Song fleet commenced their attack, sailing around from both sides of the island: could you use another verb than "sail"; these were paddle-wheel ships, after all!
Song historians may have confused the total number of Jin soldiers deployed on the front with the number of combatants at Caishi: not clear, considering that the text just claimed that there were 120,000 Jin soldiers on the front. So how do we get to 400,000?
the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the number of Jin casualties was not greater than four thousand: Considering the number of conflicting numbers, it might be a good idea either to explain this is this the only possible conclusion, or who made this claim.
Now fixed. Attributed to Franke: It seems safe to assume that the Chin losses did not exceed more than about four thousand men. "Only" changed to "safest".--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 15:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At Caishi, the Yangze River runs from south to north, so Hailing did not really try to cross from the "northern shore". It might be confusing to say "western shore", though. Maybe "left bank"? Or explain the river course and say "western shore"? (I would then add a reference to Tan Qixiang's historical atlas for verifiability.)
soldiers on the upper deck operated the ship's weaponry: what weaponry did the Jin have on their ships?
Now fixed. The source says that the walls of these two-storey ships were continuous with the hull, so that the oarsmen occupied the lower deck and were fully protected, while missile troops went into action above their heads.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 15:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Jin deployed light ships that were smaller in size and armored with thick rhinoceros hides. Jin ships had two stories; on the lower deck were the oarsmen responsible for rowing the ship, while soldiers on the upper deck operated the ship's weaponry. This sounds like more sophisticated boats than what the previous section suggests (i.e., light ships built in a week with scrap wood). Is your source about Jin ships (either Turnbull 2002 or Needham 1987, not clear which it is) talking about the battle of Caishi in particular, or about the best the Jin fleet could offer when it had time to build good ships?
Now fixed. The source is Turnbull 2002. Chan 1992 says that the Jin ordered the construction of warships in 1159 and 1162. The ships that were hastily built within a week were from 1162, to replace some of the lost 1159 ships that had been bogged down in Liangshan Lake on their way to the Grand Canal.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 15:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Solved, assuming you mean 1161. Madalibi (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reports that the bomb produced a loud sound suggests that the nitrate content of the gunpowder mixture was higher than normal: what is "normal", here? Does this mean higher than it would take to operate a firearm effectively? Could you clarify?
Now fixed. Needham says that But in fact this was needless, since we know now that the thunderclap bomb contained explosive gunpowder. Probably the noise was important here as the toxic-smoke, and this required this higher-nitrate mixture. Song gunpowder mixtures for explosive weapons contained a higher nitrate content than those used for incendiary weapons.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 13:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The technological gains of the Song navy ensured its access to the East China Sea for centuries: makes it sound as though the Song's gains at Caishi ensured them access to the East China Sea, which is not what you mean. Is "technological gains" the right expression, or do we mean that Song was technologically more advanced than Jin and Yuan?
"Centuries" may be an overstatement considering that the Song died out in 1279. We're talking about fewer than 200 years, here. Reword? Madalibi (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paddle-wheel ships operated with treadmills were constructed between 1132 and 1183: do you mean for the first time sometime between 1129 and 1183, or that they were discontinued in 1183 (or something else)?
Now fixed. The source implies that they were constructed continuously until 1183: between +1132 (AD) and +1183 (AD) a great number of treadmill-operated paddle-wheel craft, large and small, were built, including stern-wheelers and ships with as many as 11 paddle-wheels a side. The full passage from the source used to be in older revisions of the article, before I started editing it.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 16:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a total of 11 squadrons and 3,000 men [the Song navy] rose in one century to 20 squadrons totalling 52,000 men: what hundred years is Needham referring to when he speaks of "in one century"?
The battle has been romanticized as a celebrated victory in traditional Chinese historiography: sounds awkward, and maybe redundant ("romanticized as a celebrated victory"). Could you consider using an active voice, something like "Traditional Chinese historiography celebrated the battle of Caishi as a great Song victory"?
Battle of Fei River, where the southern Eastern Jin won against northern Former Qin: indicate year of that battle to help the reader? You could also indicate the years of the two dynasties, though this may not be necessary if the date of the battle serves as anchor. the "southern Eastern Jin" also sounds a bit odd. Maybe you could rephrase to something like "where the Eastern Jin defeated northern invaders of the Former Qin"?
The Jin army withdrew in 1161, and diplomatic relations between the two states resumed: both Franke 1994:243 and Tao 2009:707 give the date as early 1162.
The Jin had discovered that southern China's many lakes and rivers impeded their cavalry:
I'll have a few more comments in the next few days, but not many. Once again, this is an excellent article, and it should pass easily once these points (and a few more to come) are addressed. All the best, Madalibi (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a few points to the list above. My comments for the main body of the text are complete. I will turn to the lede once everything has been addressed. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a source that discusses Hailing's shipbuilding activities in some detail! It's Hok-lam Chan's article "The Organization and Utilization of Labor Service under the Jurchen Chin Dynasty", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 52.2 (1992): 613–664. Pages 657 and 658 explain how he mobilized a large number of workers to build warships as early as 1159. He had them transported to the front on the Grand Canal, but a lot of them didn't arrive, so he had other ships built in a rush before the battle of Caishi. If you don't have access to an electronic database, I can transcribe the relevant passages here if you want. Madalibi (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My university provides JSTOR access, so I can access the article electronically. Thank you for finding that source! I'll include it in the article.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 23:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! To clarify, only two pages of that article are about Hailing, not the entire thing. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few follow-up issues:
I like the lede as it is, because it manages to summarize the content of the article in four succinct paragraphs. No changes needed.
The sentence "Hailing made plans to move the Jin capital south to the center of China looks out of place in the middle of a paragraph on political assassinations and anti-Jin revolts. That sentence would be a good anchor for a brief explanation of why and when Hailing moved the Jin main capital to Kaifeng. And we probably need such an explanation, because the lede claims that The Jin army left the capital of Kaifeng on October 15.
Now fixed. Moved the sentence to "Preparations for the war", and gave the date for when Kaifeng became the Southern Capital.--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 20:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, this reads much better! Madalibi (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the non-technical content concerning Jin shipbuilding efforts before the war (that is, most content taken from Chan 1992) would fit better in other sections than "Military technology". Some material explaining Hailing's long-term preparations would go under "Preparations for the war", whereas the hasty building of light ships just before the battle would fit better under "Naval battle". What do you think?
Now fixed. I kept some of the technical details on how the warships were constructed in "Military technology", but the rest of the paragraph went to "Preparations for the war" and "Naval battle". "Military technology" was also renamed to "Military and naval technology".--Khanate General ☪talkproject mongol conquests 20:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's about it, and these should be my last comments before giving my formal support! All the best, Madalibi (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. I'm a bit confused. Some of the issues from the prior nomination have not been resolved, what first came to mind were the sources identified as non-reliable. That was some time ago, though, has there been a change in opinion since then? I'm wondering how it was made a "Good article" based upon the comments. I don't mean to be discouraging, though, it would be great to have this made a featured article, it's an iconic work and one of my favorites.--22:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs)
When I nominated this, I was a bit surprised to see archive2. I had forgotten about the 2008 nomination. I have done so much to improve the article since then, I did not look at specifics from that nomination. I'm looking at the refs. Aside from that did you see significant lingering issues?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much. Encarta is still hanging around... and I scanned the rest of the reference and nothing popped out at me, but I didn't hover to see if some of the questioned sources were removed (home schooling, etc.). The only thing that threw me off in a read-through was the number of sentences in the Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)#Critical review section before getting into review of the Four Freedoms works. I wasn't quite sure how the lone sentence about Roosevelt's death fit in. The article has a lot of detail, some of which I'm inclined to put in notes, but I think that's a personal style issue.
Over all, I really like the article... it harkens back to a family story about the reception of the Four Freedoms broadcast and gave them hope. There will be better editors to come along and add their two cents, but I like it... and just have a couple of potential tweaks (Encarta, check for any more borderline sources, consider the initial sentences in the Critical review section).--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement. Usually, if I get close to FA status with a WP:WPVA article those guys come by and make sure it presents things correctly. I just don't know how close I am.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope what ideas I've shared help some. I will say that it was a very moving story and I was impressed how you kept an encyclopedic tone, but you used quotes to further the "story"... I found it very engaging and interesting. I'm sure someone else will pipe in soon. If not, you might want to just ping a reminder on the Visual arts project page in a day or so. There's some great people there, they just might be tied up at the moment.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ColonelHenry
An excellent read, so I'm very happy to SUPPORT this article. Images seem appropriately tagged, and the text satisfies the criteria for prose quality, comprehensiveness and verifiability. One comment regarding citations...there are citations in the lede for material that appears to be adequately cited in the body. Since I don't see how this subject is complex, current, or controversial where such information seemingly adequately sourced in the body would be challenged, are these really necessary per WP:LEADCITE?--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. In truth, since either fully cited or fully uncited is acceptable, I have no preference. It would just be a matter of doing the work to switch from one way to the other if there is a strong preference. It is perfectly acceptable to cite information the first time it is presented even if it is in the LEAD. I am really waiting for the WP:WPVA regs to muster the energy to use their heavy hands on this. I have never had an article from their project get passed without a lot of strong opinions on necessary changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cirt
Support. Note: I was GA Reviewer for one of this article's subsidiaries, Freedom of Speech (painting). This article has high encyclopedic value. It is most educational. The article is meticulously sourced throughout. I would recommend making a 4th paragraph in the lede, just make a paragraph break starting from Critical review of these images, like most of Rockwell's work.... Two redlinks, at Enigma Books and The Norman Rockwell Museum. Not necessary for FA, of course, but it'd be nice to see those as sourced articles at some point. Great job overall, — Cirt (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that editorial discretion up to you. :) — Cirt (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wehwalt
Comments. Very good work, though some of these might well have been caught prior to the FAC. I should add that I am a Rockwell admirer, and Freedom of Speech is one of several Rockwell works from the Post I have hanging in my home (the covers or pages, that is), and I also have a set of the posters in the War Bonds envelope. And I've been to the museum. Note that I am working offline on this from a version of the article downloaded on Monday, apologies for any out-of-date comments.
(moved to talk, most or all were resolved)
Support, what's left is trivial. Fine account of these well-known works.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I would break off the paragraph after the quote, and delete the word "Nonetheless," which I don't quite see the reason for.
"There was also significant turmoil in the OWI …" I think this discussion should be merged into the discussion of the OWI resignations, above, as it explains it.
I agree with you it is a redundancy to have the publication at the start and at the end. I would have it all at the end. There is no need to mention the eventual publication at the start of the section. Sorry about the confusion/indecision.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it sort of a basic introductory fact to say that these were illustrations published in The Post. I think it should be very early.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble. Sorry to be so disjointed.Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from HectorMoffet
I'm not a regular here, so take my support with a grain of salt, but I just wanted to drop a note thanking the authors for an excellent and highly polished read. I learned alot nothing jumped out at me as problematic. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Figureskatingfan
Very fine and interesting article. I agree with Wehwalt; this article should have been further along before it was submitted to FAC. Ah well, I learned a lot.
I.e., FDR's speech was known for "identifying the objectives of the war and revealing his hopeful view of the postwar world."Although it's technically correct, it's not standard to start a sentence with "i.e." I'll leave it up to you to change it.
Domestically, the Four Freedoms were not something the Roosevelt was able to achiever through simple legislation, but they did provide a theme for American military participation in the war. "The" and "achiever" are misspellings. I also personally don't like the phrase "but they did"; I suggest, which you can ignore if you disagree: "Domestically, the Four Freedoms were not something Roosevelt was able to achieve through simple legislation, although they provided a theme for American military participation in the war."
You must be working from an old version because some of these issues have already been handled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rockwell and World War II
Is there a reason why Lorimer restricted Rockwell?
Here is the source:"Under Lorimer's avowals of isolationism, he had felt restricted from indulging his own passions...uncomfortable to go up against Lorimer's beliefs." What changes do you think are appropriate?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Production
They measured 45.75 inches (116.2 cm) × 35.5 inches (90 cm) except Freedom of Worship which measures 46.0 inches (116.8 cm) × 35.5 inches (90 cm).[1] The two uses of "measure" should have parallel tenses. Again, it's up to you which one to use.
For all of his paintings, Rockwell used live models.[35] In 1935, Rockwell began using (exclusively black-and-white)[36] photography extensively, although he did not publicly reveal he did so until 1940.[37] This is a little unclear to me. I assume that it means that Rockwell photographed his models and painted from the pictures. If so, I think you should make that clearer. Why is the parenthetical used here? If you have a good reason for it, please retain it.
Rockwell was soon joined in Arlington by artists John Atherton, Mead Schaeffer and George Hughes. I assume that these artists joined the community after Rockwell. Do we know exactly when?
The resident artists, Rockwell included, chose to depend upon the local citizens to perform as their amateur models.[36] Too wordy. How about: "The resident artists, Rockwell included, hired local citizens as their amateur models."
He had endured a divorce and run with fast crowds in New Rochelle.[38] I think you could use more encyclopedic language here: "He had recently gone through a divorce [can you state exactly when this happened?] and had "run with fast crowds" in New Rochelle." I used the quotes because I'm not sure what the phrase means. If the source explains, I suggest that you use plainer language here, too.
It is odd that googling "run with fast crowd" and "run with fast crowds" give such different results. I will rephrase to make this more googleable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using photography and Arlington residents as models, Rockwell was able to capture what he referred to as "human-looking humans" who were generally working-class people in an hour or so rather than hire professional models for the entire day.[39] If you explain the photograph and models as I request above, this is clear, but if you don't, it's not. It's also a little wordy for me, and I'm not sure if Rockwell only used the models for a few hours or if it only took him a few hours to paint them. Please re-word.
6th paragraph: I'm not sure that the description of the town meeting belong with the content in the rest of the paragraph. I wonder if it better belongs somewhere else. The transitions in this paragraph are a little weak, so I suggest you either move some of the content elsewhere or connect the ideas better.
In meeting with Patterson, he was unable to hold his attention. He moved on to the new Office of War Information (OWI), where he was told "The last war you illustrators did the posters. This war we're going to use fine artists men, real artists." I think it'd be clearer if you said, "He was unable to hold Patterson's attention during their meeting, so he met with the new..." Is the quote ("fine artists men") accurate?
Yes the quote is in several sources. I added a second source here because you are not the first person to ask about this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At about the same time, the OWI began showing signs of renewed interest. This came despite OWI Graphics Division chief, Francis Brennan's outrage. Why was Brennan outraged? How about tightening this up: "At about the same time, despite its Graphics Division chief, Francis Brennan's outrage, the OWI began showing signs of renewed interest."
I wonder if the town meeting description better fits with the paragraph starting Models included...?
No the town meeting was his inspiration. He was inspired, then sketched, then traveled to Washington to be turned down, stopped off in Philadelphia and got commissioned, then came back home and hired models. The inspiration stuff does not belong with this model stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, the three government propaganda agencies were disjointed, and they were not unified under the OWI until June 13, 1942 by a Presidential Executive Order. Seems a little repetitious. How about: "At the time, the three government propaganda agencies were disjointed, until they were unified under the OWI on June 13, 1942 by a Presidential Executive Order."
Furthermore, the writers division, led by MacLeish, was under pressure for failing to deliver a message intelligible to people of varying intelligence. There was also significant turmoil in the OWI because a faction had supported work by Ben Shahn, but Shahn's work would not be used extensively for propaganda because it lacked general appeal. I don't understand what the first sentence means; I wonder if you could just say that the message was not accessible enough for all their readers. "Significant" is a weasel-word; I'd just omit it. Or you could change the sentence like this: "Ben Shahn's work for the OWI , which was eventually rejected because it lacked general appeal, was controversial within the agency."
I contemplated a change to "Ben Shahn's work for the OWI, which despite internal support was used modestly because it lacked general appeal, was controversial within the agency."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this section has already been split and moved around in response to another editor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were several artists who were commissioned to promote the war: Jean Carlu, Gerard Hordyke, Hugo Ballin and Walter Russell were among those commissioned. The final phrase ("were among those commissioned") seems repetitious. Are you saying that there were other artists commissioned? If so, how about: "There were several artists who were commissioned to promote the war, including Jean Carlu, Gerard Hordyke, Hugo Ballin and Walter Russell." If not, you could just remove the phrase.
Rockwell's version of the story is that only after the public demanded reprints did the Office of War Information get involved by producing 2.5 million sets of Four Freedoms posters, I think you could still abbreviate the OWI here; watch your typos. How about: "According to Rockwell, the OWI got involved and produced 2.5 million sets of Four Freedoms posters only after the public demanded reprints."
Should "war" in "war Bonds" in the first sentence be capitalized, or should "Bonds" be lower case?
I think they are both suppose to be lower case unless you are talking about the title of the War Bond Drive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the 2nd sentence in the 1st paragraph is too long. How about: "The government used several forms of solicitation, advertising and marketing, such as aircraft carrier exhibits. For the Seventh War Loan Drive, they used direct appeals from all five-star generals and admirals (George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Jackson D. Arnold, Ernest King, Chester W. Nimitz and William D. Leahy), and used a commemorative bond image of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Eighth War Loan Drive."
Rockwell was present at the debut to be paraded about in front of ambassadors and dignitaries and sign autographs. "Paraded about" seems a little negative; if that's what the source uses, I suggest using quotes. I also suggest a re-structure, like this: "Rockwell, who was "paraded about" in front of ambassadors and dignitaries and signed autographs, was present at the debut."
Great section; the only complaint is that you sometimes don't include a comma before quotes that contain the word "said". I recognize that's a stylistic preference, so do with this as you wish.
Being that this is a stylistic preference that I don't understand, I will leave it alone, ib you feel it is acceptable as is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provenance
You already state when Rockwell died; do you need to say it again here?
The Four Freedoms remain in the collection of the Museum. In this paragraph, you italicize "Four Freedoms", which isn't consistent throughout the article? Is it accurate to italicize works of art? If so, I suggest that you correct this. Shouldn't you add, "As of [year]"?
In 2011, the Four Freedoms were sent to the Williamstown Art Conservation Center for conservation work to reduce exposure to various elements. The treatment also reduces wear. How about: In 2011, the Williamstown Art Conservation Center did some work on the Four Freedoms, including reducing exposure to various elements and preventing further wear."
It starts with Roosevelt's inspiration for the painting series and their publication. Then it describes the tour, which began at Hecht's in Washington, D.C. with Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas speaking. This is the first time you talk about Douglas "speaking". Did he speak at the Hecht opening? If so, you should mention it before, when you first talk about the tour, and if the book emphasizes it, you should mention that here.
Finished with review for now. Sorry it took me so long to get around to it after your request that I review it. I think that you need to solicit more reviews, more than the cursory supports you've received thus far, especially of this article's prose, which could be tightened up somewhat. I won't review the sources, since others have already done that and because they all look like they're from solid and reliable publications. Nice job thus far. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now prepared to Support this article. All the issues I raised, as well as the other reviewers' issues, have been addressed to my satisfaction. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from SandyGeorgia
Oppose based on the length of the issues found by Christine, and because this article was brought to FAC ill-prepared, without correcting issues from previous nominations, and should have been removed by delegates per the instructions so that it could be correctly prepared for FAC.
Although Christine's list is exhaustive enough to illustrate the level of problems and why the FAC should have been closed per FAC instructions, picking a random section in the middle of the article, the first few sentences one finds in the "Production" section have a punctuation error and convoluted prose (and, except for the infobox, it's the first time we encounter a list of what the four paintings are ... well into the article ... indicating the lead needs work):
SandyGeorgia Your statements are misleading to the point of being inflamatory on many levels.
First, the article went through significant improvement since the last FAC. It was even beefed up from 17,459 characters of readable prose to 31,220 along the way.
Second, I sought a WP:PR that went unaddressed as you can see here. Don't make it sound like I didn't try to improve it before coming here.
Third, you are making it seem like Christine's (User:Figureskatingfan) usual attention to detail casts aspersions on this candidacy. She has been quite involved in some of my prior successful FAC with much longer lists of concerns. Two are from 2013. Check in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1, she responded after an exhausting PR. The fact that she decided to dig into this one is probably more of a good sign than a bad one. She has been instrumental in refining my research to the proper level for promotion in the past with extensive commentary along the way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it is boggling and off-topic to you that an artist would move to a community of artists. If he did so in the years before doing a notable work, it is somewhat notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And then we start getting a lot of information about Rockwell himself that is never tied to the paintings. So, I skipped down to the next section, Aftermath, where I again find basic punctuation errors and grammatical issues:
Upon publication The Saturday Evening Post received millions of reprint requests.[2]The Post produced 25,000 sets, including both the essays and full-color reproductions of the paintings, which The Post sold at cost for $0.25 ($4.4 in 2024 dollars[3]).[4] Rockwell's version of the story is that only after the public demanded reprints did the Office of War Information get involved by producing 2.5 million sets of Four Freedoms posters,[5][6] By the end of the war, 4 million posters had been printed.[7] Both the Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want posters had the leading caption "ours. . .to fight for" and the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship had the leading caption "Buy War Bonds" and the word "Save" before the respective freedom.
"Upon" publication? Or after? The Post three times in two sentences? Why the sudden switch to something about the Office of War? Transition or explanation needed. A sentence ending in a comma. This article is not prepared, it seems to be a hurried nomination, and it's unclear why it is getting support. My experience with TonyTheTiger's noms is that he will fix the things mentioned, and then wait for reviewers to point out the next set, so I point out that this is only a sample and I have no intentions in engaging in an exhaustive back-and-forth to get the prose brought up to snuff that is typical of TTT's nominations. I suggest source checking will be needed as well, as it is apparent the article hasn't been checked over since its 2008 failed nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, of my seven FA-Class visual arts articles three are sculptures and four are paintings or painting series. The painting series have been able to get the attention of the WP:WPVA regs who have taken a lot of time to clean things up or direct me to do it. I continue to hope that Ceoil, Modernist, Johnbod or Curly Turkey will step in and start refining my research. Wehwalt was leaning toward suggesting significant rearrangement, but backed off of that directive before giving support. I was going to start with some of his ideas if the WPVA cavalry did not arrive but was addressing his other concerns in the interim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going on the record: It's true that I've reviewed other articles managed by Tony, and it's also true that my reviews (even my GACs) tend to be long and picky, mostly because I'm obsessive and because I sincerely want to help other editors. Tony, you must admit that this article was ill-equipped for FAC, which annoyed me a bit, but I went ahead because we've helped each other in the past. You also know that if you asked me to PR it, I would have, which would've better prepared you for FAC. I'd bet if you asked anyone else, you probably would've been helped. Sandy has a good point: please don't bring an article to any review forum on WP before it's properly prepared. But Sandy, how is the length and comprehensiveness of my review any different than a lot of FACs? I was just following the example of what I've seen here in the past. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should also state that the vast majority of my Millennium ParkWP:FT FAs are the result of editorial assistance that was largely rearranging presentation by Ruhrfisch. So it is not unusual for me to have my FAs get largely rearranged before passing. Most people here know I am more of a researcher than a writer. Maybe I should stick to basketball where chronology is so simple.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. I also have major weaknesses in certain areas, like assessing images, so I go to others who are stronger than I am in those areas and get their help before submitting the articles I work on to FAC. All my articles go through GAC before coming here, and based upon the advice of my fellows, I submit them to PR or the GOCE first, if necessary. I hate long, drawn-out, painful reviews, so my personal goal is to get them passed to the next level with flying colors, with ease and comfort for all. The more preparation, the better. It respects the FAC process by doing so, and makes for better articles in the long run. IOW, the more critical eyes on an article, the better. There are plenty of people around here that will fill in the areas in which you have deficits; all you have to do is ask--before coming to FAC (or even GAC, for that matter). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This passed GAC before the first FAC in 2008. I have since doubled the article in size. Neither that GAC nor that FAC is really relevant in whether this article was prepared for FAC. I tried multiple venues for additional review. I was denied review at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_123#Repeat_reviews and the PR went unreviewed as noted above. I have never had much luck with GOCE. I gave it a good try in terms of finding another review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Crisco 1492
Images for the most part look okay. However, is there a reason why Freedom from Want is about 4 times as big as the other FU images? And how exactly is File:Freedom From Fear.jpg free if the painting itself is still copyrighted? By licensing the image, they did not obtain the copyright to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At one point, I resourced the File:Freedom From Want.jpg to a larger version from 119 pixels wide to 353. I never did so with the others. I am now actually unsure what the source of the current version of the image is. I just thought we needed something bigger than 119 pixels wide because I considered it a future WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the size of the Fair-Use images is good. Still not sure of the poster version of Freedom From Fear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hchc2009
Equivalent modern prices have been generated in this article using the CPI index. The CPI index uses a basket of consumer prices for typical consumer goods and services, and is only reliable as a conversion method for the prices of such goods or services (i.e. it is reliable at comparing the relative price of beer in 1941 and 2014; it isn't reliable for comparing the price of a battleship or a road network). This is one of the reasons why the CPI template on the Wiki notes that it is OR to use it for other purposes. Two of the uses in this article are fine, but its use to convert $13 billion of government funding to a modern equivalent isn't appropriate. There are other indexes (e.g. share of GDP; share of GDP per capita) which are more reliable for converting large sums, particularly those relating to government debt. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worth checking the tense on some sentences with older sources. Examples include:
"Some say that Rockwell's Four Freedoms lack artistic maturity. Others point to the universality of the Freedom of Religion as disconcerting to practitioners of particular faiths". Given that this from 1943, I'd have expected "Some said... Others pointed to..." - it is 70 years ago, and these are comments immediately after the pictures' relese.
"The commercial success of the series is in part because each painting is considered to be a model of understandable art by the general public" - again, given that this is from 1948, it feels like it should be in the past tense; this may well no longer hold true in the 21st century. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the commercial success to past tense because these posters are no longer big sellers, but I don't think the art is any less understandable now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, not a complete review. - Dank (push to talk)
MeasuringWorth is a good site, but personally, I wouldn't try to convert the large dollar amounts, there's too much disagreement on and off Wikipedia over conversions of this type. (This is partially in response to Hchc's comment.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"sales drives raised over $132 million in the sale of war bonds": I don't have a preference how to eliminate the repetition; one thing that works is: "sales drives of war bonds raised over $132 million".
"a touring exhibition sponsored by The Post and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The touring exhibition": Same here, there are various ways to eliminate the repetition; at a minimum, delete the second "touring".
"The Four Freedoms theme": My first impulse was: since themes aren't usually proper nouns, but the subject of this article is a proper noun, capitalizing it here suggests you're talking about the theme of the painting ... misleading the reader for a little bit. But there's more work to do here, so see the next point instead.
"The Four Freedoms theme was derived from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's January 1941 State of the Union Address. During the speech Roosevelt identified four essential human rights—Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear—that should be universally protected. The theme was incorporated into the Atlantic Charter, and it became part of the charter of the United Nations.": Since you've just named those 4 freedoms, word for word, in the previous paragraph and in the first image, I think this counts as unnecessary repetition. I'd go with: "The four freedoms named in the paintings came from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's January 1941 State of the Union Address. ..."
We're in agreement, the ellipses meant that I expected more to follow. Perhaps I was being too ... elliptical. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to do here than I have time for, now that I'm cutting back on copyediting to do some writing, so I'll stop there. Best of luck. Since you're taking some heat above, I'll add: this isn't a slap, I'm just operating within the constraints as I understand them. Different reviewers will define "repetition" differently; my definition is my own, but it's based on copyediting comments I've seen on Wikipedia, and on standard style guides. It's generally not that difficult to spot, or to fix. I'm not going to tell you you should have handled it already, but on the other hand, I can only do so much. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can this be held open for a bit; I think it will do, would like to but cant make a pass for a few days. Ceoil (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
The links in refs 6 and 15 go to the same source; why not combine them?
Otherwise, all sources appear to be of appropriate quality & reliability, and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about Æthelstan, the first King of England. He was king from 924 to 939, and was one of the most important Anglo-Saxon monarchs. It has passed GA and A-Class, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from John
What version of English are we in here? I presume British English, but I see Americanisms. Even just on the lead, I can see non-trivial problems with the prose. Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:British_Isles_10th_century.svg: what source(s) was used for the location names?
The source was Sarah Foot's Æthelstan, except the Welsh kingdom of Deheubarth, which is from Charles-Edwards' Wales and the Britons.
File:Painting,_Beverley_Minster_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1317269.jpg: as this is a photo of a 2D work, we need the licensing for the original work rather than the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you advise how to do this. I am not familiar with the rules regarding images.
They show his concern about widespread robberies, and the threat they posed to social order. - I think some sort of collective noun would sound better than "robberies" but none come to mind - "theft" sounds wrong.....
I cannot think of a better word. "widespread felonies, especially robberies" would be more accurate, but even more clumsy.
Agreed - this is not a deal-breaker as no obvious course for improvement. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Æthelstan was one of the most religious West Saxon kings - devout? observant? pious? - all I think encapsulate it a little better
I am not sure religious is the best word, but I cannot think of a better one to describe his obsession with relics and reputation for founding churches. I do not think the alternatives sound right. Devout and pious have a flavour of unworldliness to me which does not describe Æthelstan, and observant could mean good at observing.
Agreed - this is not a deal-breaker as no obvious course for improvement. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I have changed it to "pious". It seems better and Higham and Ryan in Anglo-Saxon World say he was particularly noted for his piety. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No other West Saxon king played as important a role in European politics as Æthelstan, and he arranged the marriages of several sisters to continental rulers - I'd add "of his" before "sisters" ..otherwise it looks for a moment like nuns....
By 878 the Vikings had destroyed East Anglia, Northumbria, and Mercia - "destroyed"? would not "laid waste to", "overran" or somesuch be better verb?
Changed to had overrun.
Æthelstan was thirty years old when he acceded to the throne in 924 - why not just "came to the throne"?
Done.
I'd link pyrrhic victory
Done.
by Oxford University historian Sarah Foot - I'd introduce Foot's descriptors ("Oxford University historian" ) at first mention of her name and also give the other authorities some indication of who/where/what they are at first mention.
Done.
The reign of Æthelstan has been overlooked and overshadowed by the achievements of his grandfather - sounds laboured - don't need both "over-" verbs....
Deleted overlooked
Overall, a nice read - it comes across as nicely balanced between the historians and openminded and methodical (a good thing) and winds up nicely with a nice legacy section. Within striking distance of FA-ness methinks.....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am cautiously giving support on comprehensiveness and prose, though I suspect other reviewers will find quibbles here and there...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close to a support, although the text doesn't always read easily - this may be a result of the original sources. Some comments on detail:
In the "Church" section, the images are placed on the left hand side at the start of the section, against the MOS guidance; the combination of the two images also creates a left-hand pillar of text on my screen, pushing down well into the next section. Right-justifying would solve the MOS problem, and trimming back (or placing elsewhere in the article) one of the two images the other.
I have moved the images as suggested.
"In Sarah Foot's view, "Any man whose parents managed to provide him with eight or even nine sisters deserves our sympathy." - while a droll quote, I'm not convinced it fits well in an encyclopedic article.
Quote deleted.
In the bibliography:
"Æthelstan: the first king of England" - the MOS would have this capitalised as "Æthelstan: The First King of England"
Done.
"Nelson, Janet (1999). Rulers and Ruling Families in Early Medieval Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN0-86078-802-4." includes the location, unlike the rest of the biliography
Location deleted.
There a couple of works with strange italics appearing - "Keynes, Simon (2008). "Edgar rex admirabilis" is an example (I think there are some missing single speechmarks which are throwing out the template)
There are italics in two chapter titles, and both are in the source. Keynes italicised rex admirabilis, and Zacher Battle of Brunanburh because she was referring to the poem about the battle. I saw that double quotes appeared twice at the end of the chapter titles with italics. Putting italics quotes only at the beginning and omitting them at the end removed this problem.
NB: Meant to say, the sourcing all looks high quality and appropriate for a Featured Article on this topic. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was raised before. In both cases italics are in the source. Keynes italicised rex admirabilis, and Zacher Battle of Brunanburh because she was referring to the poem about the battle.
In both cases that's not the problem - the issue is that the editor and publisher are italicized but the title of the full work is not; that's the reverse of what it should be. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. (Not sure what is going on there. When I looked at it before it went wrong if I put end italics quotes in - now it goes wrong if I leave them out.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I think I have dealt with all your points now. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support: I reviewed this article for GA when it was very good, but quite rough and ready in places. It is greatly improved now, and I think the structure is better than it was. I have no real quibbles (except I wonder if we really need to list the institutions at which the various historians work. But that is not a huge issue for me, it just feels unnecessary), and I think this meets the criteria. It is certainly comprehensive and the sourcing and content are impeccable. My only reservation (and hence the "cautious") is with the prose. To be honest, I can't see any problems as such and I think it meets the usual high level of history FAs, but I notice a couple of people have raised queries about it. I have a bit of a blind spot with history articles, as I'm fairly familiar with the style used in history works, so I may have missed something. Others may have concerns where I wouldn't. With that in mind, I'd be happier if someone took another look purely from a prose perspective. After all that rambling, well done for a really top-notch article on an important (and neglected) figure. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. The mention of the institutions of historians is at the suggestion of Cas Liber above. Editors seem to have different opinions on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes -- we seem to be at the tail-end of this review, so with that in mind:
Hchc2009, did you have anything to add to your review?
No, happy from my side. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a cure from Sarastro1, I scanned some prose and nothing leapt out, except I tend to agree that "historian" or "Professor" is probably enough to establish the credentials of the named sources, minus the relevant institutions.
Given the extra eyes, I struck the "cautious". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is Dudley's first FAC (correct me if I'm wrong) so I'd want to know there's been a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- Sarastro, I notice you spotchecked at GAN, are you confident that was also satisfactory for an article at FAC?
Yes, the spot-check would be in-depth enough for FAC, and there were no problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the institutions of historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks all. Just one last thing, Dudley, per other royalty articles I've promoted at FAC, I'd usually expect to see the ancestor table cited, unless everyone's relationship to the subject is mentioned/cited in the prose, and I'm not sure that's the case here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citation added. I have also moved the table to the end and changed the default to collapsed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, looks good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2014 (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 third of the four Southern Birds, it is yet another article which I found had some interesting stuff and I enjoyed improving. I think it is within striking distance of FA standards when compared with other FA constellations. So have at it and let me know what needs fine-tuning.... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images are both appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks/cool....finally got an image review completely right from the get-go here..Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
"Tucana is a constellation of stars in the southern sky, created in the late sixteenth century." -- Was the name created in the late sixteenth century or the actual constellation? Would the latter not be millions of years old?
All a constellation is is a construct or pattern of stars, it has no inherent existence other than as an address really. So as far as w know, before the late 16th century no-one saw any toucan in those stars.....hence my use of "created"....maybe another verb would suit btter...will sleep on it.aCas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this reads that the constellation of stars were created in the late 1500s. If I were to offer some alternatives then might I suggest "discovered", "founded" or "named" or something like that. -- CassiantoTalk 16:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Founded" or "named" really probably the best. gone with 'named'.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Tucana was one of the twelve constellations..." -- Why do we refer to the constellation in the past tense here, but the current in the lead section?
Hmm, was thinking past tense because of its creation but changed to present as still current...as are the other 11Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think all introductions should be in the definite article; like here, we have Dutch astronomer Petrus Plancius and Dutch explorers Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser and Frederick de Houtman
Support and comments from Jim I'm happy to support, but there are a couple of minor infelicities that could do with tweaking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tucana is a constellation of stars in the southern sky, named in the late sixteenth century. Its name is Latin for the toucan, a South American bird—run these together for smoother reading and avoidance of repeating "name"?
Support: My concerns were addressed. I think the article is ready for FA promotion. 15:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: The article is in pretty good shape overall. During a read through I just found a few small concerns:
"Mostly composed of old, yellow stars, it does possess a contingent of blue stragglers, young stars that are hypothesized to form from binary star mergers." Is it correct to characterize these as "young" stars? I'm not sure that their paired ancestors were necessarily that young.
good catch - still echoes of calling these stars "young" from old books - changed to "hot" now.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The references are inconsistent about the placement of 'et al'. Trilling (2008) has it after one name, Udry (2006) has it after eight, Dumusque (2011) and Marmier (2013) don't have them at all, &c.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): GRAPPLEX 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Così s'osserva in me l'album concetto. While not a long article by most estimations, this is a comprehensive look at an independent album by three disparate acts, in three disparate acts. The work is a recent recording of a fifty-year-old composition, adapted from a sixty-year-old poem, first intended to mark the septuacentennial of Dante Alighieri's birth. It's not exactly "My Lovely Horse".
The article was given a GA review by Crisco 1492, and a brief peer review by The Rambling Man; it has been modelled on my usual approach for writing album articles, although this would be the first time I've taken one to FAC. As usual, I'll endeavour to respond to any comments promptly and should be readily available for interrogation. GRAPPLEX 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Mike Patton cropped.jpg - Per MOS:IMAGES, should face into text. Also, there is an error template showing up. Also, the new upload is marked Full copyright on Flickr. Do we have any proof that the old upload was CC? If we do, this needs a note to the effect that CC is non-revokable etc. I recall there being a template somewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't have a sccoby where to start proving whether or not the original was uploaded under CC; have instead replaced it with File:Faith No More @ Steel Blue Oval (1 3 2010) (4416923516).jpg, which is listed at the source as being CC 2.0 instead; it also has the benefit of facing into the text without being moved. GRAPPLEX 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! GRAPPLEX 11:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose, images and comprehensiveness. I drove Grapple crazy during the GA review about comprehensiveness, and I haven't found any new sources either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's really difficult to get any grasp of how this sounds with a sample. It's impossible to get a feel of the music by reading the article. A non-free sample would add significantly more to this article than the non-free identifying artwork. - hahnchen 17:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly open to replacing the cover with a sample, I just wouldn't really know the first thing about going about it. I'll see if I can comb through a few other articles to get a feel for the expected length and the technical know-how in doing it. GRAPPLEX 18:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to replace the cover. Just add a sample to the composition section. - hahnchen 18:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded and included. Not 100% sure on the placement, though; I'm contemplating losing the cover image, moving the the dual picture into the section above to take advantage of the reduced infobox, and moving the sound box up a paragraph. I may just be over thinking things. GRAPPLEX 22:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You did a nice job covering all the critical commentary. The sound sample seems fine as it's enough for me to tell that it's nothing that appeals to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could save you the cover price. :P GRAPPLEX 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the prose is hardly "brilliant":
the opening sentence has "Belgian orchestra Ictus Ensemble" but "the vocal group Nederlands Kamerkoor". Including or omitting "the" are both fine, but it would be good to be consistent.
Dante referred to as "Alighieri". Dante is surely a standard WP:MONONYM -- his article certainly uses it.
Unnecessarily heavy use of passive in cases like "The original poem has been described by allMusic's Thom Jurek as ...".
Clumsy phrases like "believing these to also be themes present in the works of Alighieri".
"Piece" is still over-used. At over half an hour, it would be justified to replace at least some of them with "work".
These are just illustrative. I can offer to do a quick copy edit this evening or tomorrow evening if you wish. --Stfg (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a quick pass to tackle the items you specified, but I'd gladly welcome a copy-edit if you're willing. Thanks. GRAPPLEX 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for accepting it. I've done it now, but I'm sorry to say I have been left with so many concerns that I'm forced to oppose this FAC:
It is worrying that we have an article about just one of the three recordings of this work, and no article about the work itself. By doing this, are we not tilting the playing field in favour of this recording, i.e. exercising commercial influence? The article certainly doesn't cover the music in depth, and I'd be willing to bet there would be several good sources for that if they were sought. Moreover, the title of the article is also the title of the work, so anyone who might have come here to read about the music is automatically presented with this commercial bias.
When creating the article I simply went for the non-disambiguated title as there was nothing currently existing to distinguish it from; if this is considered problematic the current title could be given over to a disambiguation page and the article moved to a title with additional disambuigation (Laborintus II (album)?). Alternatively, to save creating an extra page, a hatnote could be used to refer the reader to the Luciano Berio article if they were looking for information on the composition. I'm happy enough to do either, and I'm open to any other suggestions too. GRAPPLEX 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A move to some such title is certainly very desirable indeed. A possibility is Laborintus II (2012 recording), since at least two other recordings of the work are also commercially available, and since there's only one work on it. It's multi-movement, but we call a recording of one Beethoven symphony a recording, not an album, don't we? Just Laborintus II should be reserved for the work itself. Even with a move, I have misgivings about the ethics of Wikipedia covering only one recording of a work that has multiple professional recordings available (one of them the composer's), and not the others nor the work itself. Why did you choose this particular one? --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your title works for me. I've redirected the original title to List of compositions by Luciano Berio with a hatnote at that target. I came to this subject as a fan of Patton; I've previously worked on articles for other albums he's recorded or produced. GRAPPLEX 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. Good target for the redirect, but I've removed the hatnote as tending to highlight one recording too much for a list-of-compositions page. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the Jurek review on allMusic (FN3) says that the work uses Sanguineti's poem for the libretto, and that Sanguineti "appropriates fragments of works by Dante, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, and the Bible alongside original content". However, Berio's author's note (FN2) states "The text of Laborintus II develops certain themes from Dante’s Vita nuova, Convivio, and Divina Commedia, combining them - mainly through formal and semantic analogies - with Biblical texts and texts by T. S. Eliot, Pound and Sanguineti himself." That is, Berio seems to be saying that it is he, not Sanguineti, who brought the various texts together. These are not consistent. The article takes Berio's view on this, ignoring Jurek, and that may seem logical, but composers' own accounts are not always reliable sources. A featured article ought to go into this, and it requires research.
As was my understanding of the Berio note, it attributes the text solely to Sanguineti and not to Berio ("Laborintus II, for voices, instruments and tape (1965), Text by Edoardo Sanguineti"); both sources seem to be saying that the text is largely a collage of other sources with additional material written by Sanguineti. GRAPPLEX 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading them again, I think you're right about that. But both the second paragraph of the lead ("in addition to Sanguineti's work"), and the first paragraph of Production ("In addition to Sanguineti's poetry") are written in such a way as to imply that there is more to the libretto than Sanguineti provided. The sources seem to me to be saying that Sanguineti assembled the whole libretto, combining original work of his own with those other things. The article as it stands seems to imply something a bit different. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to clarify a little more that the intention is that quoted material is in addition to original content by Sanguineti. The second instance you cited may need more comprehensive rephrasing if it's not currently strong enough. GRAPPLEX 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited to make it clearer that Sanguineti assembled all the libretto. How is it? --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Production section we read: "Berio considered some elements of Laborintus II to be "autonomous", capable of standing on their own in addition to serving as component parts of the full work; the composer considered this to apply to both the libretto and the musical score, which he saw as extensions of each other" cited to Berio's author's note. I don't believe Berio was saying any such thing in that note.
I based this on "Individual words and sentences are sometimes to be regarded as autonomous entities, and sometimes to be perceived as part of the sound structure as a whole" and " The instrumental parts are developed mainly as an extension of the vocal actions of singers and speakers, and the short section of electronic music is conceived as an extension of the instrumental actions" from this source; perhaps either my reading of this, or my paraphrasing of it, is flawed, or both. I can certainly rewrite it if I've taken the wrong meaning from the source. GRAPPLEX 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but I think you are misreading it. How can an individual word be capable of standing on its own as opposed to serving as a component of the work that uses it? My understanding is that those words and sentences are autonomous within the work -- i.e. independent (for example thematically) of what is elsewhere in the work. Also, you say "extensions of each other", but the source only says that the music extends the vocal content, not the other way round. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've given that section a thorough re-write to more closely mirror the original phrasing. How do they compare now? GRAPPLEX 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good on what is an extension of what. On autonomous words and sentences, I suspect you're still saying something different from what Berio said, but he is quite cryptic, so I've just replaced it with a quote from him, and caveat lector. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found instances where critics' comments were presented as being about the album, when they were actually about the music.
Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick here; aren't they one and the same to an extent? I've tried to be clear when it's the actual composition that's being spoken about, rather than the delivery of it, but the critics are speaking about this particular recording in each instance. Is this an issue of drawing this line more clearly (for example, specifying more explicitly if "the piece" is Berio's composition versus the Ictus/Kamerkoor/Patton recording)? GRAPPLEX 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a question of drawing that line clearly. Sometimes the critics are talking about Berio's work, and sometimes about things like Patton's delivery. The work and the specific performance aren't "one and the same" to any extent. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the subject of criticism for a few more of the cited reviews, to make it more evident when the composition or the recording are being discussed. I now get the feeling I may have overused the word "composition", however. GRAPPLEX 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good now. I don't think you've overused "composition". --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article seemed to say that Berio considered a "catalogue, in its medieval meaning" to be "an enumerated list in the style of Dante". The Berio source says no such thing.
That one I can't account for; I can only hold my hands up and call the use of "Dante" a mistake; the source does give a different author as an example (which I see you've added) so I seem to have put the wrong thing down in error. I'll attempt to seek out a source review in case I've made any similar mistakes. Thanks for your copy-edit and your frank comments; I'll endeavour to resolve them as I can. GRAPPLEX 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected such errors as I found, but I only consulted five of the sources and I cannot be sure that there aren't more. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm much happier now the changes discussed above have been made, but I'm still shy of supporting. Partly this is because of the fandom and commercial bias here. Normally with a work like this we would have an article about the work, which would include a Recordings section to describe them all. It's a bit different from commercial albums. A Beyoncé album, for example, features music and arrangements written specifically for her. Articles about such albums don't tilt the commercial playing field; this one does. But this is the first time I've seen this issue, so if other editors want to pitch in with different views, I'll defer to them. The other issue is the need for source checks. --Stfg (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly understandable; would it assuage the issue any if I could put some information together for an article on the original work? With the sources already present I'm sure there's already the kernel of something viable and I would highly doubt it would be difficult for me to track additional material down. GRAPPLEX 22:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to have replied quickly. I'm on unfamiliar ground and needed to think about it. For me, it would improve the situation, but the problem of featuring one performance over and above the others would still bother me. That's about all I can say at present. It's an issue that needs wider discussion, I think, unless it has already happened somewhere, --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of reviewed content, the closest analogue I can think of immediately would be 2012 tour of She Has a Name, which focusses on one particular production of a play in a separate article to the play itself (which is located at She Has a Name); I didn't see anything else at WP:FA, but I didn't check WP:GA. I suppose it is an uncommon case, to cover such a lengthy piece instead of just one song. In all honesty, though, I don't really know how to address this other than, as suggested, creating an article on the original piece too—is this a notability concern (why is one album more notable than other versions?) or how should I approach it? GRAPPLEX 19:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tour is a bit different, in that it's over and so can't cause commercial prejudice. I don't think we have a concept of greater of lesser notability, and our concept of due weight relates more to viewpoints than to things that have a commercial value. I really don't know how you should approach this. I've said that I'm willing to be overruled, and that's about as much as I can say, honestly. Sorry not to be more helpful. --Stfg (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I've let this review go on longer than I might normally because I'm not sure that we'd gain much by archiving it without resolving Stfg's concerns. It's true that we're used to seeing pop album article nominations, but not specific recordings of 'classical' works. That said, if such an article passes notability criteria, I suppose why not? Were an article to appear focussing on Solti's recording of The Ring, would we be having the same discussion? Unlike this case, it's just one of a multitude of recordings of the work, but then it's probably the most famous and the work itself also has an article (though one that could cerainly stand some improvement). I would like to see if we can resolve this quickly one way or the other, so I might ask for another opinion or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I passed this as a GA and have supported above, so my opinion is fairly obvious. However, to make it explicit: yes, this is a recording of a classical composition. That is not indicative of notability, or indicative of a lack of notability. What makes something notable is sources. This has several sources, including six or seven reviews. This has coverage in a variety of trade magazines and popular magazines, showing the planning process and describing the creative aspects of the work. This was released to the mass market. We have articles on compilation albums and cover albums, which do not feature "new" material, just classics and/or covers (Dekade being the only one I've written); why should this be any different? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, been a busy day and I'll be away for the most of tomorrow as well. As Crisco says, the article itself does indicate its notability as a separate subject. I've made some steps towards distancing it from the original work in terms of visibility—the title has been ceded to a redirect, the target of which doesn't mention or link to the article (which means the incoming links are from articles already about the performers, preventing a reader reaching this article first if they initially wanted to look for Berio's work); and while I'm happy to work on an article for the original work in the coming week, after that I don't know how else to favour it. I'll admit it's a niche case, but I don't think it's wholly unique—we've also featured multiple commercialadaptations of a work which currently is not featured, for example. If a wider consensus on the issue is needed, I'd be happy to start an RFC on the article's talk page, or to ask editors from related wikiprojects to chime in, whichever would be seen as the best way to resolve the issue. GRAPPLEX 00:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me you need to convince, guys, and I don't think an RFC is called for. The nom simply doesn't have consensus to promote according to FAC convention -- if that can be achieved in fairly short order, well and good, if not I'll have to archive it and it can be renominated some other time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for giving time for this question to be aired. I don't want to take more of a view than I already have, but to answer your question, yes, I'd have raised the same issue if it was Solti's (or anyone's) Ring. I had a similar thought about Barenboim's Hammerklavier. I don't dispute this one's notability; I only ask whether it should be featured.. The issue arises only where there is a question of commercial competition. None of the examples given so far (other than the classical recordings) raise it. --Stfg (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "commercial competition" is something we need to be too worried about. If another recording of Laborinuts II passes notability, it is just as viable a candidate for being featured. There are several films based on the legend of Tangkuban Perahu: would we not feature any, just in case we give more credence to one than the other? In that case I'd better put Tjioeng Wanara on the backburner. Ian, I don't quite think "The issue arises only where there is a question of commercial competition" is really actionable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having been asked to comment, and after reading through the review comments to date, I have a few issues:
This is clearly not an "album" in the accepted sense of that term in recorded music, a fact that it seems was acknowledged by a title move in the course of this review. It is a recording of a composition. Yet I see it is repeatedly referred to as an album in the text. Is it an album, or isn't it?
I am uneasy with the assertion that notability is simply a matter of sources. For example, there are over 60 recordings of Bizet's Carmen available, all of which have been reviewed at one time or another in the press and journals. Are they all individually notable, and would it be acceptable to have separate articles for them? If so, within WP rules there would be nothing to stop each and every one of them from being presented as a potential featured article. But that is the way that Wikipedia works: absurdity tempered by common sense. Personally, I think that individual recordings should only be considered notable if the particular circumstances of the recording are themselves notable – as indeed they were in the case of the Solti Ring cycle quoted above. However, I accept that this is a personal view; the WP bar of notability is set low, and I think it's too late now to start questioning the notability of this particular recording.
The "question of commercial competition" should not be applied on a piecemeal basis to individual articles. If there is an existing policy that tackles this issue, bring it out and let's see whether this article falls foul of it. Other than that, and the clarification of the "album" nomenclature, I think this article can be considered for promotion in the normal way. I'm sorry that these comments are somewhat hurried, but I'm on my way out, the taxi is almost due and I have got to finish packing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar rush myself; looking at this on a lunch break. In regards to the first point, I'd say the record does constitute a live album, having been recorded at a concert and released by a record studio known mostly for studio recordings (and the occasional soundtrack); it was also tracked for sales by a US albums chart (which I would also point towards in regards to notability). I'm happy enough to change the title if it seems incongruous, the intention with the move was more to do with weight and focus rather than nomenclature. I would also put forward that the mere existence of sources isn't the only indication here of notability; they also represent attention being paid to the release by relatively mainstream music press—these are sources just as likely to be reviewing number-one albums by pop acts, rather than being niche classical or genre oriented press. It'll probably be tomorrow evening before I can get back to this, however. GRAPPLEX 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments:
Crisco 1492, Brianboulton: films "based on" a legend presumably have their own scripts and are essentially separate works, not performances of the same work. A legend is not a work in that sense. Laborintus II is a work with its own score. But anyway, I'm convinced by everything that Brian said, including the point that we shouldn't set a precedent ("piecemeal") in a place like this. So my earlier comments on commercial competition can be ignored here.
To be a live album, something must not only be recorded live, but also be an album. My understanding of an album is that it contains a selection of separate pieces. This recording is of just one work. I agree with Brian here.
In any case, the need for a source review remains. I found these further issues just now:
FN15, the Billboard page used as the source for the first paragraph of the Release and reception section, no longer carries that information (or any useful information).
Mincher's review (FN1) does indeed mention "the occasional English" as stated in the article, but Jurek's review (FN4) says that Patton "speaks in Italian throughout". Who is right? Whoever is wrong becomes a dubious source, doesn't he?
In any case, "the occasional English" is not the same as "some sections in English" as the article puts it. To many people that would imply whole elements of the sectional structure of the work.
Managed to find another section of the Billboard site with the same information; they seem to have overhauled how their site works in the interim. The confusion as to the lyrics featuring some English or being all Italian took me a while to figure out, but it seems the AV Club source has mistaken English-language taped samples for Mike Patton; the album's booklet labels these as "Eduardo Sanguinetti on tape". As such I've removed the mention of English, though if you prefer I could reinsert it with the clarification, citing the album's booklet, that speaker and choir use Italian exclusively and that English is solely the domain of these samples (the full libretto is printed inside this book). As for the issue of album vs recording; should all the instances of "album" be expunged, or should the word just be used much less frequently? GRAPPLEX 22:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new Billboard link gives the peak position and the number of weeks, but seems not to have the date. Have I missed something? Or is the previous version archived? On the lyrics, I think it would be better to clarify the full situation, otherwise someone might spot the Mincher mention and be confused. On album vs. recording, I'm of two minds, because I think Brian is right, but some sources do call it an album. I prefer "recording" throughout, but not strongly. @Brian, what do you think? --Stfg (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger, you're right about the date, they've taken it off. The weekly breakdown of the chart only goes as far as #10, with the full thing being behind a paywall. I've rephrased it to remove the date, as (understandably) the page hasn't been archived, and I'm not comfortable assuming it's present in that paid link without being able to see it myself. I've also added a bit more about the language issue, clarifying that the English is another voice and not Patton's. GRAPPLEX 00:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So a comedy album (such as a recording of a live performance by Chris Rock or alumni) is not an album, Stfg? Those can be a single "performance", containing several jokes. This is a single "performance", containing several movements. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that unsourced stub of an essay need detain us for long. Crisco 1492, once again you're not comparing like with like. The movements of a composed piece of music aren't comparable with the jokes in a stand-up routine. And you're misrepresenting what I said: I said "My understanding of an album is that it contains a selection of separate pieces. This recording is of just one work." No semantic argument about what constitutes a performance. Instead of trying to shoot down my comments, which I have put forward tentatively enough in any case, why not carry out a full and independent review of your own? --Stfg (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed this article at the GA and FA level. Or did you miss that? Or do neither of my reviews qualify as a "a full and independent review of [my] own"? If not, how so?
Fine. You want to shoot down every comparison I come up with. Then answer me this: how does this recording not count as an album? When it was released as an album and charted as an album? When it was performed with its own interpretation, its own timing, its own emotion, its own flaws and mood, enough to cross the threshold of originality (TOO; a copyright term, but one I think is applicable here). That TOO is, for the understanding of an album in general (not a studio album, just an album), quite low. Compilation albums have little creative input (I dare say less than this), yet are still styled as "albums". Cover albums (probably the closest comparison there is) are still styled albums, and have a similar level of originality.
I have explicitly noted, on several occasions, why I think this passes the bar for notability. I am prepared to argue it at an AFD, if you think this should go that far. Frankly, I am surprised that the delegates are even giving your concerns the weight that they are, and their actions disappoint me greatly. There is no separate bar for notability for FAs. Never has, and should never be one. If this is notable enough for an article, then it is notable enough to be an FA assuming all the criteria are met. If this is closed as non-notable, yet survives AFD, then in the future I will treat FA as I am currently treating the FOUR Award. This is ridiculous. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologise for forgetting your reviews here and at GA. My bad. As for "shooting down", I have been replying to your challenges to my comments, which I feel entitled to do. I think I have explained why I believe that "recording" is a better term than "album" for this. We appear to have a difference of opinion on it, but I won't repeat myself. I have never said that this article is not notable; in this edit I said "I don't dispute this one's notability". The issue I raised was about its effect on commercial competition, and yesterday in this edit I said "... my earlier comments on commercial competition can be ignored here". I have also mentioned that while copy editing the article I found several instances where the text here did not reflect the sources, which I either corrected or raised in my review. I found a further batch yesterday and recorded them above. After I first pointed this out, in this edit Grapple said he would ask for a source review. IMO whether this article passes should depend not on notability but on whether it is believed that the article now accurately reflects its sources. --Stfg (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree that the issues with source representation should be looked into further. My spot checks during the GA review (here) turned up only one issue, but it was a random sampling, so more things may have slipped through. I will post at WT:FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. Apparently I missed that Grapple has already posted there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I need to know if you now accept that I have never questioned this article's notability; that, even though we disagree about it, my preference for a word other than "album" was expressed tentatively and in good faith, recognizing that some sources use it; and that I did correctly identify some cases where the articles did not accurately reflect its sources, at least four of which are identified on this page. In light of your statement yesterday that "I am surprised that the delegates are even giving your concerns the weight that they are", I feel the need for this clarification. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:: I won't bother to go through striking things out, but provided the source check turns up nothing new, I have no objection whichever way you decide to take this FAC. Call me neutral, if it helps. I'll trust you on the usage of "album". --Stfg (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment - We have not reached a consensus and there has not been much activity here lately; so I will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. Graham Colm (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the history of macroeconomic theory. This article had previously been nominated but was rejected due to a content weight dispute that arose during the nomination. Since then, a consensus has supported the amount of attention given to heterodox economics in the article, and other disputes have been resolved. Since the last nomination, the article has passed as GA. I attempted to address some of the comments raised by the GA reviewer including adding more on economic growth. I recently went through the article to do my own CE, check links, and make other improvements. I believe this article now meets FA standards.Bkwillwm (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall the article is good. But from the get-go it has problems. Here are some examples: In the first sentence we have the pre-Keynesian mention of early theories, but then it goes into Keynes' thought without describing the pre-Keynesian ideas. Off-article, we have the WikiProject Econ talk page discussion – this suggests that issues need resolving. A third example involves neo-Keynesian v New-Keynesian theories – the lede does not explain these various progressions. I think a transition to a Class-A article review (perhaps supported by a Peer-review) is the next best step rather than going for a FA. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make it seem like I am jumping the gun. I don't think that's the case at all. I've been working on this article literally for years, and it's been over two years since I lasted nominated it for an FA. This article already went through a previous FA where it garnered a substantial amount of support but did not pass because there was a content dispute that has since been settled. The previous FA was preceded by a peer review, and the article was recently listed as a GA. I posted my intent to nominate this article as a FA on the WP:Economics talk page. The only feedback I received was from User:EllenCT and that discussion seemed to be resolved. You had the opportunity to discuss any changes you wanted to have made when I opened the WP:Economics discussion, but you only asked that the conversation be moved from the project page. Of course the issues you raised are worthy of discussion, but I don't see them as serious problems. They are all subjective changes that can be discussed here. The fact they weren't discussed in another forum isn't on me.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The work you've done on the article is most commendable. (My one GA took a year & 1,000 edits to achieve, so I appreciate the great effort you've made!) My concern re the WikiProject talk page was the way in which the FA nomination turned into article improvement discussion. I'm glad you've posted the moved template and I don't blame anyone for the way the discussion evolved. I brought it up as an article Stability concern. As for the article, I don't think it passes FA muster at present. I'll try to raise more specific concerns in the next few days. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why is the article title not "History of Macroeconomics?" Yes, yes, theoretically such an article could be about the actual macroeconomic history of the world rather than scholarly models, but it's perfectly clear what it means in practice. The very first sentence after the lede says "Macroeconomics descends from two areas of research: Business cycle theory and monetary theory" rather than "Macroeconomic theories and models descend from two areas of research." SnowFire (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is between theoretical and empirical macroeconomics. The inclusion of empirical macroeconomics would cover estimation methods (such as VAR models), statistics, and other such work. The current first sentences does specify "Macroeconomic theory has its origins in the study of business cycles and monetary theory," so I don't think there's an issue there. The entire subject of macroeconomics would be very broad, and it's better to focus on the development of theory.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that a theory-focused article could still rightly be called "History of Macroeconomics." Which is what {{Macroeconomics}} calls this article. And History of macroeconomics already redirects here. And as already noted the article itself just uses "Macroeconomics" several times. Even if someone were to write a "History of empirical macroeconomics" article, it could easily be linked to from the hatnote.
To put things another way, we have History of Buddhism, not History of Buddhist thought. Anyway, if you really really really think that readers would be confused by "History of macroeconomics," I suppose "History of macroeconomic theory" might be okay as well, and less pretentious than "thought", for all that I'd prefer a more succinct title. (That said, sorry to sidetrack your work on a sidenote, since the article title has little to do with the quality of the article - these comments should not be taken as an "oppose".) SnowFire (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was started as a fork of History of economic thought, and it's been focused on the scope of an "economic thought" article since then. A move to history of macroeconomics would not be appropriate. Regardless of how other subject matter is organized, focusing on history of thought is common within the field. "History of Economic Thought" (HET) is commonly used in economics and his considered a sub-discipline (see the standard JEL classifications and the New Palgrave article on HET). Even though "thought" may be more pretentious than "theory," "thought" is commonly used in the field and in other Wikipedia articles.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting comment -- This article has a lot of harv errors. Using the given ISBNs, I've fixed some of them with this script, but there are more to do. Janssen (2008), Neo-Keynesianism (1999), Fischer (2008), Mankiw (2005), and Solow currently don't point anywhere. Regards, Ruby2010/2013 22:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fixes you made and for the tip about the script. I used it to repair the remaining reference issues. Much better than going through each ref!--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! It's a great script, but I can't take credit for it. Looks like all the harv errors have now been excised from the article. Ruby2010/2013 15:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the "External links" section, I noticed there's an awful lot of (27) external links, mostly (23) podcasts and videos, some of which are sub-categorized as part of another external link. This section seems a bit large per WP:ELPOINTS-criteria 3; perhaps cutting out the sub-categorized links would help address that criteria and WP:ELPOINTS-criteria 4.
I removed several of the links. The only sub-categorized external links that could be used as a substitute would be the the links to Nobel prizes by year. These links wouldn't give as much information about the subject matter of the material.
In addition to moving several links, I have condensed the list of Nobel prizes to one link per year. There isn't any page that collects all macro related topics, so links to individual years are appropriate.
Per WP:IMAGELOCATION, staggered images should be placed so as to avoid text sandwiching between images. This is happening on my browser under New classical economics with the clause
"New classical economics" evolved from monetarism[100] and presented other challenges to Keynesianism. Early
I switched most of the images to right justification. This leads to some images being rendered below their respective sections.
DSGE is defined in Real business cycle theory and then redefined in New synthesis. It may be helpful to use DSGE, DSGETooltip dynamic stochastic general equilibrium, or DSGE for the first instance in the second section. Moreover, while I won't insist on it, using {{abbr}} for the first abbreviation in each paragraph will increase readability to those unfamiliar with the field.
I don't think there's a problem using the unabbreviated term a second time several sections later. I'm not completely opposed to using the abbreviation template when using DSGE, but I don't think it adds much and may be distracting.
Jargon terms:
I would suggest cutting rephrasing this: "atheoretical[jargon] statistical models" - I have no clue what that refers to and wikt lacks a suitable definition.
I tried to explain this term parenthetically.
I would suggest linking this term to wiktionary: "monetary policy had effectively been contractionary.[jargon][88]" E.g., contractionary.
I disagree with this being considered jargon. The term in economics is consistent with the general definition, and it's also introduced very early in when economics is taught. The Wiktionary "economics" definition for the term was also wrong; it does not refer exclusively to money supply.
I see where their was little context for interpreting "contractionary" and what exactly it meant in this case. I reworded the section to try and clarify this and provide context. I still don't think a Wiktionary link is appropriate since the term can be understood with a general dictionary definition.
Robert Solow testified before the U.S. Congress that DSGE models had "nothing useful to say about antirecession policy" because the conclusion that macroeconomic policy is impotent is built into the "essentially implausible assumptions" behind the model
I removed my couching and used Solow's quote in its original form.
Indicate which financial crisis this is in relation to (or revise section heading): "Robert Gordon criticized much of macroeconomics after 1978. Gordon called for a renewal of disequilibrium theorizing and disequilibrium modeling"
Similarly for: "While criticizing DSGE models, Ricardo J. Caballero argues that recent work in finance shows progress and suggests that modern macroeconomics needed to be re-centered but not scrapped.[204]"
I changed the headline. It should be very clear what financial crisis is being discussed.
Closing comment -- After remaining open six weeks and no commentary for a month I'm afraid this review has stalled, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): AdmrBoltz 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coming off the recent promotion of Interstate 70 in West Virginia I present the only auxiliary Interstate Highway in West Virginia — I-470. This article also passed A-Class review several years ago and was previously copy edited by the GoCE, just like I-70. I did ask for a Peer Review first, but it sat and was never picked up. AdmrBoltz 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Having stumbled here from my FAC, I had to stop by and comment, having read the article before. It's decent, but probably could've benefited from the peer review. That being said, most of my comments are fairly minor, and I would be happy to support with just a few tweaks.
In the opening sentence, it should be "that", not "which"
"The western terminus of I-470 is at an interchange with I-70 in Richland Township, Ohio." - just wondering, but is the "at" necessary here? The western terminus is the interchange, right?
I'm just curious, but considering how short the main article is, why does Interstate 470 Bridge have its own article? It seems like a perfectly logical merger, especially since that is a stub and is one of the biggest components of I-470.
This is not something that has been done before on any other Interstate or bridge article that I am aware of. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice, nowhere in the article does it say the road is in the United States. You might want to mention that somewhere for international readers.
"the highway turns northeast, towards the Wheeling communities of Bethlehem and Elm Grove and its eastern terminus at I-70 near Elm Grove." - why the comma?
Removed. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Construction of the freeway began in 1975 in the two states but due to a chronic lack of funding" - if you remove the comma from the above one, place it here after "states"
"passing Belmont Memorial Park and through woodlands" - awkward grammar construct. Right now, the "passing" should have parallelism between both subsequent entities, but you have [place] and you have [through place]. I'd recommend adding a preposition before Belmont, such as "near" for better parallelism.
" (equivalent to $95.3 million in 2011) - it's 2014
The inflation template only has data until 2011 for non Consumer Price items. Construction costs can't be accurately measured using consumer price indicies. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" A two and one-half-mile-long (4.0 km)" - since you have the km written as "4.0", the mileage should also be in number form. "2.5 mi" looks so much cleaner.
"Ohio had completed the stretch of highway between I-70 to just before the SR 7 interchange by 1976; but due to budget deficiencies work did not resume in Ohio until 1981." - don't use semicolon here, since the portion after the semicolon can't be its own sentence.
Switched to a comma. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"St. Anthony's Chapel in West Virginia had to be demolished to make way for construction of the interstate." - any significance of this? Is this the only building that was destroyed? Where was it located? Was it historical?
Its probably fluff at this point. I have removed it. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"about 1,699 ft" - you say about, but then you have an extremely precise measurement here :P
Rounded the figure. Its a bit odd since the source was in meters, and I am using the |disp=flip paramater. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" causing motorists who wished to travel through on I-70 to detour. The two detour routes were city streets in downtown Wheeling and the I-470 loop." - this could be written simpler.
This was the suggested wording from my previous FAC which had the same sentence in it. --AdmrBoltz 18:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Then West Virginia governor, Cecil Underwood, issued a proclamation on the 59th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor, naming I-470 in West Virginia the USS West Virginia Memorial Highway." - when was this?
All in all, the article is decent, but there are several problems right now. Let me know if you have any questions! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That all works. I noticed one other thing. With regards to the fourth paragraph of history, it has "roadway" twice in the same sentence, so removing the redundancy would be nice. As far as the bridge merger, I just thought that it should be addressed before this would become featured, considering it has some of the same info. I'm going ahead and proposing a merger myself, since it shouldn't directly affect the FAC much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant word removed. I still oppose the merger. --AdmrBoltz 19:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feels that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 01:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
File:I-470.svg, PD as a work of the US federal government (in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) with the appropriate trademark noted; no caption but highway name represented by the marker is noted right below it
File:I-70.svg, PD as a work of the US federal government (in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) with the appropriate trademark noted; no caption, used as decorative image in navbox
All images therefore check out on licensing status and captions. Imzadi 1979→ 04:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per first look at prose. "However" is a bad sign. I will review more fully later. --John (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However has been removed. --AdmrBoltz 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John: I have removed however and done some light copyediting. Would you be able to review this now? --AdmrBoltz 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a hack at the prose myself. I don't like seeing Google Maps used as a source; are there no better sources for these claims? --John (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Thank you. I have removed two of the Google Maps references. The one left in the Route Description needs to be there since neither the ODOT or the WVDOH map shows a bridge linking the two states. The second instance of Google Maps is in the exit list. WVDOH does not publish mileage logs on their website like mostnormalDOTsdo, thus I have to rely on Google Maps for mileage. --AdmrBoltz 13:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of other FAs use Google Maps for citation purposes, usually in concert with official DOT paper maps. For instance, there are 21 FAs on highways and major roadways in Michigan that use the satellite view on GMaps to cite the landscape when paired with the paper map. Such usages have been deemed acceptable, so I hope this isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the presence of the website in the footnotes. Imzadi 1979→ 00:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WVDOT GIS data doesn't have the information directly (the most obvious, bridges, doesn't work because CR 91/1 crosses over I-470), but take a look at the guardrails file: the side guardrails under that bridge stretch from 2.147 to 2.173 and 2.164 to 2.190. Still nothing useful for US 250 due to it being part of the Ohio River bridge. But if you take the eastbound side of I-470 and measure its length (calculate new field, expression '$length') you get 6351 m, which is 3.946 miles, very close to the 3.94 figure given by FHWA and the 'EMP' (end milepost) field. Finally split the way at the center of US 250 and recalculate, giving 860.7 m (0.53 mi). I'd round to 0.5 since if you go to two decimal places the endpoint becomes 3.95, not 3.94. --NE2 09:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now support on prose. Thanks for the work you have done on this fine, though short, article. --John (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
GBooks links don't need retrieval dates. Also, the one in FN4 is pointing to page 22, but the cite is to page 14
Fixed both. FN4 now points to page 14. --AdmrBoltz 16:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN29: is this a range or a single page? If the former, should use endash; if the latter, "p." not "pp." Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a single page. Corrected formatting. --AdmrBoltz 16:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Plans for a southern bypass of Wheeling were first published in 1955 in a document published by the Bureau of Public Roads" - apart from the awkward repetition of 'published', the source doesn't support that these were the first plans. Have you read the 1972 EIS? Often these have details on the history of planning that can be useful in the article. --NE2 08:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the sentence. As far as the 1972 EIS, if I had access to it, I would review it, however as stated in my I-70 review and in the ACR for this article I have very limited access to West Virginia sources as I live in Utah, my library databases don't cover a lot of WV topics. --AdmrBoltz 13:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still claim that plans were first published in the Yellow Book, when we don't actually know that.
The only EIS I see in WorldCat is OCLC29461905 which doesn't seem to be the EIS you are referring to, nor is it the complete EIS. I also doubt I can get it through an ILL in time for any sort of meaningful review.
Just a comment, but does NE2 have anything more than speculation that said EIS contains information that would dispute or discount the information present in the article? His comments above say "often they have", which isn't an unqualified "they have". In my experience, EISs have limited utility. They're good for details on controversial roadways, which is the type of roadway that will garner a lot of press attention. Ultimately it will be up to the delegates to resolve this, but as it stands, the article is well researched. Imzadi 1979→ 21:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree that the EIS is a bit of a crapshoot - sometimes it has useful stuff, sometimes it doesn't. But opposing on the off chance that it might have information that is relevant to the article (besides meaningless statistics that wouldn't be included anyway) is a bit problematic in my opinion. --Rschen7754 00:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources comment
I found one small formatting error: Ref 13, page range format requires ndash not hyphen. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nancy Mitford made her name as a writer of substance and wit with her postwar novels of upper class life and love. She was also an historical biographer of flair and originality, though it seems that her main joy in life was teasing—perhaps to deflect herself from the failure of her own pursuit of love. The eldest of the famous (infamous?) Mitford sisters, she fooled just about everyone in the 1950s with her notorious "U" and "non-U" division of the English language; there are still people who take that seriously. The Mitfords were interconnected to most of the main aristocratic families of the day, and there was plenty going on in the background (read the footnotes). Altogether, a rather interesting life, with equal measures of success and sorrow, and the books aren't so bad, either. Many thanks to Mr Riley for drafting the family diagram; comments welcome on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my say at the peer review, and the version as brought to FAC shows my (minor) concerns were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review The lead image is fair use and there is an appropriate rationale. All others show appropriate free licenses.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the peer review and the image check here, and for your support, much valued. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – after declaring a minor interest, viz the family tree which, as noted, I perpetrated. I had nothing to do with the text, apart from peer reviewing it, and in my view it clearly meets all the FA criteria. It is well proportioned, comprehensive but focused, extensively sourced and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am reliably informed that to "perpetrate" is to be responsible for a deception or a crime, etc. You did no such thing – I am very grateful for your input and other PR suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support indeed. I was another player at the peer review where my comments were satisfactorily addressed. A second read through this evening confirms to me that this article is of FA quality and I fully endorse its promotion to such. CassiantoTalk 20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've never cared for Nancy Mitford or her family, but this a great piece of work, easily meeting the FA criteria in my opinion. EricCorbett 20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eric for the numerous small prose and punc tweaks. I agree with them all. I've also followed your lead and amended all the ODNB subscription templates to the specific for. Your input and support are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be the first time I've been told that all I'm good for is moving a few commas around. Anyway, I hope you won't be cluttering up FAC for much longer with Nancy, as I've got a nomination of my own on the boil. EricCorbett 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; another PRer coming back to support an excellent article. Just one small comment on note 6, the "Pilot Officer" should be in lower case, as per WP:MILTERMS, as it's not being used as a proper name here. (If it was as a proper name, it would be "Pilot officer", with a lower case o). Another excellent and informative piece - thanks for a very enjoyable article. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected on this, will try and do better in future. Thanks for the support and (I suspect) for fixing the ellipses. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With so many rapid supports, I decided to look. The one concern I have is possible editorial additions, which is linked in some instances to how sources are given. For instance:
a. "His article, in a learned Finnish journal and complete with an illustrative glossary, used The Pursuit of Love to exemplify upper-class speech patterns. In a spirit of mischief, Mitford incorporated the U and Non-U thesis into an article she was writing for Encounter on the English aristocracy.[112]" The first sentence has no specific source, so I assume it either doesn't need one, or takes 112 from the next sentence. My questions are: 1. by whose assessment is the journal "learned" (if, indeed, a journal can be)? 2. Does Mitford (in the source) state that she wrote "In a spirit of mischief" or similar? I haven't seen it in a quick skim of the linked article, but perhaps it is there.
The term "learned journal" comes from the source (Hastings). Frankly, it is such a common description that I didn't think it worth specifically citing, but I have added a citation to the sentence. The "spirit of mischief" is my paraphrase of Hastings: "Scenting in the subject a superlative tease...", and of Nancy's own description of the article as "an anthology of teases". I agree that the positioning of the citations has not made the sourcing entirely clear, and am looking at ways of dealing with this without too much disruption of the text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
b. "Mitford was one of the few who was not intimidated by him, and saw the kindness and humour concealed behind his hostile public image.[24]". I see "Nancy saw past Waugh's persona of irascible old buffer" in the source, but is there something about being "one of the few who was not intimidated by him"?
This was my interpretation of the source, based on a considerable knowledge of Waugh and the effect he had on people; for example his son wrote: "I have seen generals and chancellors of the exchequer, six foot six and exuding self-importance from every pore, quail in front of him". Nancy obviously wasn't one of these. However, I agree that the quoted source doesn't go far enough to justify my interpretation. I've modified the wording and added an appropriate reference. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
c. "It is unsurprising that Mitford should first attempt to write a novel in the early 1930s, since many of her friends were doing the same thing. What is surprising, according to Thompson, is the ease ". The surprising thing is according to Thompson, but the unsurprising thing is just unsurprising. If they are from the same source, then linking them with a semicolon would help, as the current structure implies that the article's author, not Thompson, is the person who found something unsurprising.
Yes, Thompson is responsible for both the unsurprising and surprising aspects discussed, and I have slightly modified the wording to make this clear. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
d. "At times, however, a more serious undertone, entirely absent in the early works, becomes evident; Olivia Laing in the Guardian, discerns "a faint and beguiling pessimism about love's pursuit and its consequences" beneath the light superficiality.[145]" I see no text justifying "entirely absent in the early works" in the source given.
The first part of the sentence should have been cited separately, to Hastings p. 129. I have reworded and cited. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, and just using some of the sources that are available online, the largely admirable content of the article appears not to be wholly sourced. Perhaps some of these examples are attributable to the location of citations in the text, or to some information being obvious to those close to the matter. I'd like to see a comment on this, though, as not many of the sources are available online, and finding the above examples from them was not difficult. EddieHugh (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for these comments and for any more you care to add. Finally, with regard to your mention of "rapid supports", I would just point out that most of these come from reviewers who paid due attention at the article's peer review – they are not drive-by or reflex supports. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review:
Ref 5 formats the "online edition" for the ODNB in a different way to the other ODNB citations in refs 11, 12, 13, etc.
Done by another hand, now standardised. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10 (Soames ebook): Is there any way to be more precise than "Chapter one"? I know various ebook readers have some sort of "location" number to allow for finding particular parts of the book, but I notice that the google link does not have this facility. If the information came from the google version, I imagine we're stuck with just the chapter.
Regretfully, that is the case. If I come across the print version I can transfer the cite to that and include a page no. while still keeping the link. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 26 has pp for one page.
Be consistent in using (ed) or (ed.). Ref 37 uses the former, the others the latter.
Refs 111 and 113, which are to periodicals, do not use p or pp but just give the numbers. But 115, 116 and 151 also periodicals, do use pp. Possibly a template issue?
Comment The article is fine on prose and sourcing; I am not sure if the huge family tree is an asset. It overwhelms the early part of the article and breaks WP:ACCESS. I would just get rid of it. --John (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your view is probably in a minority on the chart, but thank you for your comments and ce. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notwithstanding my dislike of the huge family tree image; this is an aesthetic preference and I accept I am in a minority. It's a good article, well written and well-sourced. --John (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you should upload a better photograph.—indopug (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: I agree the original was a little fuzzy. I have replaced it with a sharper image - please cmt if necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's tons better! A most Mitfordish portrait. Spot on. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 21:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am renominating the Ramones (album) because I have put a substantial amount of work into it since the last FAC, as well as since it was a start class article (see difference). I believe it now meets all the criteria, as I've added more information and done some major copyediting. I recently rewrote the lead, which happened to be a major issue in the previous FAC. Anyways, please feel free to comment or ask any questions! CrowzRSA 21:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph under the quote in "Touring" needs a source. I'll probably return here for a full review soon when I get the time. Have you fixed all issues brought up in the last FAC? FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added reference. And yeah everything has been fixed except the fact that File:Ramones Toronto 1976.jpg still does not have an OTRS tag, as requested by User:Fasach Nua. The files uploader, Plismo at WikiMedia, has been off wiki since July 2011. CrowzRSA 21:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the bibliography/cited books under notes? FunkMonk (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems inconsistent on whether the band is to be called "Ramones" or "The Ramones". Looking at a similar example, Talking Heads' Remain in Light, the definite article seems to be dropped when the band's name doesn't include it. I don't really mind either way which this article uses (I'd defer to what the majority of sources go with) but it should be internally consistent.
Doing...
Fixed. I used "the Ramones" because it fits the context much better and is typically used more often than just "Ramones". The band is, in fact, just Ramones, but since each of the band members go by the last name of Ramone, the group is generally called the Ramones, with a lower case "t" in "the." I think it reads better now though. CrowzRSA 05:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted a "recognisable" in there; the album has strong ties to the US so the "-ize" spelling is the one to use. The only other one I spotted was "comprised", which, while spelt right (I'm pretty sure it's -ise worldwide) is being used incorrectly (should be "composed of" or "comprises"; User:Giraffedata/comprised of is worth a glance).
Fixed.
"Rombes described the structure of the piece as "both line in a song and song line across a line in a song."". I'm not really sure I understand what this is trying to say; perhaps it's worth paraphrasing instead for clarity?
Fixed. I just removed it since I can't make much sense of it either and it does not seem to be contributing anything significant.
The first sentence of "Reception" seems to indicate contemporary reception ("and was well received") but is immediately followed up with a modern review from AllMusic. The Rolling Stone review is from the time of release, and is from a bigger name to boot, so lead in with that one; if possible, it might be best to try ordering the reviews roughly chronologically so as not to confuse retrospective criticism with contemporary material.
Doing...
Okay, I think it should be fixed now. CrowzRSA 05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the box quote from Christgau could be trimmed a little, at 80+ words it's a little long for a snippet. My suggestion would be to replace "You couldn't say they condone any nasties, natch—they merely suggest that the power of their music has some fairly ominous sources and tap those sources even as they offer the suggestion" with an ellipses, though you might prefer to cut something else.
Fixed.
Again with the quote box, I know that having images parallel to one another, sandwiching text, is to be avoided and my assumption is that this applies to all floating elements too—given that the review box makes more sense up at the top of the section, I'd move the quote down a paragraph. It would still fit as it comes after Cristgau is mentioned in running prose.
Fixed.
"In 1999, Classic Albums by Collins GEM recognized Ramones as the start of English punk rock". This might be worth moving down to the section that expands upon this influence, as it seems a little confusing here; upon reading it I had to double check why England would be the focus and found that it was discussed later in the article, an unexpanded-upon statement like that would generally be better after the point is discussed, or during. I make sense to myself, anyway, if not to anyone else.
Fixed.
The rowspans in the custom track list tables being used will cause some problems with screenreaders, which goes against WP:ACCESS. The usual {{Track listing}} template should offer everything that you're getting from the current tables (there are options for extra fields so you can fit the backing vocals and refs in there), while having the benefit of being screenreader accessible. I would also manually remove the rowspans from the release history table for the same reason; repeating the cells for each row is no real loss given the gain for visually impaired readers.
Fixed.
Remove "Rovi" from the AllMusic refs; the sites have split again and "Rovi" appears not to be a thing any more.
Thank you so much for your comments!!! CrowzRSA 05:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with these changes; just giving it another wee comb through for any prose issues but that's all I have left to do and I'll fix anything I see myself; after that I'm satisfied. GRAPPLEX 06:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed one more thing combing through it—"...usually opening for an identified cover band". If they're identified, name them; unless this was meant to be "unidentified". GRAPPLEX 06:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm happy enough to support this provided the last minor comment above is resolved. Caveat: I'm by no means a great copy-editor, so sharper-eyed editors may still find things I've missed. GRAPPLEX 07:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great comments and support!!!! CrowzRSA 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a fantastic article. Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, but I figured I'd do a quick review to input my opinion (From Wikipedia's featured article guidelines):
1.It is-
a). Well written: ✔ Your prose is definitely engaging and interesting.
b). Comprehensive: Only comment I have here is you could maybe say more regarding the cover of Let's Dance towards the bottom of "Lyrics and Comprehension" and I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend in the same section. With all of the information about each of the other songs, not having the same information about these two songs kind of stick out to me.
Added more info to these songs. CrowzRSA 02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
c). Well researched: ✔ I think this is the high point, even with all the other great things about this article
d). Neutral: For the most part, I think this is good, because with such a significant album, you're going to have a lot of overwhelmingly positive viewpoints, but nevertheless, I think having a negative review under Reception might be a good way to make it come across as being unbiased.
I added what little info I could find about poor reception, which happened to be an article which summarized its initial critical reception. CrowzRSA 02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
e). Stable: ✔ Speaks for itself
2. Follows Style guidelines: ✔ Don't see any errors, somebody with more experience might, but it looks good to me
3. Media: ✔ Great usage of the media that is present
4. Length: ✔ Longer article, but needs to be given the historical significance
All in all, it looks absolutely fantastic to me! Great work Baltergeist (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sadly. Despite the nominator's claim otherwise, several of my (and others') criticisms from the first FAC remain unresolved. I found these problems with the article just from a quick readthru:
Reception: this section is highly confusing and needs to be completely rewritten.
First of all, it doesn't clearly distinguish between contemporary reviews (from the 70s) with retrospectives. These shouldn't even be in the same section.
Contradictions abound: "released on April 23, 1976 through Sire Records and was well received by critics" but "early reviews of the album are hard to come by" and "many early critics giving somewhat negative reviews". What?
Cleared things up, but what do you suggest if there aren't any publications online of an old negative review other than the fact that one source infers that it initially received neutral reviews and are in fact hard to find. CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This reflects in the lead too, where retrospective adulation from the 1990s/2000s is used to prove that the album was released to acclaim in 1976: "Ramones was very well received by critics. It was rewarded numerous five-star reviews, with many writers commenting on the album's establishment of the punk-rock genre"
That review box also only makes matters worse, presenting the above-mentioned negative RS review as "favorable". Again, retrospectives and contemporary reviews are mixed up.
Poor sourcing: one review is from Envato, a "privately held company that specializes in the start-up, promotion and operation of multiple online marketplaces which facilitate the exchange of digital goods". Also, blurbs from a Sire Records flyer have been used as reviews here. I also see Amazon. These issues mean that all the sources must be looked at carefully.
What's wrong with using a flyer? When did Amazon become unreliable? What are you saying about Envato, you just state what it says in a Wikipedia article, and Envato is only the parent company, as you can see in the ref.
All those book sources: have you seen the entire books or are you relying on Google Books excerpts?
A few of them are from Google, but why does this matter? CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose: needs a thorough copyedit. I started one a few weeks back, but had to stop, defeated, at "The recording process was a deliberate exaggeration of the techniques used on the recording sessions of the Beatles from the early 1960s, with a four-track recording representation of the devices. ... The mixing of the recordings also used more modern techniques such as overdubbing, a technique used by recording studios to add a supplementary recorded sound to previously recorded material."
Fixed
Excessive detail on tangential topics: the article often goes into too much detail about individual songs, many of which have their own articles. Examples of this include the Singles sub-section, which lists out commercials on which "Blitzkrieg Bop" featured. Also, the pointless "Cover versions and tributes" section which, by the way, also prevents the article from ending with a great line (from the Classic Albums book).
I concur on the singles subject, I removed the commercial info. But why do you think the "Cover versions and tributes" is pointless? It explains how so many different bands have found these songs so intriguing that they covered them. Are you suggesting that this article neglect the fact that these songs have been covered by so many different bands? That goes against criteria 1b. CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrics and compositions: probably needs a rewrite. This section should be about the overall musical and lyrical themes on the record, not the music and lyrics of every song listed sequentially. That I can find at the songs' articles.
The song's articles need additional verification and the section is entitled "Lyrics and compositions", not "Musical style". And why would I not give the lyrical meanings in this article? Is this not what the majority of people want to know? The lyrics portray different themes, and each song's concept can be verified with reliable sources, so why wouldn't it be put into the article about an album containing these songs? It's not like this section only talks about the lyrics. CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting: needs to be made consistent. Why do cites without a link have "retrieved on"?
Why not? Does not go against WP:REF. CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release history: another unnecessary section. Why would the general reader need to know about so many release dates and catalogue numbers?
So if they own a copy they can see which one they have? CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a smattering of the problems with this article, which seem to run very deep indeed.—indopug (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! CrowzRSA 01:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to revisit this tomorrow.—indopug (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree and vote oppose per indopug. Sorry. Tezero (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
unlink the dollar in the lead and other sections of the prose per WP:OVERLINK
Done
"the instruments took three days and the vocals four"; this should be modified somehow, let's say "the vocal parts were recorded in four days" or something else; in this state, it sounds slightly confusing and there's a big chance it could be misinterpreted
Fixed
"initially had mixed review" is it "reviews", because this implies that the record had received one review which was mixed
Fixed
Robert Christgau gave the album an "A"→avoid stating grades already visible in the table; "and continued with a positive review"→were there some negative aspects in his review? If so, write what Christgau criticized. If not, omit "continued".
Fixed
link punk rock in the opening sentence of "Legacy and influence"
Done
must say the tables are quite original (a comment aside from the review)
Yeah I originally had the Track listing section in table form but removed it per WP:ACCESS.
Generally speaking, pretty solid article. This definitely has my support.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!!! CrowzRSA 01:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tally (CrowzRSA 01:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
CrowzRSA, the article is fantastic! I SUPPORT it unconditionally.
WP:LEAD: The lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis.
Major Point 1: Background "After Craig Leon agreed to produce the album, the band recorded a demo for prospective record labels. After much encouragement, Sire president Seymour Stein offered the band a recording contract" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, first para involving Lisa Robinson should be summarized.)
Major Point 2: Recording and production "and the Ramones began recording in February 1976." & "Needing only seven days and $6,400 to record, Ramones used similar sound-output techniques to those of the Beatles." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
Major Point 3: Photography and packaging "The album cover, photographed by Punk magazine's Roberta Bayley, featured the four members leaning against a brick wall in north-side New York City." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
Major Point 4: Promotion "After its release, Ramones was promoted with two singles and several tour dates." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
Major Point 4.2: Touring "… several tour dates." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
Major Point 5: Lyrics and compositions "Lyrical themes center around violence, male prostitution, drug use, and Nazism, but the albums also incorporates relationship issues and humor into lyrics. It opens with "Blitzkrieg Bop," which is among the band's most recognizable songs. Most of the album's tracks are noticeably uptempo, with many songs clocking at well over 160 beats per minute. The songs are also rather short; at two-and-a-half minutes, "I Don't Wanna Go Down to the Basement" is the album's longest track. Ramones also contains a cover of the Chris Montez song "Let's Dance."" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, the individual themes of these tracks can be highlighted, also I could not find the "which is among the band's most recognizable songs" in the body, although I can guess from the statement "three-chord assault" and the Cover versions and tributes section.)
I think that if the lead were expanded to include each of the song's lyrical themes, it would no longer conform with WP:LEADLENGTH. CrowzRSA 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Major Point 6: Reception "Despite peaking at number 111 on the US Billboard 200, Ramones was deemed influential by many critics; however, initial reviews for the album tended to be neutral." (summarised well in the lead)
Major Point 6.1: Accolades "The album has received many accolades as well, earning the top spot on Spin magazine's list of the "50 Most Essential Punk Records."" (summarised well in the lead)
Major Point 7: Legacy and influence "Ramones went on to inspire many bands like the Sex Pistols, the Buzzcocks, the Clash, and Green Day. Aside from sparking the punk-rock scene in both the US and UK, it has had a significant impact on other branches of rock music, such as grunge and heavy metal." (summarised well in the lead)
Other issues:
The lead says "After much encouragement, Sire president …", the Background section says "After persuasion from …", the lead can be closer in meaning, I think.
I think the statement "Needing only seven days and $6,400 to record, Ramones used similar sound-output techniques to those of the Beatles" should be broken into two "Needing only seven days and $6,400 to record" and "Ramones used similar sound-output techniques to those of the Beatles". How is speed and expenditure related to techniques of the Beatles?
Fixed and cleared up wording CrowzRSA 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite peaking at number 111 on the US Billboard 200 … . The album has received many accolades as well, earning the top spot on Spin magazine's list of the "50 Most Essential Punk Records." Both sides of as well are rankings, so how is this transition relevant?
"Aside from sparking the punk-rock scene in both the US and UK, it has had a significant impact on other branches of rock music, such as grunge and heavy metal." I could not find the fact that it sparked only in these two countries. Also, I believe that this sentence can be more effectively paraphrased. I’m not sure there is a link between the two clauses, the punk rock is mentioned in examples of genres impacted in the Legacy and influence as are grunge and heavy metal.
It gives examples of bands which were either involved in US or UK punk rock
"Regardless of this critical acclaim, Ramones was not as successful commercially." Compared to what? I think as is redundant or may be sentence can be more clear.
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. CrowzRSA, it's my first review at FAC, so please feel free to strike out any recommendation which you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn♥ 17:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and great comments!! CrowzRSA 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Indopug and Tezero, can you pls revisit in light of changes since your comments and let us know how the article appears to you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, my initial review pointed out issues that couldn't possibly have been fixed during the course of an FAC. Further, the nominator has not even attempted to address several of these significant problems—lack of focus (excess details on individual songs rather than the overall album), comprehensiveness (not a word on Johnny Ramone's iconic rapid-fire guitar style!), poor prose (needing an independent copyeditor) and poor sourcing. Most of the 1976 reviews of the album are sourced to an advertisement, and the first sentences of Reception remain incomprehensible:
Ramones was released on April 23, 1976 through Sire Records and initially had mixed reviews. Being reviewed by few critics upon its release, many writers leaned towards a neutral rating. Music critic Adam Brown explains that early reviews of the album are hard to come by, calling initial reactions "basically, non existent." Despite some early critics giving it a somewhat negative reviews
I haven't the time to look at the rest of the article in detail again. But I will say that given that the album is one of the greatest, there is no paucity of scholarly literature on it and the band. These need to be extensively researched (I don't think this has happened—for one, the nominator has admitted to relying on Google Books excerpts) before it can reach the standard of album FAs such as Loveless, Be Here Now or In Utero.—indopug (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, I needed to see where we were at. Clearly there's no chance of this achieving consensus to promote, even after remaining open six weeks. The passage above is a good indication that a thorough copyedit is still needed, and is not an isolated example. On the briefest of scans I noticed "The mixing of the production also used more modern techniques such as overdubbing, a technique used by studios to add a supplementary recorded sound to material. The band also used a technique known as doubling, where the vocal line used is sung twice." -- seems to me that "of the production" is redundant; "techniques" is used three times in the two sentences; "also used" appears in both sentences, which each employ "used" twice on top of that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is small and concise - has everything the layperson could want to know about this critter. 99of9 and I will answer issues promptly - so have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what is it? "Thopha saccata, commonly known as the double drummer, is a species of cicada native to Queensland and New South Wales." That's what. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh - I guess easter egg links are lousy at attracting reviewers...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you drop them? I guess we could ask those that reviewed the Floury Baker? --99of9 (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
Feel free to disagree with any of the silly comments this non-expert may make.
Why the parentheses for "Cicada saccata (Fabricius, 1803)" but not for "Tettigonia saccata Fabricius, 1803"
"The genus name is derived from thoph (Hebrew: תּוֹף) "drum".": does this mean they gave it the genus name?
They are all drummers of some kind, and all males have big tymbal covers [35]. But yes it was one of the first in the genus, as is mentioned in the previous sentence. --99of9 (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"of any insect on earth": "on earth" can be taken for granted
removed. --99of9 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""almost unbearable"": can this not be rephrased rather than quoted?
For this and the strident shrieking, I think quotes are quite a good way to relate qualitative observations without imposing our own adjectives. But I'd be happy to see a suggestion - perhaps I don't properly understand your suggestion. --99of9 (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the original wording was pretty vivid and memorable, which is why I left it in quoted. Happy to hear if anyone thinks of some other wording.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but quotations are supposed to be attributed, and I thought a rewording might be better than an "according to" in this case. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
aah ok, point taken...will get out my trusty thesaurus...changed first to "earsplitting" which carries the same connotationCas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"While underground the nymphs are susceptible to fungal disease.": I had to read this three or four times before I could parse it—move "while underground" to the end?
agreed. --99of9 (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in an often extensive 'catacomb',": again, shouldn't this be double quotes?
All the images are on Commons and appear to be appropriately tagged and licenced, including one from 1885 that has fallen into the public domain and another created by one of the nominators. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text would be nice, but not an FAC requirement apparently.
MOS:IMAGELOCATION says left-aligned images that start a section can cause readers problems, though apparently some editors disagree.
The long taxobox gives little scope for images if we have to make them all right-aligned. I have problems now in that we all edit from different-sized/shaped screens so is becoming harder to lay out images that work in all settings.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref check
I've only checked formatting—haven't visited the sources themselves.
Inconsistency in page range formatting: "227–233" for Ref#2, "225–38" for Ref #6 & all others
Fixed ref 2. --99of9 (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The natural history of Sydney, On biomimetics, Australian insects: a natural history should be in title case
"(Sydney, NSW : 1895 – 1930)", "The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 – 1954)", "The Mail (Adelaide, SA : 1912 – 1954)", "(Rockhampton, Qld. : 1878 – 1954)", "The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 – 1933)", "The Catholic Press (NSW : 1895 – 1942)": drop the spaces around the endash and before the colon. Why these date ranges?
date ranges removed - they were reference ranges as to what the national library of Australia holds - but is unnecessary for reader to knowCas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks like all my concerns have be taken care of. Sorry it took me a while to return to the review. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Sorry Cas, but with only one in-depth review in a month and a half, we'll have to call it a day and try again some other time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - was taken aback at lack of input, but I guess something about it just looked unpolished to passers-by. Will get a peer review. I am guessing that the prose could do with a bit of buffingCas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hi all, and back with another lost film article from the Dutch East Indies. As with Sorga Ka Toedjoe last year, there was no plot information available for this film in online sources (or recently published ones). Luckily (also as with Sorga Ka Toedjoe) the novelisation was held at Taman Siswa's museum, not too far from my home. Thus, this article represents the first online publication of this film's plot.
Another interesting fact about Asmara Moerni is that its male star is now considered a National Hero of Indonesia, making him (as far as I know) the only National Hero to have worked in film. I hope you enjoy this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Taylor Trescott
The prose and infobox use Rd. Ariffien; the article on him, filmindonesia, and the "directed by" category omit the full stop. Which one is it?
Without (though since Rd is an abbreviation, Rd. would be correct in American English) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(now Jakarta) - We should use (today Jakarta), I initially thought this referred to the plot of the film
Not in any of the sources I've seen. Sadly this is all too common for films from this era... documentation is really lacking. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe adjust the captions to say "Promotional stills for the film featuring its stars Djoewariah and Adnan Kapau Gani" just to be clear
Agree it could be reworked, but I've used a different phrasing. How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the film emphasised Gani's education (he was a medical doctor in real life)" We know he was a medical doctor from the production section, so the doctor bit should be removed or reworked
Produksi Film Negara, or PFN, was the state-operated film studio from the time (it started from a merger of Berita Film Indonesia and Regerings Film Bedrijf, and was later renamed PPFN [Perum Produksi Film Negara]; we have at least one article on the company's productions, Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI). I've added a redlink. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I like the "...is a likely lost 1941 romance film" construction in the lead. Given how brief the lead is, I don't think it would be a bad idea to drop the "likely lost" from this and turn it into a clause or sentence a little later (perhaps adding "The film is now likely lost." after "for Union Film"?).
Added it at the
Is "the capital at Batavia" right? I've never been great at these things but I assumed it would be along the lines of "the capital, Batavia". Perfectly willing to be corrected on this.
I seem to recall things working both ways, though I agree that the comma city construction will draw less criticism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Tati is a quick study". I don't think a person is a study unless they're being studied; perhaps "Tati is a fast learner" or words to that effect?
Actually, it is an idiom. Though fast learner is possibly more encyclopedic. Changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not an article comment, but that's not really much of a happy ending.
We could probably look at it as the ultimate triumph of the modern-capitalist society over the traditional one, or something deep like that, but nothings been published of the like. Saeroen really enjoyed contrasting tradition and modernity through villages and cities... I'm tempted to write a journal article about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the paired portraits, I'd consider adding a "(left) and (right)" notation; the alt text could be a little more descriptive too (just add which one's the female lead and which the male lead, as I can only assume a screenreader just reading two names and then the caption might be a little jarring).
"Gani and Joesoef made their feature film debut," -> This reads oddly to me; perhaps "It was the feature film debut of Gani and Joesoef", as this keeps the film the subject and not an incidental mention.
Just one last gripe—you have " Karl G. Heider writes that all Indonesian film...", then very shortly afterwards, " film historian Misbach Yusa Biran writes that...". The "X writes" construction seems uncommon enough to stand out, especially twice in a paragraph, I'd change one or another to a synonym just for variety. GRAPPLEX 02:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the first to "suggests". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. GRAPPLEX 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GRAPPLEX 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article 31 is the one that applies to anonymous works, under paragraph 2 ("The Copyright on works which are held or exercised by the State, pursuant to: ... Article 11 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) shall be valid for 50 (fifty) years as of the first time the work is known to the public.") The Copyright of works as referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this article, and Article 29 paragraph (1) which are owned or held by a legal body, shall be valid for 50 (fifty) years as of from the first publication."), article 11.3 stating "If a work has been published and the Author and/or the publisher of which are unknown, the State shall hold the Copyright on such a work for the interest of the Author." This template would also apply if the cover were owned by the publisher. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Very nice indeed. Only a couple of very minor points to look at, but I think this is a very solid and easily readable piece:
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
As I said in my introduction to this article's first nomination, this was one of my two favourite books as a kid, and I want to do it justice. It's a Victorian boy's own ripping yarn of shipwreck, pirates, cannibals, self-sufficiency, you name it, and the inspiration for William Golding's dystopian Lord of the Flies. Unfortunately I managed to get myself blocked during the previous FAC – hard to believe I know – and so Drmies thought it prudent to withdraw the nomination. But now we're back for a second bite at the cherry. EricCorbett 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
"one of the top twenty Scottish novels at the 15th International World Wide Web Conference in 2006": why is the opinion of a bunch of tech nerds in 2006 so siginficant to the novel that this should close (or even be in) the lead? I'd think that other tidbits would be more interesting, such as that it was on recommended reading lists, or that it's had a number of adaptations as recently as 2000.
I don't disagree; let me ponder that some. Drmies (talk)
I've changed that. EricCorbett 19:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph of "Biographical background and publication" jumps all over in time: published in 1858, but, oh, wait, actually 1857, and before that he wrote something else, and after that he wrote even more, meanwhile back in 1858 ... not that I can see anything wrong with it, but it can't discern the logic that has produced this ordering.
Hmm. If you put it that way, it sounds pretty disorganized, but I myself don't see the problem in the paragraph as it stands right now. I'll leave this for Eric to judge. Drmies (talk)
I don't really see the problem with that paragraph, but I've made a small change nevertheless. EricCorbett 20:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"three of them published in 1858, the year of The Coral Island": is this meant to include The Coral Island, which as we've just been informed was published in 1857?
I wonder if this isn't simply the result of that source, Townsend, and how it phrases things; I don't have access to that at the present, but maybe Eric does. Drmies (talk)
OK, I simply cut the "the year of TCI" bit, which is a bit confusing for the reason you pointed out, and redundant, since the point about his productivity in that time is clear, I think. Drmies (talk)
"The Coral Island was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series.[8]": Were they the first to publish it besides Nelson, or was this in some other way a milestone?
OK, I looked at the reference again: the point is that the novel is that it's not very popular anymore even though it's called a classic (and published as such): "In his now classic, if no longer popular, adventure story The Coral Island..." Perhaps someone with better rhetorical skills can tweak the sentence to make the point? Drmies (talk)
"centre stage as the main characters": is "centre stage" not redundant to "the main characters"?
"the Victorian age based its imperialist ideology": can an "age" do such a thing?
In my business (English), yes. YMMV, of course. Drmies (talk)
""white, English superiority that was anchored in the notion of a civilized nation elected by God to rule inferior peoples."": is this a quote from the book?
I don't think Ballantyne could have conceived such a statement. I presume it's from McCulloch, reference in the next sentence, but I don't have that source here at home. We'll check, and perhaps add the old "according to". Drmies (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed from McCulloch, not Ballantyne. We could add the old "according to" if necessary, but I find it's overuse a bit stulted, particularly in cases such as this, where the statement seems to me to be entirely uncontentious. EricCorbett 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The story is written as a first person narrative from the perspective of one of three boys shipwrecked on the coral reef of a large but uninhabited Polynesian island, 15-year-old Ralph Rover." I think it'd read better if "15-year-old Ralph Rover" came after "perspective of"
"an 1845 wedding in which a duchess was presented with coral ornaments": that's tantalizing—could we get the duchess's name?
I'll check the source. FWIW, that Victorian coral thing is fascinating, and I'm still surprised that my (Victorian and modernist) colleagues don't find it as exciting as I do. Drmies (talk)
I've been checking, and it was the Duchess d'Aumale, which I've added to the note. Turns out as well that the wedding actually took place in late 1844, not 1845, so I've corrected that as well. EricCorbett 19:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A capsule history of Ballantyne would be nice (even just a sentence or two). As it is, we're told that a bunch of tech nerds consider the book one of the top Scottish novels, but the body doesn't even mention that Ballantyne was Scottish.
Hmm. The opening sentence of the lead does... I don't remember the references making much of his Scottishness. Eric, do you? Or, can you satisfy Curly Turkey? Drmies (talk)
The lead states quite explicitly that Ballantyne was Scottish, as you say, so I don't see the problem. Is there some doubt that Ballantyne was Scottish? EricCorbett 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally a "capsule history" would contain more than a nationality—I was hoping for some context behind the man who wrote the book, not details on his Scottishness. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. EricCorbett 14:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a short paragraph giving a summary of Ballantyne's life up to the point he wrote The Coral Island. EricCorbett 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More than I was hoping for—it looks good. I don't know if you think it's worth linking or otherwise clarifying, but the Canada Ballantyne visited would've been the pre-Confederation colony the Province of Canada, assuming he arrived after 10 February 1841. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment: I'm pleased to see this here. At present I've not had time for more than a glance, but I notice that you say that after The Coral Island Ballantyne "subsequently only wrote about things of which he had personal experience." In 1858 he published Martin Rattler, which was set in the Brazilian jungle, and in 1861 The Gorilla Hunters, set in Africa. I don't believe he visited either of these places – in fact his ODNB entry states explicitly that he didn't: "He set other works in places he had not visited, such as Brazil (Martin Rattler, 1858) and equatorial Africa (The Gorilla Hunters, 1861), but he preferred to write from experience." So it appears your statement should be modified. I hope to take a closer look at the article later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting observation. I'll look a bit more deeply into that and get back to you. EricCorbett 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Tucker's book is not available enough in Google Books; Eric, was this on your shelf? We have it in the library, so I could have a look next week. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I paraphrased Tucker a little too aggressively. What he says is that Ballantyne "resolved never to write about things he had not come across first-hand", not that he never did again after his error with coconuts in this book. I'll correct that. EricCorbett 17:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you have now is better, but it still bothers me slightly, since he wrote two further books on places he'd never been to, before effecting his resolve not to do that. My guess is that it was a while before Ballantyne realised his coconut howler, after he had written the two books. To cover this, I would slightly amend so that the sentence reads: "A stickler for accuracy, when he realised his mistake he resolved never again to write about things..." etc.
To my mind the issue isn't about places he'd never been to but rather about things he had no experience of. EricCorbett 03:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Things, places – the principle is the same. The statement as it stands doesn't exactly cover the actual situation, and should be amended so that it does. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "... he resolved that in future, whenever possible, he would only write about things of which he had personal experience." EricCorbett 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few further observations:
I'm inclined to agree with Mr Turkey, above, that the Background section should include a little more background on Ballantyne himself, e.g that he was largely unschooled, and received his education from his mother and sisters, that he spent five years of his youth in the wilds of Cannada as a trader, that his writing career was based on the journals he wrote during his Canada days. These things would be of interest to the reader. They can all be cited to his ODNB article.
OK, I've added a short precis of Ballantyne's life up until the point he wrote The Coral Island. EricCorbett 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In discussing the relationship to Golding's Lord of the Flies it might be worth noting that Golding even named his two main characters "Jack" and "Ralph".
Ralph was already mentioned, but I've added Jack. And Peterkin/Piggy. EricCorbett
What is the source of the statement that "between £50 and £60" in 1858 is equivalent to £40,000 today? It sounds like one of Measuringworth's theoretical calculations which often produce extraordinary results. For example, the prime minister's salary at that time was £5000 a year, which on the same conversion basis would be £3.6 million today. This BBC article equates £5000 in 1830 with £425,000 today, which seems more reasonable and would make Ballantyne's £50 to £60 worth between £4250 and £5100.
The calculation is explained and cited in note c. EricCorbett 03:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed the citation which, as I thought, is to Measuringworth. The problem with this site is, I believe, its over-theoretical approach. Its calculations do not take account of the entirely different wages structures and economic circumstances of past eras, and thus their comparative earnings figures always tend to give a distorted picture. Most readers will boggle at the thought that an income of £50–£60 then is worth £40,000 now. But it's basically a matter for you. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your reservations about Measuringworth, particularly when it come to project costing. In this case though I think we'd be on pretty safe ground just going with an inflation adjusted amount rather than comparing average earnings, which gives a figure of around £5800 according to the Bank of England's inflation calculator. EricCorbett 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see much else I would choose to change, and look forward to supporting. I am doing a sources review and will add that shortly. Brianboulton (talk)
Support: All my concerns, expressed above, have been met in full, and my minor sources issues (see below) are satisfactorily resolved. There may be further tinkerings to improve the article, but as it stands it meets the criteria for FA status. And was enjoyable to read, too, which is something of a bonus. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's Eric's writing you're talking about. Thank you for your comments Brian, and Eric, thanks for taking care of issues while I was sleeping on the job. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sporadic comments from Anythingyouwant
I took the liberty of slightly tweaking the lead by inserting the bolded word: "It was the inspiration for William Golding's dystopian novel Lord of the Flies (1954), which inverted the morality of The Coral Island: in Ballantyne's story the children encounter evil, but in The Lord of the Flies evil is within them." This easily distinguishes whether the 1954 thing was a novel, film, play, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fond of this sentence: "He wrote The Coral Island while staying in a house on the Burntisland seafront, opposite Edinburgh on the Firth of Forth, and according to Ballantyne biographer Eric Quayle borrowed extensively from an 1852 novel by the American author James F. Bowman, The Island Home." It's a rather long sentence, covering different subjects, and ought to be split in two at the second comma. Moreover, this material would become more user-friendly if the "Firth of Forth" were briefly explained for the dummies who would otherwise have to interrupt reading this article to go look at that one; just add something like, "which is the area where the River Forth flows into the North Sea".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
As you wish, changed. EricCorbett 03:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the next sentence: "He also borrowed from John Williams' Narrative of Missionary Enterprises (1837), to the extent that Rod Edmond has suggested that Ballantyne must have written one chapter of The Coral Island with Williams' book open in front of him, so similar is the text." In the previous sentence, you kindly said who Quayle is, and it's obvious that Bowman and Williams are novelists, but what of Edmond? Just some guy who said something? I'd recommend some slight identification, like "Professor" Rod Edmond.[38]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edmond is just some guy who wrote a book isn't he? Anyway, I've now identified him as a "cultural historian". EricCorbett 03:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence seems a bit odd: "Although the first edition is dated 1858 it was on sale in bookshops from early December 1857; dating books forward was a common practice at the time, especially during the Christmas period.[7]" Okay, but if this is worth mentioning then maybe it's worth explaining. Eric previously said at the talk page, “I could speculate that it was a marketing ploy to increase sales at Christmas time, and I'd be pretty sure I was right, but I've got no authoritative answer as to why it was common.” Well, if we don’t know then why burden the reader with it? In any event, postdating books was done so that books issued at the end of a year would not so soon lose their freshness.[39]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem odd to me. EricCorbett 04:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You lack objectivity. You're causing the reader to ask himself "Why the hell would they want to post-date books?" And you're not giving a clue as to the answer: so that the book would seem fresh the next year. Without giving an explanation, it seems more like useless trivia; it makes no more sense than saying "they postdated books published on Tuesdays but not on Thursdays". Make things easy on the reader, that's my advice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I lack objectivity? Then I'll have to leave this to Drmies. EricCorbett 04:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I want to keep this is that it explains why some sources give 1857 as the year of publication and others 1858, and that such a practice was quite common during the Victorian period, not at all unusual. EricCorbett 02:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if it's kept, but can you tweak the phrasing to very briefly explain the reason for post-dating? As I understand, it really had very little to do with Christmas, and much more to do with New Year's. If someone bought a book in late December (as a Christmas present, a Hannukah present, or as no present at all), then this post-dating custom made the book seem fresh even into the new year. So, I'd rephrase like this: "Although the first edition is dated 1858 it was on sale in bookshops from early December 1857; dating books forward was a common practice at the time, so that the book would seem fresh even into the new year.[7]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On to this sentence (emphasis added): "Ballantyne received between £50 and £60,[14] equivalent to about £40,000 as of 2011,[c] but when the novel's popularity became evident and the number of editions increased he tried unsuccessfully to buy back the copyright." You can probably guess my gripe here. Can we at least have the dollar amount in note c? I say this not as an Ugly American (which I am), but as a citizen of the world, whose leading currency is (still, for good or ill) the almighty dollar.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is no, it's difficult enough to get a sterling equivalent. But maybe you or Drmies is cleverer than I am and can perform some magic. EricCorbett 04:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Measuringworth can do the conversion for you from 2012 pounds to 2012 dollars.[40]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very idea of "2012 dollars" is mythical given how widely the exchange rate varies throughout the year—especially since a dollar's buying power desn't necessarily change when the exchange rate does, and I think it's buying power that a reader would want to know. I'd rather see the "today's equivalent" done away with as well (though I don't intend to make an issue of it). We can already see that two different "reliable" calculations have given us £40,000 and £5800. The value of money "means" different things the further the distance in time—given enough time that "meaning" gets lost in the "translation". "Curly" "Turkey" "("gobble")" 23:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the word "approximately" is for. :-) But I agree with you, Curly, that getting rid of 2012 equivalents altogether would solve the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The £40,000 was calculated on the basis of average earnings. What we're using now (£5800) is based on buying power, which is clearly explained. EricCorbett 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care one way or the other whether this Wikipedia article provides a 2012 monetary equivalent of the 1857 amount, but if it does provide such an amount of British pounds, then why not also include an approximate equivalent in US dollars?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's enough of a distortion converting pounds to pounds—seriously it's a bad, bad, bad idea. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per this source, during the year 2012, one British Pound would buy you between 1.54 and 1.62 dollars. That is, you could multiply a pound amount by slightly more than 1.5 to get a dollar amount. Saying so in a mere note to this Wikipedia article is not the least bit problematic, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's makework, and far less "unproblematic" than you think—for example, how does the calculation work out with regards to Purchasing power parity? The meaning of these figures is different from what a mere calcuation expresses—the rate at which units of currency exchange is not the same as their value to those who use them, and we're talking amounts of currency from a century and a half ago when the meaning of those figures was quite different again from what it is today. A further currency calculation is just adding distortion to an already distorted figure. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Curly Turkey. It's tricky enough choosing the best conversion for sterling amounts, never equivalent dollar amounts. EricCorbett 13:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of uncertainty is in converting old pounds to new pounds, as compared to converting new pounds to new dollars. Putting the exchange rate in a note seems usual.[41]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's usual, as I've only rarely seen it done, and that only when the subject is clearly connected to the US, which isn't the case here. EricCorbett 17:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly won't be the first Wikipedia editor to knowingly make an article more difficult to understand. This is a small point, and probably won't affect my overall opinion of the article, but it will be interesting to see if anyone else has any comments about this small point. Per United States Dollar (the lead): "The U.S. dollar is the fiat currency most used in international transactions...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't in 1858. Your request seems no more reasonable to me than demanding that all US articles covering the Victorian period provide sterling equivalent values. EricCorbett 19:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I'll say is that if you're a reader unfamiliar with spending pounds, then the value £5800 will not have meaning, and the reader will not understand that it equals about $9000.00.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may equate to $9000 today, but what about in 1858? EricCorbett 20:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 15 says "Cite error: The named reference BOE was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“He wrote bitterly to Nelsons in 1893”. Please check whether an apostrophe is missing from "Nelson's".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No missing apostrophe, and no reason why there should be one there anyway. EricCorbett 17:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey and Drmies discussed this sentence above: "The Coral Island was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series.[2]" I agree that a brief explanation would be useful of why this particular publication is singled out among many. I suggest, "The Coral Island – still considered a classic – was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series.[2]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this sentence: "It preserves, according to literary critic Minnie Singh, the moralizing aspects of didactic texts, but does so (and in this regard it is a 'founding text') by the 'congruence of subject and implied reader': the story is about boys, and told by a (former) boy to an audience of boys.[17]" The congruence of subject and implied reader would be accurately described without the words "by a (former) boy", the subject being "about boys" and the implied reader being "an audience of boys". Crossing out the words "by a (former) boy" would also clarify and strengthen the sentence because readers might scratch their heads and ask what the difference is between a "(former) boy" and a man.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten as "... the story is about boys and written retrospectively as though by a boy, for an audience of boys". EricCorbett 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and in attempting to intervene are taken prisoner". By the non-converted ones?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection the battle isn't really all that important, so I've rewritten that bit. EricCorbett 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the way these two separate parts begin:
Literary and historical context The Coral Island follows in a long tradition of Robinsonades, a genre initiated by Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe (1719). Published during the "first golden age of children's fiction",[7] it began a trend in boys' fiction by using boys as the main characters, a device now commonplace in the genre.[17]....
Genre and style All Ballantyne's novels are, in his own words, "adventure stories for young folks", and The Coral Island is no exception.[11] It is a Robinsonade, a genre of fiction inspired by Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe,[27] one of the most popular of its type,[1] and one of the first works of juvenile fiction to feature exclusively juvenile heroes.[28][17]
This seems like almost the same material, and the reader may misdiagnose himself with deja vu.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Maher notes...." This is the first and only mention of Maher, and many readers will be asking themselves, "Where was Maher mentioned previously? Did I miss something?" This could be avoided by saying "Dr. Susan Maher" instead. Alternatively, you could go through the whole article and ensure that the other experts are introduced using last name only, but saying "Dr. Susan" is better and easier IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this sentence: "Romance, with its attention to character development, was only restored to the genre of boys' fiction with Stevenson's Treasure Island argues literary critic Lisa Honaker." Seems like you're introducing Stevenson's Treasure Island for the first time here, and without any wikilinks. Later on, you say "Robert Louis Stevenson's 1882 novel Treasure Island", and I think that should be moved to the first occurrence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that many of them are pertinent – Ballantyne is too old in both portraits to make sense here – but I've added one more to the Plot section. EricCorbett 03:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At note "e" and accompanying text, there is discussion about how coral reefs form, as "believed in Ballantyne's time", and according to "generally received opinion". Presumably, that theory of coral formation is either correct or incorrect according to current science, and it would be nice if the note could somehow give a hint which (i.e. correct or incorrect). Darwin published a book about coral reef formation in 1842, as discussed in our Wikipedia article The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, and maybe that wlink might be sufficient in note "e" to enable readers to explore the matter some more. Generally speaking, if a scientific theory is well-known to be incorrect, a Wikipedia article referring to that theory ought to say it's been refuted or discarded or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to explain what's going on here. The Victorians knew that coral reefs were formed from the remains of coral polyps, and the common term "coral insect" referred to them; nobody believed that coral reefs were formed by insects at the time Ballantyne was writing. The uncertainty about reef formation was the extent to which factors such as subsidence played in their formation, which seems to be way beyond the scope of this article, so I've simplified the note. EricCorbett 19:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section titled "Influence" is currently a single big paragraph, and I'd suggest putting a paragraph break after the second sentence. That would give Golding/Lord of Flies a paragraph of its own, which it warrants. Also, the implication of this Wikipedia article now is that Lord of Flies referenced Coral Island only once, which is incorrect. "Early in Golding's book, when the characters are still excited about being on the beautiful island, they mention Coral Island, hopeful that they can mimic its beautiful atmosphere."[42]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten that slightly to avoid giving the impression that The Coral Island is mentioned only once in Lord of the Flies. EricCorbett 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This book was a major literary work, and I think it would be apt to include at least one extended quotation in blockquote format. My nomination would be this gruesome quote:
I saw that these inhuman monsters were actually launching their canoe over the living bodies of their victims. But there was no pity in the breasts of these men. Forward they went in ruthless indifference, shouting as they went, while high above their voices rang the dying shrieks of those wretched creatures as, one after another, the ponderous canoe passed over them, burst the eyeballs from their sockets, and sent the life-blood gushing from their mouths. Oh reader, this is no fiction! I would not, for the sake of thrilling you with horror, invent so terrible a scene. It was witnessed. It is true—true as that accursed sin which has rendered the human heart capable of such diabolical enormities!
As early as 1859, Ballantyne was criticized for making this up (as not "given in history or travels, or in any other book addressed to mature minds"[43]). However, Rod Edmond defended Ballantyne for saying that this stuff was true (see Representing the South Pacific: Colonial Discourse from Cook to Gauguin, pp. 146-147).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I agree. Drmies? EricCorbett 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Drmies appears to have gone AWOL I've made an executive decision to include that quotation in a quote box. It does at least give a good idea of the blood-thirstiness of certain parts of the book. EricCorbett 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eric, I really appreciate that you included this. But, unfortunately, I have some concerns. First, Per WP:QUOTATIONS: "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote." Personally, I think quote boxes are cool, but are they kosher? My second concern is that the controversy about this quote is omitted. As mentioned above, Ballantyne was criticized in 1859 for making this stuff up (as not "given in history or travels, or in any other book addressed to mature minds"[44]). However, Rod Edmond said Ballantyne didn't make it up. See Representing the South Pacific: Colonial Discourse from Cook to Gauguin, pp. 146-147). Edmond writes: "Fiction or not, it certainly wasn't Ballantye's invention. This gruesome account had already appeared in J.E. Erskine's Journal of a Cruise Among the Islands of the Western Pacific (1853) as one of the many examples of the cruelty of Cakobau, chief of Bau in the Fiji group." Maybe that info might be okay for a note?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. See Seru Epenisa Cakobau.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to lose the will to live. Let's see if Drmies can improve on my pathetic efforts. EricCorbett 21:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've not yet driven anyone on Wikipedia quite that far. Maybe there's a special barnstar. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be leaving you now to the tender care of Drmies, as I'm boiling over with fury and won't be responding here again. EricCorbett 21:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We were. I was just being a little tired and emotional. Sorry. EricCorbett 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all the criticisms I have for now. Thanks for the interesting article, and I hope it continues to improve and becomes featured.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. EricCorbett 02:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Wikipedia article is well-written, well-researched, and interesting. I crossed out all but two of my comments above, because I think a dollar value would be helpful (so that more readers would understand how little the author was paid), and because I'm not sure whether quoteboxes are good form. But those two things do not significantly detract from the Wikipedia article's excellence, and I'm grateful to Eric for bearing with me for so long.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability (my private reservations about Measuringworth notwithstanding)
Ref 8: as you are using the online edition of this source, the ISBN does not apply
Page range formats should be consistent. Generally you use the form as in ref 2 (105–22), but in 6 and 45 you use a shorter form (167–8 etc), and in 7, 22 and 35 you use the longer (137–145 etc)
The format used for the short quotation in footnote (e) looks rather untidy and would look neater without use of the "quote" template.
Otherwise no sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian. I think all of those have been dealt with now. EricCorbett 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looked at this at the first nom and I was impressed with how clear and concise it was. This certainly looks a worthy candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added the US PD tag. EricCorbett 23:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took a quick look at this and it looks great. Definitely the best of Wikipedia and fully deserving of the star. --John (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed--thanks, John. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article looks amazing. It is very precise and well-organized. Definitely worthy of of consideration. LeDrewww (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 and MASEM (t), 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty Flights of Loving is a first-personinteractive fictionadventurevideo game developed by Brendon Chung under his studio, Blendo Games. It was released in July 2012 for Microsoft Windows, and in November 2012 for Mac OS X. The game employs a modified version of id Software's id Tech 2 engine—originally used for Quake 2—and incorporates music composed by Idle Thumbs member Chris Remo. It follows three people as they prepare for an alcohol heist and the aftermath of the operation. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 and MASEM (t), 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably give this a review later (I like short articles). One thing to note right away is the inconsistent use of linking publishers in citations - "Kickstarter" is linked but "Kotaku" isn't. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am already handling that! Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 17:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two stray curly brackets in the infobox. Any idea what's causing them? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The template has been broken. I am now trying to fix that. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 19:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Darkwarriorblake
I'm a little confused as to how the game was considered critically acclaimed, as far as I can tell it had only 10 reviews on Metacritic and a score in the 80s which brings it under their declaration for critical acclaim, and it has only the one award nomination.
Changed to "positive reviews"
Note: I changed it to "generally favorable reviews" as that's how Metacritic categorizes scores in the 80s. --JDC808♫ 20:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mac OS X is just called OS X.
I think both work fine. However, I switched it to OS X, given that I just checked that the word "Mac" has been deprecated.
Other than that, it looks ok and as referenced as it can be given its such a small game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a random mention of a "Goldblum" mode, but apart from the link to Jeff Goldblum, there is no explanation for what this mode is.
I think I should remove that, because the source doesn't go into detail either. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 23:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to add a source that explains this mode. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hahc21. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The player has little control over the game mechanics and is only able to move freely ... - this sentence is rather contradictory, to my reading
Will rephrase.
under his video game studio Blendo Games. - feels weird to me
Well, it was developed by Chung, but development credits are awarded to Blendo Games, which is... Chung himself.
It's not that Blendo is Chung, but the wording "under". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Fixed.
leveraged from Gravity Bone to Thirty Flights of Loving - leveraged?
Fixed.
Thirty Flights of Loving includes references to and Easter eggs from classic cinema, as did Gravity Bone. - should be reworked, as there are also video games etc. Also, "classic" is far too vague a descriptor.
Just an extra point: Chung expands on some of his homages and Easter eggs in the screen caps I posted (in case you want to use them). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It replaced the character models with ones resembling actor Jeff Goldblum. - So, a male and a female Goldblum?
There is only a male character, so it's a male Jeff. Changed models to model.
So Anita was removed, or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty Flights of Loving was nominated for the Narrative Award at the 2013 Independent Games Festival. - have the awards been given yet? What happened?
it was a finalist, which means that it did not win. I've tweaked the wording.
TV Tropes says the mechanics are simpler over Gravity Bone. Though this isn't a reliable source, that kind of information is pertinent to the article. Also, there are mentions of "commentary". Any idea what that is?
He included "Developer commentary" with the game. This is bound to be useful, and I don't think this can be comprehensive without it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought: TFOL originated as a prototype for Gravity Bone, though it was canned as being "too dialogue heavy" until it was revived after Idle Thumbs contacted the Dev (source: commentary bubble #2). More to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction of Anita and Borges was supposed to use dialogue; when this was removed, Idle Thumbs crew thought the relationships were unclear, and as such montages were made (source: commentary bubble over Borges).
Criminal nature of the group presented through the environment, as Chung did not want to use voiceovers and such (commentary bubble #3). Environment also used to bridge “the disconnect between the player’s knowledge and the player’s character’s knowledge” (bubble in first flashback)
Automatic people generation system for crowd scenes was based on one Chung designed for a surveillance game which did not pan out (commentary bubble in first hallway)
A noodle-eating simulation was planned, but then dropped (“Lorenzo’s Lo Mein” bubble)
The gunfight scene was intended to have a “musical rhythm”, inspired by Koyaanisqatsi and Baraka (film)
The ending area is modeled after the National Museum of Natural History (France), which required some research
TFOL is the seventh game to star Citizen Abel (though I doubt most of these were published)
Hmm, the image says "seventh Citizen Able game," which is different, since Chung said himself that the main character had no name, and that Citizen Abel had to do qith a Quake map instead. Howeverm sources have misrepresented what Citizen Able means, even when Chung himself has corrected them several times. Though, this piece of information is extremely valuable.
Unlike most of Chung’s earlier work, the design of TFOL was not framed around a certain musical composition
Thanks for all of this. I was unable to get my hands in the developer commentary for some rare reason. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's available on YouTube, though (for copyright reasons) I strongly suggest buying the game. It's $5 on Steam. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, Crisco. Thanks :D — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 17:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492: Okay, I already expanded the development section (thanks!). Still have some things to fix (like rephrasing the "classic cinema" part). — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 19:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The manual says Jared Emerson-Johnson and A.J. Locascio provided "additional audio", with the sound library from Soundsnap. Lazarus is credited to "David Hyde & Mad Dog". I can upload the manual to Dropbox if you want to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. I'd like to read it and gather as much info as possible. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 19:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of missing sources, one review from an RS and one from a source I cannot judge.
Well, they are not missing. Masem already explained why I left Shacknews outside of the article. The reason why I also skipped Wired was because I wanted to include, mainly, reviews and comments from major indie websites or magazines, and major videogame magazines. IMHO, they are far more important and valuable, given their expertise and constant coverage of indie topics. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining major? Wired has been in publication for 20 years, and is widely cited in video game articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that Wired is not a video game-focused publication, but a technology one. I gave priority to those whose main focus are video games, like IGN, Destructoid, Edge and Eurogamer. I actually gave higher priority to those who focus on PC gaming or indie gaming, like Gamasutra, PC Gamer and Rock, Paper, Shotgun over general sources. My view is that adding Wired won't make any difference. Reading the actual Wired review, it gives me the impression that this guy (Mark Brown) just came across this game by chance and decided to make a post about it. His review is significantly different from, say, those by Edge or Destructoid. These reviews actually discuss the merits of the game, instead of going with the "oh,I came across this game last night, and it's great! you should buy it!"-type of reviews. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 06:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never ignore traditional non-gaming sources
If your game gets reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, or other major national newspaper, Wired, the BBC, or such other sources that normally have limited game coverage, these by all means are extremely valuable to include as they usually are written as reviews directed to the non- or casual gaming reader. They may not have scores (and thus not included in the table), but will likely have good, concise statements of why a game is good or bad, and other details.
I would not exclude an NYT review or similar from a video game, and Wired is a significant enough publication that it should not be ignored (in fact, it's mentioned explicitly in the above quote). Sound bites like "It's more like a rollercoaster ride than a video game" are very useful for articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will add it, though I still find it valueless xD — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 20:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 21:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a short and sweet read, but I'd double check that you've used all available sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on the shacknews source which is normally a VG RS, but as Brendan is/was a frequent forum user there (That's how I got in touch to get free images) so the review may be a bit biased. Certainly the other reivews (including the wired one) are sufficient to explain the critical praise of the game. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about including what players do in the game, in lieu of a plot summary with motivations? A paragraph or two is certainly possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. let me buy the game, play it all, and then add it. That's what I did with Gravity Bone. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 01:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure (though I note Gravity Bone is now free, so I totally downloaded it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492: GB was always free :P By the way, can we move resolved comments (of any) to the talk page? I feel lost among so much text. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken those which are addressed to my satisfaction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added two paragraphs of the events in the game. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images; everything looks peachy now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by JDC808
Made some copy-edits throughout.
Lead
"It was developed as part of the Kickstarter campaign for Idle Thumbs' podcast and offered alongside a free copy of its predecessor." -- I'm a little confused by what exactly this is saying.
Changed to sold alongside. Does it make sense now? — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit awkward, Maybe "and included a free copy of its predecessor." "sold alongside" sort of sounds like you could get the predecessor free regardless if you bought this game or not. --JDC808♫ 22:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed as suggested. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 22:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Story
This sentence: "Action is then switched to a dark room with..." -- I'm a little confused on what "Action" is meaning. "Action" also pops up in the second paragraph, second sentence. Does "action" mean scene?
Reworded
"In this area, several plaques showing the game's name and credits." -- Incomplete. Maybe "In this area, there are several plaques showing the game's name and credits."?
Oops!
Development
Third paragraph: "He intentionally avoided the use of voice-overs and such," -- What is "and such"? I would suggest removing it. --JDC808♫ 20:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Removed as you suggested. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My issues have been satisfied. --JDC808♫ 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that this article fits the FA criteria and is well referenced. Mackey23 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article's good overall from what I've skimmed, but I'm a little nervous about the phrase "takes about 15 minutes to complete." What if you get stuck? What if you've beaten it before? What if your computer's slow? I know it's sourced, but I think this statement should be distanced and disclaimed a bit, maybe as "One reviewer estimated its average completion time as 13 minutes." Just a thought. Tezero (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that language to "that is estimated to take about 15 minutes on average to complete". --MASEM (t) 00:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've read the article more thoroughly and feel much more well-versed about the topic as well as refreshed from the knowledge of a novel type of game. I can only complain to the Internet for not providing more information to flesh the article out a bit. Well done. Tezero (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: the article is actually almost double its original length now after using a couple primary sources (mostly in the development section). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added on CN tag because I don't believe the MC is implied to be the same character as Gravity Bone. Also, I feel like there's potentially some more stuff that could be added from the Tone Control podcast. Otherwise, I'd be happy to support. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have a source for that. I'll add it soon. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Axem Titanium: I removed it, since I can't remember where did I see that it was the same character. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 16:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All comments addressed. Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 13:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was this the source? "Gravity Bone, a 15-minute experience, gained acclaim for its first-person storytelling and stylish art direction. Thirty Flights of Loving is a similarly brief but engaging interactive story that focuses on the same character, Citizen Abel, who is wrapped up in a heist this time." --MASEM (t) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, nope. I think it was my imagination, or maybe a confusion. However, for such details, I only trust primary sources. I remember when all reviews of Gravity Bone said that the main character was named Citizen Abel, and then Chung came and explained that they were all wrong, and that the phrase had a totally different meaning. Since then, I dismiss all third party sources when it comes to this type of details. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hahc21. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query -- Hahc, this looks about ready to close but I wonder if the wording can be improved in the last section. We talk about a sequel, then we backtrack and say it's just in the same universe and not a direct sequel. Can we change the wording in the first sentence to something more generic like "follow-up"? I think it'd make the next bit flow more naturally... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I agree with what you say, and it makes perfect sense to me. Suggestion implemented. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 03:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks -- I think we're done here then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't thank you enough, Ian — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 04:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a British avant-garde independent film about an abused man who finds solace in his uncle on the Isle of Sheppey. It attained GA status many months ago and has since gone through FAC twice, each time getting neglected. The last time it failed was on 31 December 2013, but User:Ian Rose suggested that it might be third time lucky, and permitted me to re-submit it before the usual fortnight was up. So, that's precisely what I'm doing... and third time lucky ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
North8000 comment
I did the GA review on this article. Per my usual practice, I just pick the article that has been waiting the longest. So far history has been repeating itself, with no review during the first two FA nominations. Whether it is to pass or fail, this article deserves to get reviewed. Please do! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco comments
Sorry I didn't get to the last nomination. I'll give you a review now.
Image review
File:Uncle David Poster.jpg - Needs to be downsampled (I'd say 400 pixels wide). Also, is this a theatrical release poster, or an advertisement for a showing? What does NFT1 mean?
I've resized the image and changed the caption to be more specific: "Poster advertising the film's premiere at the British Film Institute." The NFT1 is the old name for the cinema that it was screened at; it is now referred to as BFI Southbank. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Uncle David screenshot.jpg - Also needs to be downsampled, per WP:Image resolution. I think this fits the NFCC quite well in terms of contextual significance, though you will likely draw criticism on TFA day from random readers for featuring nudity (just a heads up).
Done! Well, I guess I'll have to face that hurdle if I come to it but thanks for the heads up! Appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is buried, how does Ashley's body get swept away to sea?
Well, Uncle David covers the body in sand, but the sea still drags it away. Maybe this could be rephrased ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a cast commentary track voiced by Hoyle, Ryder, Reich and Nicholls. - Have you been able to consult this for the article? I've found stuff like this quite useful in writing Ruma Maida and Mereka Bilang, Saya Monyet!.
I've watched it and made the additions to the text as a result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any in-depth discussion of themes and/or shooting styles? A work like this usually gets at least some thematic discussion
The commentary track mentioned which cameras they used, and I have added that in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, try and paraphrase some of the quotes in the reception section. A bit heavy there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed a few of them down; if you think that any others could be trimmed further, please let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any luck with my two other comments? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into the use of a commentary track; I shall watch through the track later to see if there is anything useful there. I have not found any in-depth discussion of themes or shooting styles elsewhere, but they might be in the commentary track. I will get back to you! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked a bit; what do you think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really happy with most of those edits; but I've restructured those paragraphs slightly. Is that okay ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.
Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about the costume source was good since it ties into the budget (or lack thereof), but the following sentence is kinda pointless since we know nothing about the wig shop.
I've changed that sentence; where it once stated the name of the wig shop, now it just comments that the item was purchased in a Dalston wig shop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sure that the source of the wig is actually important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The wig shop is pointless trivia unless it was some sort of budget shop in which case it would be relevant because of the limited budget. Otherwise delete it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the article titles be in title case?
I'm not sure what you mean ? Are you referring to the title of "Uncle David" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the title of the articles in your bibliography. Title case is where all of the major words are capitalized, like in the title of a book, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No duplicate links or DABs. External link checker inop, but spot checks showed no problem.
As an aside, I firmly believe that the best way to get your own stuff reviewed is to review other FACs. So spent some time doing so and maybe you'll get more reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments Sturmvogel 66. In the past, I have focused on GA reviewing, and have not done much here at FAC, but I shall endeavour to take up your suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor prose comment per User:Tony1's excellent writing guide, "with" is a particularly awkward additive link (ctrl+F for "With as an additive link"). You should recast the relevant sentences as suggested there.—indopug (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, indopug. I have looked up Tony1's page and am proceeding to replace many of the uses of "with" as an additive link in this article. Thanks again! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- @Midnightblueowl: It looks to me like Sturmvogel 66's most recent comments haven't been responded to, nor have there been any additional reviews since then. I'm loathe to close this for lack of interest, yet again, but there's not much else to do after almost two months, even allowing for the usual holiday period slowdown... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ian Rose, I've responded to Sturmvogel's comment (apologies that I missed it). There's clearly a majority support here (albeit a majority of one); does not that mean that it should pass as a FA ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, you probably should take Sturm's advice and review more FACs -- although it's unwise to become too focussed on numbers of supports (consensus to promote is not based on that alone by any means) a minimum of three is required. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps User:North8000 would also be willing to revisit? Just so we don't have to go through this a fourth time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the ping. I'm really more of a GA reviewer than a FA reviewer, but will give it a try. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
North8000 review
First my disclaimer. (see above ping) I've done a lot of GA reviews, (including the one for this article) but this is my first FA review. Would appreciate any critique from experienced FA reviewers. For FA I think that I should be tougher than I was for the GA review and will do so. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a couple words explaining what "region free" means? Even the linked article does not explain it. Or maybe explain it at the linked article? :-) North8000 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the link; do you think that this does the trick ? I just think that additional words here would be superfluous and might look a little clumsy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. In the lead it mentions that it was shot without a script, but that is not covered in the article. And related to that, regarding article completeness, I think that there should be some coverage of that important & interesting aspect in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a referenced sentence into the "Development" section stating that it was filmed without a script. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like an important and interesting aspect that could use more coverage, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the lead is too short and incomplete. Most notably, there is very little in there from the entire "Production" section and it's two substantial ("Background" & "Development") subsections. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The info box said that the budget was £4000 and a quote in the article said that the budget was under £1000. Could you reconcile or clarify this? North8000 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I can gather, £4000 is the total budget of the production, whereas £1000 was the budget for filming. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd be saying that this is important info, and also presume that the sources that came up with those two numbers would say what they covered. But since the numbers are so miniscule, 9we're talking about only a £3000 "disparity", and allowing for differing things to be included in the figures, I consider this to be a minor point. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify the following phrase: " while same-sex pornography starring Ashley plays on the television set." Is that referring to Ashley Ryder, the real world actor, or Ashley the character in the film? North8000 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue that is intentionally ambiguous. The porno being screened is clearly one of those that Ashley Ryder has appeared in previously, but in the context of the film, it is unclear whether this was supposed to be the character of Ashley or not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It said that Boy George contributed a musical track for the film. It does not say whether it was just allowing use of one of his existing songs, or whether it was created for or debuted in the film. I think that this would be good info. Could you clarify? North8000 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would make a good addition, but I'm afraid that the source material is not clear on this issue itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it could be a key aspect, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one sentence in the article regarding the movie playing in theaters, which was a sentence on it's original release. The rest of the "release" section segues into and is about a discussion regarding potentially making a musical. Is it possible to add more on it's playing in theaters? North8000 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could find no evidence that it was ever screened commercially in different cinemas. I think that it only played at a few film festivals, and then was released on DVD. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an important aspect for a movie, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that covers the film's degree of commercial success. Is there any of this info available? North8000 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. In fact I am not aware of it even having a commercial release. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Seems like an important aspect for a movie, but I think that that handles it with respect to the most that an editor can do with available sources. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any plot info available on whether or not the Ashley character was an adult vs. a youth? The plot summary refers to him as a young man, and presumably the actor (being a porn actor) is an adult, but then a reviewer discussed the movie being about a paedophile "grooming" him; with that term usually meaning a youth as a target. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky; the actor is clearly an adult in his 20s, but the character is "child-like", i.e. drawing crayon pictures, generally acting like a child. The whole scenario is intentionally ambiguous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FA criteria:
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
It is—
well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Results on meeting Featured Article criteria
1b: On a "0 -10" scale, I'd call the prose an "8", and would consider that to be sufficiently good. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1c: I have some concerns that there are certain key aspects where info is not included and probably not available. It seems that there are little or no "overview" type sources which would cover for example, whether or not the movie even played in theaters. I think that the editor(s) probably did a good search for these and that they are probably not available. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1d: I think that the article certainly meets the second half of this criteria. Everything that is in the article is sufficiently sourced and cited. Regarding the first half, please see my notes under 1c. I think that more "overview" sourcing is needed to make this article ideal. If such exists, then more research was needed. If it doesn't exist, then sufficient research was done. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1e: Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2a: Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2b: Meets this criteria. Structure looks appropriate for the size and content of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2c: Appears to meet this criteria, but I am not a good judge of the smaller formatting details. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3: Meets this criteria. Has 5 images. The two non-free images have article-specific use rationales. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4: Meets this criteria. Certainly not over-sized or overly detailed. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: My thought is that that is the end of my comments. As I understand it, it is not my role to say "pass" or "fail". And again, I was the one who did the GA (Good Article) review and passed this one. I did not plan to do FA reviews, but I got pinged and felt that this is owed a review. I applied a tougher standard, but do not have a FA reviewing perspective. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you North8000! It is much appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose - i thought this was very well put together. i do have a couple of other queries, though.
What establishes the significance of the Sex-Gore-Mutants website. Is it even a reliable source? I note it isn't wikilinked, which raises a question about how important it is.
Hmm. Fair point. I mean, it is an established website devoted to horror films, with a large number of reviewers (see this) but at the same time it does appear to be self-published. Any advice from other users who are more knowledgeable in this area would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bit of a hunt. By conventional criteria, it is pretty marginal, but as a source of reviews that can be worth quoting it appears to have a long track record and has even been cited in a scholarly book. So I think it is OK. The few facts (as distinct from reviewer observations) on which the article relies on this source alone (really just the budget number) do not appear in any way dubious, but are consistent with the rest of what we know from other sources. My view is that it's sound. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the small number of sources, if anyone could check this, it would be great - Google Scholar indicates that the film is referred to, but I don't know if the reference is of any consequence.
That looks very interesting; unfortunately I don't have access to it, but it would be great if someone who did could take a look. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to get hold of it, with a friend's assistance. Unfortunately, its only reference is to a project Hoyle did subsequently with Nichols; nothing on Uncle David itself or its development. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - will take a look now and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
while Ryder portrayed a misbehaved nine-year-old. - hmm, I'd say "while Ryder portrayed a misbehaving nine-year-old".
Closing comments - Sadly, after an extraordinary time here at FAC, I don't think the prose is up to scratch. I made one edit to help tighten the writing but clunkiness remains. The use of "the latter" is often a sign of non-professional prose and should be avoided. I suggest recruiting a good copy-editor who can bring a fresh pair of eyes to the prose. Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the history of KFC. I believe it is to a high standard, but I welcome suggestions as to how I can improve it. Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I performed a thorough GAN review, and it has only improved since then. The article's prose is good, the images are used appropriately, the organization is excellent, and the lead is appropriate. In my estimation, this fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell(talk) 14:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by ColonelHenry
Support This was a refreshingly well-prepared and intriguing article. I was very happy to read this. Specifically, the prose is excellent, it's well-sourced and comprehensive in its coverage. No problems with neutrality or stability. I do have a few image questions that I'm sure will be resolved....
I have removed the personality rights tag now. Farrtj (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ky fried chicken.png - Claim of public domain by the "threshold of originality" doctrine does not work with trademarked logos--since part of the requirements for filing and protection under trademark law in the US is that they are original. Since it was a logo last used in 1978, you might have a case for it being free contact under the "abandoned trademark" doctrine.
Replaced with a different image. Farrtj (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ColonelHenry: - The threshold of originality for copyright is different than that for trademarking. Trademarking requires something to not be a reproduction of an existing design (i.e. be an original design), whereas copyright requires a degree of creativity (originality) before something qualifies. Hence why text logos like that for House can be trademarked but not copyrighted. That being said, I agree that this image added little to the article, and it's fine to remove it (unless an SVG is made, which can be bigger). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Colonel Harland Sanders in character.jpg - Are you really sure that's an verifiable "own work" claim? The information statement is a little sparse for me to sign off it. Not many 1974-era photos magically being uploaded so a redflag goes up for me.
Without reading the article (which I probably won't do given that I commented on a couple of FACs for the KFC article and so would not be able to approach this with fresh eyes), I have a few concerns about the references here:
A number of references are to entire works (1 and 110) or to large groups of pages (eg, 14 - which is cited repeatedly, 23, 28, 49 (a normal length sentence cited to 13 pages) and 57). Please provide specific page numbers for each statement cited to help readers follow up these sources.
I believe this is a matter of preference rather than a requirement for featured articles. Farrtj (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty poor attitude to take to readers of your articles IMO and means that the article does not meet WP:V as it's not practical for readers to verify statements. For instance, reference 110 is 103 page long accounting document (I was unable to locate the statement this report is used to reference in it, but I imagine it's buried in the detail somewhere) and reference 14 directs readers to a 30-odd page chunk of Harland Sanders' autobiography for multiple different facts. There are several other such references. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Reference 1, it's a standard academic reference formatting style to not give the specific page for a journal source, but to instead just list the pages in which the article is located. Farrtj (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have given a page number to the 10-K reference. Farrtj (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing on WP:V that says you need a specific page number for each reference. As a matter of fact, this was how the progenitor of this article (KFC) was organised, but after discussion, it was decided that it would be easier if the page numbers were grouped together. Farrtj (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFarrtj - The appropriate content guideline is WP:CITE, specifically WP:CITEHOW. On Wikipedia, it's usually best practice if you're quoting something specific to provide a specific page number. Academic rigour requires it specific information be cited precisely. In a journal article, it's acceptable to list the article's page range if you're adding a general statement (i.e. the thesis of the article or the lengthy discussion of a point within the article). However, specific facts require specific page numbers. when citing article for a specific fact, I generally will use the format: (author) (article title) (journal name): (page range for article), at (specific page number or numbers). i.e. for a specific fact: Doe, John. "article" journal 1-17, at 4. Or i.e. for a discussion of a certain point: Doe, John. "article" journal 1-17, from 4-7. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Sanders was dissatisfied with the 35-minutes it took to prepare his chicken in an iron frying pan, but he did not want to deep fry; although a much faster process, in Sanders' opinion it produced dry and crusty chicken and cooked the product unevenly".
"The new method reduced production time to be comparable with deep frying, yet still (in Sanders' opinion) retained the quality of pan-fried chicken."
"Sanders adopted the name because it differentiated his product from the deep fried "Southern fried chicken" product found in restaurants."
The three above quotes are the first three sentences where I use Sanders' autobiography as a reference. As you can see, the first two are statements of opinion from Sanders, and it states so quite clearly in the sentence. The third reference is explaining why Sanders used the KFC name. Who else could explain that than the man who ran the business at the time? Farrtj (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Sanders autobiography references now have separate page numbers, as they originally did, before I was told on a review over at KFC to amalgamate together. Farrtj (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Individual page numbers restored for the Dave Thomas reference. Farrtj (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References to pre-internet era magazines and newspapers are lacking page numbers.
Unfortunately this can't be helped. I accessed most (if not all) of these sources through the LexisNexis database, which doesn't list page numbers. Besides page numbers can vary among various editions of the same newspaper, and listing them is not a requirement for FA status. I believe that the newspaper sources are still verifiable without page numbers. Farrtj (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to WP:CITEHOW, newspaper page numbers in references are optional. Farrtj (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One the main references used for the article is "Secret Recipe: Why Kfc Is Still Cooking After 50 Years", which is published by Tapestry Press. Are you confident that this is a reliable source? From my reading of its website [48] Tapestry Press is, at least in part, a self-publishing outfit though it states that it also acts as a traditional publisher for some books. The range of titles published by this firm [49] doesn't indicate that it has any expertise in editing or producing high quality books on business history, and the list of other books written by this author available through Google Books [50] also doesn't suggest that he has any particular expertise in writing business histories. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this [51] Robert Darden is an associate professor of journalism at Baylor University. How is he not a reliable author? The book was also created with the help of Pete Harman, who is the virtual co-founder of KFC. Furthermore, there aren't a huge wealth of high quality KFC sources to choose from: you can't afford to be picky. Finally, perhaps the sole academic source about KFC, KFC in China by Warren Liu, sees fit to reference Darden. Farrtj (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it was written by a non-specialist with the co-founder of the company and published by a lightweight press which is unlikely to have conducted any fact checking (assuming the book wasn't self-published through this firm) I don't think that this is a reliable source I'm afraid. Other editors may have different views though. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a second opinion on this, but until one appears, I will try to find substitutes for the Darden book. As such, I have removed all quotes and opinions from Darden. Some statements like KFC opening in Beijing in 1987 I have been able to replace with more than adequate sources. Others I have not, and have deleted the statement. Farrtj (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all Darden references now, and replaced them where I can find suitable sources. Farrtj (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Farrtj, Nick-D - Refer to WP:PSTS and related guidelines on this issue. A primary source can be used as a reliable source if the content of the article is relates to a recollected autobiographical detail that isn't dispute. (Example: if Liz Taylor said she had sex with Michael Jackson, we should assume that detail can be supported by a primary source. However, if she divorced someone because of infidelity, some newspaper articles on the case or an non-involved third-party needs to support that claim). In the cases where it is suspect, it needs to be backed by reliable second sources. A business book co-authored by a primary actor (i.e. a business executive) and a journalist or journalism professor should be treated as a primary source, per that guideline above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost one month on there are still a number of references to large page ranges. I don't think that this is at all suitable referencing for a FA. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which are the specific references you take issue with? From what I can see, I disagree that this is an issue. In my academic background, one cites a journal reference's entire page range rather than the specific page in the journal. And I'm consistent within a style. And I don't think a page range of eg 14-40 is unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 (company headquarters location cited to a 50 page range), 8 (five separate claims cited to a 26 page range), 32 (3 separate facts cited to and eight page range) and 38 (five statements cited to a three page range). I note that many other statements from books are cited to specific pages, so these are inconsistent with that referencing style, as well as not being very helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 sorted out. I don't think the other page ranges are unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the single page number references for the Ozersky source, so now the sole page range reference is the Bill Carey, with a 9 page reference, which I don't think is unreasonable. Farrtj (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment
In the lede, it is mentioned that KFC's venture into China was the first for a western franchise. However, this factoid is not reintroduced/sourced in the body of the article when it mentions the opening in Beijing. - Floydianτ¢ 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I updated the source to add the page that mentions this (127). - Floydianτ¢ 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have thoroughly scanned the prose for flow and grammar, and this article meets my expectations. I was thrown back to find out that Dave Thomas was the top guy for KFC before starting Wendy's; very interesting! I have not done a source spotcheck, except for the lone fact I mention above this. - Floydianτ¢ 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reading through now - will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Harman, the addition of KFC - was the acronym in use at this point? If not it strikes me as a bit misleading - maybe use "the addition of the name" ?
Actually you've mentioned about useing the name to distinguish it twice in about three sentences. If there was some way to fold this into one sequence it'd help I think.
I've cleared this up now I think. Farrtj (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KFC international sales boomed, with particular success in Japan -I'd change "international" to "elsewhere" - less repetitive and clearer meaning (I am in Oz)
I recall the name change to the acronym as being a pretty big thing at the time - any other comments, especially looking back on it in later years, might be good to add. If there is nothing in the sources then this is moot I guess.
It was a big deal, and for this reason I researched it extensively. KFC don't appear to have given a solid reason for the name change at the time. Them eventually I found the KFC US President say they were trying to get away from the "fried" connotation. It dedicate three sentences to it, I'm not sure what else you're looking for? Farrtj (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure really...whether folks retrospectively thought it was a good idea. If there is nothing else really then never mind. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some additional information about the name change. Farrtj (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, leaningsupport - still thinking about issues such as history of advertising and slogans that are currently on the main KFC page, as well as some PETA/Greenpeace issues. Can you describe your rationale for what goes where? cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful edits and comments. My overall aim is to follow User:Jerem43's lead with Burger King and create separate articles for Advertising and Controversies. The Controversy regarding PETA is definitely worthy of an article in itself, as it's enormously nuanced and complex. I don't want to repeat information here that will ultimately be in the Controversy at KFC article. Again, I feel that Advertising is better off with its own section. It's very difficult to tell what advertising has really had a major impact on the company etc. Farrtj (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this is looking like it will soon become the nominator's first FAC to be promoted, I'd like to see someone perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (unless I missed it above).
"In the early 1970s, KFC was sold to the spirits distributor Heublein, who were taken over by the R.J. Reynolds food and tobacco conglomerate, who sold the chain to PepsiCo". Seems to be inconsistency here. You say "KFC was" (the company being singular) but then "Heublein ... were" (the company being plural) -- which is correct in AmEng? Also is it standard in AmEng to treat a company as a personage ("who" instead of "which")? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited that section now. I hope that's better. Farrtj (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Midnightblueowl: Generally, this is a very good article, and it is clear that a lot of hard work has gone into putting it together. However, I am a little perturbed that it makes no mention of the fact that, for at least several decades, KFC has been the focus of harsh criticism from both health advocates and animal welfare and/or animal rights groups. It concerns me that this article does not even mention such criticism, which has often led to direct action protests at KFC outlets, many of which will have been reported on by the media and other reputable sources. Surely we should have some information on this aspect of KFC's history in here ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've had a few comments about this from numerous reviews now. I've added a paragraph about increasing criticism of the health effects of fast food and some background about the KFC/PETA relationship. Farrtj (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks - some concerns here
"After leaving the family home at age 12, Sanders passed through several professions, with mixed success" - given source supports "several professions" but neither age at departure (it says "seventh grade" but also "teenager") nor level of success
13 appears to be the correct age. Have amended this with a new source. The new source also details Sanders mixed success in various professions, by his own account. Farrtj (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"he admitted to the use of salt and pepper" - source?
added reference to his "Celebrity chef" autobiography. Farrtj (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"wearing a black frock coat" - source?
added a reference Farrtj (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"pay four (later five) cents on each chicken sold as a franchise fee" - source?
Can't find a source for the four cents claim at this moment in time, so have amended to the sourced five cent claim for now. Farrtj (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"use his name and likeness for promotional purposes" is a direct quote from the source
"According to Brown, Sanders had lost interest in the business operations of KFC, and suggested that Brown should buy the company" - not seeing this in the source
The reference says "Sanders, at 75, was losing interest in the business side of KFC", but does not mention that the sale was Sanders' suggestion, so I have removed that part. Farrtj (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"When Massey made the written offer, Sanders looked at the figure, opened up his office drawer, read his horoscope, and agreed to sell" is very close to "made him a written offer. Sanders looked at the figure, opened up his drawer, read his horoscope, and agreed to sell"
Changed the phrasing. Farrtj (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending a thorough going-through of references and paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest that you yourself undertake this task, or continue to oppose until someone else does the job? It would be a shame to see this article fail its nomination simply because no one will look through the references. It also implies guilt until proven innocent, rather than the other way round. It is my belief that I shouldn't have to prove that my references are above board: it should be up to others to prove that they aren't. Farrtj (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What specifically is wrong with them? Tezero (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note As there is still no consensus for promotion after three months here, I will be closing this nomination in a few minutes. Please wait for at least two weeks before re-nominating. Graham Colm (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
While I was planning to wait and nominate Ontario Highway 402 as my next FAC, I've decided to nominate this article in the interim. This highway in the dense and rugged Canadian Shield was constructed in the 30s and opened up a large section of Ontario to the rest of Canada for the first time. It forms a part of the Trans-Canada Highway and would be the first article representing that route to become a Featured Article if promoted. Floydianτ¢ 20:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 02:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Image review, spotcheck - I did all three of those at the above ACR. --Rschen7754 02:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Admrboltz
"The 194-kilometre (121 mi)" -> "The 194-kilometre-long (121 mi)" using {{convert|194|km|mi|adj=mid|-long}}
"traverses the largest pocket of arable land in northern Ontario" - citation?
"Following that, the route suddenly enters the Canadian Shield," this sounds rather awkward...
In the lead you spell out US Route 53/71, but you never indicate the abbreviations next to them before using the abbreviations later.
{{convert/spell}} should be used on distances under 10 miles (e.g. 6 km, 4 km, etc)
"over the course of a kilometre and a half" missing a conversion). {{convert/spell}} doesn't handle fractions well, this one you may want to just hard code.
MOS:IMAGELOCATION states that images should not squish text between them. I am having this issue with the New Souix Narrows Bridge image and the Lake of the Woods image.
"obstacles during construction of the 100-kilometre (62 mi) highway," - See the trick from my first comment.
Since these three sources are offline, please ensure you are not violating WP:SYNTH here "entirety of Highway 70 was renumbered as Highway 71.[18][19][20]" - Generally 3+ refs in a row indicate synthesis.
Dabs and ELs check out.
File:Ontario_71_map.svg isn't entirely useful to me. I have no clue what I am looking at really. A locator map as an inset would be very useful.
Overall the article looks quite nice, just some polishing to do. --AdmrBoltz 13:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
This is cited on page iv of ref#3, "Rainy River District reported over 211,000 acres of farmland from 312 farms in 2006. This represents the largest area of farmland of any District in northern Ontario and is more than double the farmland area reported by most other Districts."
I'm not sure of a good alternative wording that represents how drastic and sudden the change is. One minute you're surrounding by farmland as far as the eye can see, then you go around a bend and down a little hill and WHAM! You're in rock'n'swamp country for the rest of the drive!
Fixed
Done
Done. I've converted it as "approximately one mile", since 1.5 km = 0.93 mi, and it's a imprecise measurement in this case.
Moved the image a bit, see if that helps.
Fixed
The first two are consecutive maps that show the routing before and after. Ref 20 is a press release announcing the date and route number changes that will be done, but it's hard to put into perspective without the maps. Ref 20 could stand alone for the text it refs, but this is a case where I figured a little backup never hurts.
As for the map, I will see if I can make inkscape work for me.
The images still don't line up for me, but that may just be my monitor, so I am not going to ding you for it. Once the map is retouched I can support. --AdmrBoltz 01:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My issues are resolved. --AdmrBoltz 02:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The modern Highway 71 was created... - no need for first two words I think (was there an older Hwy 71?)
The original bridge remained in place until 2003, when an engineering inspection revealed that 78% of the structure had failed - "failed"? this must be some building jargon as I don't understand it in this context...as the bridge was still standing..?
Any notable traffic issues or problems along it? Traffic heaviness or dangerous designated blackspots?
Any previous notable accidents or issues (landslides etc.)
Not looking too bad otherwise, and above might not be possible to add if sources are lacking. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the first issue. With regards to the second, "failed" in an engineering sense means they are no longer capable of handling the engineered load and factor of safety... in other words the wood was rotten. Regarding the third and fourth, I haven't come across any info regarding incidents... the odd moose vs vehicle showdown here and there haha! - Floydianτ¢ 04:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe spell it out or link to an architectural meaning of the word "fail" then. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to look for blackspots and found nothing. will AGF on hte other, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Following my earlier noms for Nos. 33 and 36 Squadrons, yet another RAAF transport unit formed in WWII and still flying today. This is Australia's specialist VIP carrier or, as one Air Force historian succinctly put it, "the private airline of the nation's political leaders". I resisted improving this one for a while as the more "operational" squadrons always seemed more interesting, but in the end I got happily caught up in the convoluted history and inside dope of this unit, and hope you do too... ;-) Tks to Nick-D for some additional information from his library, all who took part in the article's GAN and MilHist ACR, and in advance to everyone commenting here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. One suggestion: replace "biannually" (too easy to confuse with "biennially") with "semi-annually" (not hyphenated in AmEng, btw), or revert to "twice a year". - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about "twice annually"? If not I think I'll go back to the "twice a year" used in the source and if anyone gets me for not paraphrasing I'll refer 'em to you... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, "twice annually" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
Link squadron in the lede.
Okay.
The squadron supported the invasion of Borneo, and became the first Allied aircraft to land at Labuan There's something wrong with this sentence.
God, I'll say there is -- tks!
Photos are appropriately licensed.
No DABs or duplicate links.
Curiously, the external link checker reported none such.
Use a endash for page ranges in Morel.
Well spotted.
Otherwise nicely done. Glad to see unit strengths reported at various times.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No info on that at the Australian War Memorial source file. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Mystere or Mystère? --John (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'd probably think the latter but three sources confirm the former, at least as far as the RAAF was concerned... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and surprising. Thank you. --John (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 1 June it became the first operational RAAF squadron to have members of the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force in its ranks, a contingent made up of an officer and twenty airwomen.[3] I assume we are talking about ground support, and not combat roles for the women? I think this should be made explicit, if the source supports it. --John (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source doesn't spell out the work the WAAAF did at 34Sqn, but the RAAF never employed any in combat roles to my knowledge.
While I'm here, re. this edit, I prefer the previous formatting to reduce the blue. It's a style I try to apply consistently in all the articles I work on and I'm not aware of it violating any MOS policy... BTW, tks for going through the article, John, looking fwd to any further comments/queries. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re women's roles, it struck me that that was a possible misreading of the text some might make. I wonder if there is a way to avoid this? Re piped links, I've got into the habit of removing links like Wyndham, Western Australia, and changing them to Wyndham, Western Australia which I think is better and clearer in the spirit of WP:OVERLINK. Your Wyndham, Western Australia is neither recommended nor deprecated by MoS and I appreciate it is your aesthetic preference. I would still weakly prefer the simpler version, on the basis that it makes it easier for editors (fewer characters). I am surprised there is no specific guidance on this matter. Nevertheless I would not oppose the article's promotion over such a minor matter. --John (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well since it won't strain the friendship I might restore it... ;-) Re. the WAAAF bit, although the main ref is no help, I could add/source a general statement such as "The WAAF had been formed in March 1941 to free male staff for overseas postings, and by the end of the war comprised 31% of RAAF ground crew" or some such, if you think it adds useful context without undue weight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was more the non-combat status I was thinking of; without clarification it is possible some readers might think this was a fighting force, which would be misleading. --John (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Here is a primary source that makes the point clear, if that's any use. --John (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, if it's the non-combat nature of their duties you'd like to see made clear then I can alter the wording above and probably cite it to a source already employed in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be great. --John (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John: added/tweaked along the lines discussed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks great. --John (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks John! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
I see two different Stephens short cites (FNs 18 and 27), but only one Stephens in References. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, tks -- added a snippet of info per John's cmt above but neglected to add the book ref... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2014 (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 Russian battleship Retvizan was ordered from an American shipyard because Russian ones were already at full capacity building ships for Tsar Nicholas II's naval expansion program to defend his recently acquired territory in northern China. Damaged several times during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–045, she was sunk when the Imperial Japanese Army besieged Port Arthur. The ship was salvaged by the Imperial Japanese Navy and repaired for service with the name Hizen. She served in minor roles during World War I and was sunk as a target in 1924. The article had a MilHist A-class review last month and I've tweaked it a bit recently to bring it fully up to speed. I'd be astonished if I've caught everything, so I welcome comments from reviewers who can point out things that need to be better explained or rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - I reviewed this article at the ACR and have a few more observations:
Would it be worthwhile to redlink the auxiliary cruisers Cramp & Sons built? If it's not likely that articles on them will ever be written, don't bother.
Since somebody's already made an article on one of them, I might as well redlink them all.
In the Port Arthur section, it might be confusing for the reader to see that the Russians were moored in the outer harbor and then to see that after the torpedo hit, Retvizan "head[ed] for the harbor" - they might say to themselves "weren't they already in the harbor?" It might be better to clarify that she was making for the inner harbor. Or call the outer harbor the roadstead instead.
I went with inner/outer harbor as more familiar to people than roadstead.
Fair enough.
I think it would be good to mention the competing Russian and Japanese interests in Manchuria and Korea in the run-up to the war - right now, it jumps from the arrival of the Russian squadron in 1903 to tensions on the eve of war, with no explanation of how we got there. It should probably mention their competing interests, Russia's leading role in the Triple Intervention, etc., if only briefly, so that the reader doesn't have to go clicking around to figure out what was going on. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does the new paragraph work? Thanks for the comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some discrepancies between infobox and article - for example, the date she was struck. Other details, such as complement, are unsourced
Can you be a little more specific?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from John
Are we in American or British English here? The article seems to have been started in the latter then changed to the former. Why would that be? --John (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it appears the change happened a bit earlier, with this edit. When Sturmvogel got to the article, it was a mix of British and American English. Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, good catch. Per WP:RETAIN unless there is good reason to change it it should stay in Br Eng. Is there? --John (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I think I've said before, if it's in a mix of the two then I pick which ever one I feel like writing in, barring strong national ties; I don't go back and research what the article was started in. Which is often, especially for stubs, only a couple of words in the infobox. I see no need to change things now, but if someone wishes to do so, I have no objection.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. It is one of the things I look for in an article under review, as these things can creep and they are not supposed to. It looks pretty good apart from this, and I will support shortly, once a couple of further minor items are fixed. --John (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the above, you seem OK with my use of AmEng, but you dropped a use BritEng tag on the article. Kind of a mixed message, don't you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear. RETAIN applies here so we have to keep UK English, unless there is good reason to change it. --John (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure that this is a battle that really needs to be fought (absent of any actual complaints... no offense intended, John, as you know I respect you and your work), can this be quickly solved with a talk page discussion as prescribed at WP:RETAIN? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 17:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question On a similar matter, why do we have the imperial units first, rather than metric? Weren't Russia and Japan metric nations in this era? --John (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia used English measurements until the revolution, aside from imported French guns. The IJN was English as well until about 1920 or so when they revised their nomenclature.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is fascinating. It's looking good now, and I will just need one more look before I support. --John (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now support; thank you for indulging my questions and my copyedits, and congratulations on a fine article. --John (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time and effort to improve the article. Much appreciated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work. A few suggestions.
Background
a mention of the location of the Cramp shipyards might be welcome.
Done.
Design etc.
"The new ship had four fewer 6-inch (152 mm) guns …" as Potemkin"? Ditto for the comparisons on the Maine class battleships.
Is this really ambiguous given that the comparison ships are mentioned in the previous sentences?
"two second-class torpedo boats equipped with a single torpedo tube " I'd toss an "each" before "equipped"
Good idea.
Battle of Port Arthur
A few sentences about how the war came to be might be good before discussing the battle.
Done, although the wording might need to be tweaked a bit.
Battle of the Yellow Sea
"over two hours later" than what?
The sinking comes rather abruptly. Can a sentence or two be added about the siege for the sake of context?
Excellent as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking this over. See if the changes adequately respond to your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Retvizan_Brassey's1915_corrected.png needs US PD tag
Done.
File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Marineschepen_in_de_haven_van_Sabang_op_het_eiland_We_TMnr_60011323.jpg: was the listed author working for the museum, or is this PD for another reason? If the latter, the CC license should be supplemented with an appropriate PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer seems to have been independent, but he died in 1922. I don't know how the Tropenmuseum obtained the rights to his photos, if any, but it's irrelevant except in countries with life + 100 years or more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the Peru national football team, a presently mediocre sports team with an illustrious history. Several past (although relatively recent) FAC reviews ended in no consensus to promote not due to oppose votes, but rather due to lack of support votes (despite the plentiful commentary). This sports article is the best national football team model and deserves to be considered part of Wikipedia's featured content. Thanks.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further notes
Image review conducted by Nikkimaria in archive 3. No new images have been added since then.
Major improvement suggestions last addressed in archive 2. No new major changes have been made since then.
Actually, after analyzing the article and its derived works, I have done a series of major improvements to the article this year (2014), including citation improvements, image re-arrangements, and content improvements. If the FA reviewers could please double-check the citations, it would be most appreciated. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: MarshalN20. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not particularly knowledgeable about football, especially in South America, but I feel this nomination has waited long enough, so I am providing a few general comments which I hope will kickstart a more detailed review.
Opening words: "The Peru national football team represents Peru in international football competition". Isn't this rather a statement of the obvious?
In my view there is two much use of acronyms in he first paragraph. We have FPF, which you explain properly, then FIFA and CONMEBOL, which require readers to link to other articles. I think you might get away with FIFA, but I suggest "South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)"
"Its traditional rival is Chile, but there is also a prominent rivalry with Ecuador". Awkward repetition, and "prominent" is probably not the best choice of adjective here. I would simplify to something like: "There are longstanding rivalries with Cile and with Ecuador"
"...because government sport authorities intervened in FPF affairs under allegations of corruption." Needs to be expressed more clearly, e.g. "while allegations of PFP corruption were investigated by the Peruvian governemnt's sporting authorities.
In the History section, what is meant by "food ways"? In general there is too much reliance in this section on direct quotations for fairly unremarkable expressions, for which a brief paraphrase would be more appropriate. For example, "British advisors, engineers, and other technicians (including sailors)" could easily be "British civilian workers and visiting sailors".
"ending last in both the 1990 and 1994 World Cup qualifiers" – "finishing last"?
A "hiatus" does not "experience" a recovery, full or slight. A hiatus (a break in continuity) may be followed by a recovery.
"...despite achieving third place at the 2011 Copa América and attaining its highest FIFA position in July 2013, Peru did not qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup". The word "despite" suggests that Perus 3rd place in the Copa America, and its FIFA ranking, were contributory factors in its World Cup qualification. They were not - the World Cup qualifying competition is a separate affair. The sentence could read: "Peru achieved third place at the 2011 Copa América, and reached its highest-ever FIFA position (19th) in July 2013. However, it failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup."
I only have time for a few brief further observations:
Players": what you describe as the "current squad" was evidently put together for a single friendly match. Why was this match particularly notable, to separate these players out from the others? A squad chosen for one match does not normally become the "national squad".
You don't need dates of birth and ages - the ages will soon be out of date anyway.
"Recent callups" table: "in the last 12 months" needs some actual date referencing, since "the last twelve months" is a constantly shifting time span
What is the logic for the ordering of the players' names in this section?
That's all I have time for. My last observation is that the prose would benefit from a full copyedit by an editor who has considerable experience of writing in good quality English. I don't think previous copyeditors have done a particularly good job – the prose is decidedly flaky for a fifth-time nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, thank you very much for the review.
I agree that there are several redundant phrases and concepts in the article, but these are requirements from the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams. That link should answer your last few questions about the "current squad" and "the last 12 months". Also, the Scotland national football team article (the current only FA national football team) should further help out.
Some additional responses:
The logic of the players' ordering (in the "Recent callups") is based on the last match they played with the national team.
The article has been copy-edited various times (formally and informally), but its prose can certainly be improved by reviewers. If you have some additional time available, further prose improvement suggestions are by all means welcome.
You'll have to search far and wide for someone who knows littler about footbal than myself, so feel free to laff at any naïvetés I may list here. I have been to Peru, though---but not Lima (my wife's Japanese, and the atmosphere was a little unfriendly for Japanese people when we were there in 2001). Feel free to disagree with any comment of mine, some of which are merely my preferences and wouldn't impact FAC eligibility.
"football became "a popular sport promoted by bosses for the cohesion of their workers and to a daily practice on empty lots in popular urban barrios" ": quotations should have inline attribution---but is there some reason this can't be reworded? Must it be a quote?
I wonder about some of the other quotes as well...not that I can pinpoint anything wrong with it, but there are a lot of them, and few or any of them seem like really "quotable" quotes.
" to the repression taken against "social, sporting and political organization among the urban and rural poor" during the 1940s and 1950s": is there something good to link to here?
"from the left shoulder to the right hip, in the front, and vice-versa, in the back": I might drop the first and third commas
"was one of Peru's four "FIFA Star II" (the highest certification granted to artificial pitches) stadiums": the parenthesis seems awkward to me reading aloud. How about something like "was one of Peru's four stadiums to be awarded "FIFA Star II", the highest certification granted to artificial pitches"?
"now covered by thousands": how about an "as of"?
"desert-like coastal region"; "was markedly English, played by members of the expatriate community and the Anglophile elite on grass pitches in clubs that were physically separated from the daily reality of Lima"; "a form of popular culture with autonomous characteristics of organization and practice"; "fervor, enthusiasm, and passion"; etc: attribution, or paraphrase?
"¡Arriba Perú!": would a translation (even in an endnote) be out of line?
"Supporters of Peru are infamously known for the Estadio Nacional disaster, considered as one of the most terrible in football history,[68] which occurred on May 24, 1964, during a 1964 Summer Olympics qualifying match between the youth (under-20) squads of Peru and Argentina.": I might split this into two sentences
"Peru's only hat-trick scorer": is "hat trick" worth a link?
"a pure goal scorer who would take on entire defenses", etc: attribution, or paraphrase?
" including friendlies": "friendlies" worth a link? (I don't know what it means)
The repression against social organizations took place during the government of Manuel Odria. The Spanish WP has an article on it ([56]).
Most readers don't know the meaning of "hat-trick".
I don't know how to properly translate the sports chant.
All other points should be addressed.
I hope your visit to Peru was enjoyable. The only noteworthy thing about Lima, aside from the museums, is the food. The city is not much different from other major urban centers in the Western Hemisphere, except perhaps the driving experience is the worst of all.
I really enjoyed the few days I spent in Cusco, especially (obviously) Machu Picchu (and the 30¢ slices of lemon meringue pie I found)! A further nitpick: I didn't mean you should add "as of" to "now"—I meant that "now" will very quickly become "not now", so it would be best to have an "as of 2013" or whatever, or to avoid mentioning a time at all (the date of the renovation should be sufficient). Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad you had a good time in Cusco.
I removed the "as of now" part. I agree that it is best to avoid mentioning time.
Curly Turkey: Dear friend, the article underwent a thorough copy-edit carried out by Cliftonian (see below for more information). At this time, would you oppose or support the nomination?--MarshalN20Talk 15:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me a while to come back. There are a couple of refs listed that you haven't cited anywhere: Glanville, Brian (2010). The Story of the World Cup; and Lennox, Doug (2009). Now You Know Soccer. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Curly. I moved the cited text to Peru at the FIFA World Cup. I should have also taken out those books from the references. It should now be fixed.--MarshalN20Talk 01:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Cliftonian
Support—I have reviewed this article at great length over the past fortnight (see below) and have provided a thorough copy-edit. After a lot of progress I feel the article now meets the FA criteria and am happy to support its promotion. Well done MarshalN20; I hope this gets the support it needs this time. —Cliftonian(talk) 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would restructure the first two sentences thus: "The Peru national football team represents Peru in international football. Managed by the Peruvian Football Federation (FPF), it is one of the 10 members of FIFA's South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL)." (prose issues, and it competes against teams from all around the world when it qualifies for the World Cup finals.)
"The Peruvian team's performance has been inconsistent, although it enjoyed successful periods in the 1930s and 1970s." Use of "although" is inappropriate, as the following statement that certain periods were considered successful itself implies that other periods were less so. I would suggest removing "although", putting a semicolon here and clarifying that it enjoyed its most successful periods in the 1930s and 1970s.
Perhaps mention Lima is the capital of Peru (a lot of people wouldn't know)
Clarify that what they have qualified for four times are technically the World Cup final tournaments, not the World Cup tournaments themselves
Since they've only been to the Olympics once perhaps simpler just to say when it was: "and participated in the Olympic football tournament in 1936."
"The classic uniform colors" Perhaps "Peru's classic uniform colors"
"which is why the Peruvian team is commonly known as" perhaps "which gives rise to the Peruvian team's common Spanish nickname"
"Early in its history" Clarify we mean early in the team's history and not that of Peru the country
Teodoro Fernández, Juan Valdivieso, and Alejandro Villanueva—are these players?
It may be an understatement to state that I loved all the improvement recommendations. I look forward to the rest of the review. Thank you.--MarshalN20Talk 18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's really no problem, I'm glad you like the suggestions so much. I'm really enjoying helping out with this so thank you! =) —Cliftonian(talk) 19:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead and infobox, continued
I copyedited some of the new additions, I hope you don't mind
"Early in its history, Peru's national team participated in the inaugural FIFA World Cup tournament"—Why not just "Peru took part in the inaugural FIFA World Cup in 1930"?
"brought it to world recognition" perhaps "brought it worldwide recognition"
"Peru's 1982 World Cup participation was its last to date, and it has not since won a major tournament or qualified for the World Cup" How about "Peru last reached the World Cup finals in 1982; it has since failed to qualify, and has not won any major tournament."
"In late 2008, the team was temporarily suspended from international participation by FIFA while allegations of FPF corruption were investigated by the Peruvian government's sporting authorities." How about "FIFA temporarily suspended the team from international competition in late 2008 while Peruvian government investigated allegations of corruption within the FPF."
"Peru appointed Uruguayan Sergio Markarián as its head coach in 2010 and, after achieving third place at the 2011 Copa América, was unable to qualify for the 2014 FIFA World Cup." Perhaps mention the team is presently without a coach and that Sergio Markarián, from Uruguay, was the last incumbent? We don't need to mention that Peru didn't get to the 2014 World Cup again as we have already said they didn't get into a World Cup since 1982, so leave that out. I would keep that they came third in the 2011 Copa América; perhaps mention this is the best they've done since 1983 (so perhaps things are on the up! ;))
Infobox looks generally okay to me; I'd just put an inline citation on Palacios' 128 caps and on Pizarro being captain
History
I'd perhaps change the first use of football to "Assocation football"→"Association football was introduced to Peru ..." I don't know, I just think it makes it sound nice, I'll leave this one to your personal discretion
"in the nineteenth century" I think we prefer "in the 19th century" in MOS? I may be wrong
you don't need to wikilink England (everybody knows what England is)
Again, perhaps make clear that Lima is the capital city. Suggested reword: "As early as 1859, members of the British community in the capital Lima founded the Lima Cricket Club, a sports club dedicated to cricket, rugby, and football." (you don't need "the practice of", all it adds is extra words)
"of the War of the Pacific (1879–1883)"→I'd make this "of the War of the Pacific against Chile (1879–1883)."
"After the war, Peru's coastal society embraced modern cultural practices for leisure, the arts, and cuisine. In Lima, football became a popular daily activity in urban barrios. City workers were also encouraged to practice the sport by bosses who wanted to improve their laborer's solidarity and productivity." Perhaps "After the war, coastal society in Peru embraced modern innovations such as football, which became a popular daily activity in Lima barrios. Urban bosses encouraged their workers to take up the sport, hoping that it would breed solidarity and improved productivity."
"with local workers" why not just "with locals"
"Due to these factors, including the sport's rapid development among the urban poor of Lima's La Victoria district (thanks to the foundation of Alianza Lima in 1901), Peru formed the strongest footballing culture in the Andean region." Perhaps "These factors, coupled with the sport's rapid development among the urban poor of Lima's La Victoria district (where the Alianza Lima club was formed in 1901), led to Peru developing the strongest footballing culture in the Andean region.
all for now, will continue tomorrow —Cliftonian(talk) 19:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History, continued
"Peruvian Football League tournament" you don't need tournament
Perhaps rephrase this sentence as: "The Peruvian Football League was formed in 1912 and held each year until it broke up in 1921 amid disputes between the member clubs."
"Consequently, the Peruvian Football Federation (FPF)[C] was created in the following year and, in 1926, assumed the management of the Peruvian Football League." Try "The Peruvian Football Federation (FPF) was created the following year and, in 1926, it reorganised the annual league competition."
"The FPF joined the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) in 1925, but due to financial problems it only formed a national football team in 1927,[19] which debuted in that year's South American Championship.[12]" Try "The FPF joined the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) in 1925, and formed a national team in 1927—the delay was due to financial issues. The team debuted in the 1927 South American Championship, which the FPF hosted at the Estadio Nacional in Lima."
Perhaps mention here that Peru's first win was a 3–2 victory over Bolivia in their second international game?
"During the 1930s, Peruvian football lived its first golden era." You should really say instead that this has been called a golden era. "The 1930s have been called Peruvian football's first golden era." Or something like that.
Say what Rodillo Negro means in English ("black roller")
wikilink Alejandro Villanueva, Juan Valdivieso, and Teodoro Fernández, and mention that these are players. Perhaps say what positions they respectively played. What exactly made them "a soccer triumvirate unsurpassed in the world at that time"?
"After a fair performance"—"a fair performance" seems terribly vague and, er, they played two games and lost them both. Perhaps just say they took part in the inaugural World Cup in Uruguay in 1930 (I think it's worth mentioning it was in Uruguay, another South American country).
Why were poor organisations in Peru repressed during the 1940s and 1950s?
"generally reached the middle standings" perhaps "generally performed creditably"
"In this period, Peru generally reached the middle standings at South American Championships and barely missed the Sweden 1958 World Cup, after being defeated by Brazil (which went on to win the competition)" Perhaps "Peru generally performed creditably at the South American Championships during this period, and narrowly missed qualification for the 1958 World Cup finals in Sweden, losing over two legs to eventual champions Brazil."
"A series of victories in the late 1960s, culminating in the qualification for the Mexico 1970 World Cup, brought Peru to another golden era." Try "A series of successes during the late 1960s, culminating for the Mexico 1970 World Cup, ushered in a second golden period for Peruvian football."
"Peru reached the quarterfinals, where it was knocked out by eventual winners Brazil, and earned the first FIFA Fair Play Trophy."→"Peru reached the quarter-finals in 1970, losing to the tournament winners Brazil, and earned the first FIFA Fair Play Trophy."
"while in Spain 1982" should be "and in Spain 1982"
"the first stage" should be "the first group stage" (to concisely make clear there were two group stages that year)
"Peru's early elimination" should be "Peru's early elimination in 1982" (more clear)
"Following its failed qualification" should be "Following its failure to qualify for the 1986 World Cup in Mexico"
"as "The Colts" (Spanish: Los Potrillos)" should be "as Los Potrillos ("The Colts")" (I think it is clear from context this is Spanish)
"leaving among the dead several national team players (including rising sensation Luis Escobar and goalkeeper José González Ganoza) and coach Marcos Calderón." put a full stop before this and make this into a new sentence. "All aboard were killed except the pilot. Among the dead were the national team coach Marcos Calderón and several Peruvian international players, including Luis Escobar, widely tipped as a future star forward, and goalkeeper José González Ganoza."
"South Korea/Japan 2002 and Germany 2006 tournaments" make clear these are World Cup tournaments
briefly explain that Peru was invited to the Gold Cup in 2000 as a guest team
Why was a corrupt official blamed for the players' perceived poor performance?
"considered his re-election illegal" perhaps "declared his re-election illegal"
In the final sentence in this section move the "however" from the start of the sentence to the end
Make clear in the image caption that the players are named from left to right (I presume they are). Also maybe move the image down to the 1970s paragraph and put it on the right (if it overlaps slightly into the section on the team's kit this is no great bother as it nicely displays the team's kit too)
How about "Colours" or "kit"? These are terms more commonly used in football than "uniform". I'd go for "colours" myself.
When we say Peru's national colors are red and white, we mean the country in a non-sporting sense, right? If so, I'd make this clearer. Put something like "The Peru football team plays in red and white, the country's national colors."
Why not mention the first kit had black socks?
"on the front", not "in the front"; same "on the back"
They haven't used the exact same design since 1936, have they? Perhaps make clear that the basic sash design dates back to 1936, but that it has been slightly altered periodically during that time.
I think this section would benefit from a slight reorganisation; I think it might work better if you discuss each design directly when it is introduced, as opposed to the present format where you introduce the four designs, then go back and discuss each of them.
"claiming that" seems odd wording; all Turpin said was that he thought it was the nicest kit, not that it unambiguously was. I'd replace this with "saying that".
"eight separate companies"→"separate" is not needed, "eight companies" means the same thing
Is arkivperu.com a reliable source? Looks like a blog to me. Likewise Jaime Pulgar-Vidal Otálora (blogspot).
Yes, Arkivperu & Pulgar-Vidal are both reliable sources.
What makes them so, if I may ask? —Cliftonian(talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pulgar-Vidal is a notable sports historian and a professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (see [57]). ArkivPeru is an archive. It's not a traditional RS, but it is reliable for the non-controversial information it adds (and which no other source presents).--MarshalN20Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, these both seem reasonable to me, but keep in mind these sources might get questioned by others—if you find something more concrete I would recommend adding them. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goldblatt does not explain why sports organizations were repressed.
Do any other sources? Do you have a vague idea why they might have been? What kind of government was Peru under in those days? —Cliftonian(talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found another source that mentions sports organizations in Peru during this period. Based on personal knowledge, I would guess the repression is related to the Manuel A. Odría administration. However, Odría was also a populist, and prior Peruvian administrators (such as that of Manuel Prado) were not supportive of organizations that united the poor or industrial workers (which is partially why APRA became an important political force). The convoluted nature of Peruvian politics may also explain why Goldblatt decided to avoid elaborating on the subject.--MarshalN20Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I understand. I'm sorry I am so ignorant of matters Peruvian! Perhaps just add a few words to make clear it was the government that was repressing the organisations? ("He attributed this sudden decline to Peruvian authorities' repression of "social, sporting and political organizations among the urban and rural poor" during the 1940s and 1950s." or something like that should do). —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rodillo Negro did not participate in the 1930 World Cup. I attempted to make the sentence a "before and after" contrast, but (in retrospect) it does not seem to have been expressed properly.
Why don't you just move the fragment about playing in the 1930 World Cup to the beginning of the paragraph, before you mention the Rodillo Negro? —Cliftonian(talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the prior paragraph. Do you think it maintains a proper flow?--MarshalN20Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great; well done! This is a great improvement. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go back through the previous comments again as some of them don't seem to have been addressed. For example, what exactly made Villanueva, Valdivieso, and Fernández "a soccer triumvirate unsurpassed in the world at that time"? Does the source say? Only a word or two of explanation is required to make this part clear for the reader. I'll continue the review later. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologize for the delay. Everything up to "Colours" should be ready.--MarshalN20Talk 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so patient and polite with me, as I say above I am rather ignorant of both Peru the country and its football team (which is a large factor in what makes reviewing this interesting)—all I knew before was the wonderful red sash kit! I will go back and copy-edit a little in the history section before continuing the review, I hope you don't mind. Well done so far, this is shaping up nicely. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will be back late tomorrow (3 February) to continue this review. —Cliftonian(talk) 18:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes to the colors section look great, well done! I have just copy-edited the prose a little bit. Right, on with the review.
Stadium
"The Estadio Nacional is a 45,000-spectator stadium located in Lima that acts as the traditional home of the Peruvian team and the national stadium of Peru." This sentence seems kind of backwards to me. I would put :The traditional home of the Peruvian team is the country's national stadium, the Estadio Nacional in Lima, which houses 45,000 spectators." Or something like that.
Was the first national stadium also called the Estadio Nacional? Why not say this is the third Estadio Nacional, the result of a renovation process under Alan Garcia that was completed in 2011, and that the original was a wooden structure ... etc
"Peru's centenary of independence" should be "the centenary of Peru's independence"
You don't need to wikilink Spain, everybody knows what Spain is
"regime" is a somewhat loaded word in English, try "government" or even just putting "Under General Manuel Odría, the stadium ..."; this still makes sense and is more concise
"reconstructed, expanded, and officially re-inaugurated" expanded seems superfluous here; how could it be expanded if it was reconstructed at the same time? try "rebuilt with a larger capacity, and officially re-inaugurated"
I'd move the sentence about this being the present stadium up (see comment above)
"A unique feature" all features are unique; I'd replace this word
"named in honor of the main advocate of the stadium's first renovation" who was he? A politician? a civil servant? a sports coach?
"overtime" should be "over time" ("overtime" as one word is a noun equivalent to "injury time" in US English)
"The arena was also the only national stadium in CONMEBOL to have artificial turf, installed to improve its aesthetic appeal for the 2005 FIFA U-17 World Championship, and was one of Peru's four "FIFA Star II" stadia, the highest certification granted to artificial pitches." You should rearrange this to make clear that stadium had artificial turf from 2005, but doesn't now (I know you say this in the next paragraph but this is quite jarring)
"located in" You don't need "located"; just saying "in" means the same thing
Supporters
"Amid the 2014 World Cup qualifiers" try "During the 2014 World Cup qualifiers" ("amid" would mean during that period, but not actually during those games)
"During the 19th century, football in Peru was not only exclusive to Lima's Anglophile elite and former expatriates, but it was also secluded from the rest of the city." Try "During the 19th century, football in Peru was largely exclusive to Lima's Anglophile elite and expatriates, and secluded from the rest of the city."
"as the practice of the sport" why not just "as the sport"
"of a wider popular culture" you don't need "a"
"In the 21st century, football is the most popular sport in Peru" Perhaps "Football is today the most popular sport in Peru." I would recommend putting this at the start of this section
"Peruvian fans commonly encourage the national squad with the popular sports chant ¡Arriba Perú!" How about "Peru fans often encourage the national team with cries of ¡Arriba Perú! ("Come on Peru!")."
"it became "a symbol of national culture" for Peru" try "it became a symbol of [Peruvian] national culture."
"Peru Campeón, a polca criolla" translate these Spanish terms
"qualification to the Mexico 1970 World Cup" should be "qualification for"
"considered as one of the most terrible in football history" perhaps "which is often cited as one of the worst tragedies in football history"
"the youth (under-20) squads of Peru and Argentina" maybe "Peru's under-20 team and its counterpart from Argentina"
"goal from Peru, which would have tied the score, alleging "rough play" from the Peruvians" maybe "Peruvian goal, a would-be equalizer, alleging rough Peruvian play."
"jumped into the field" maybe "invaded the pitch"
"on the pitch" is not necessary; "thrown from the stands" is enough
"Police responded by throwing tear gas into the crowd, causing a stampede that was worsened by the stadium's locked gates. The death toll amounted to 315 spectators and more than 500 were injured in the chaos." Try "Police threw tear gas into the crowd, which caused a stampede; trying to escape, fans were crushed against the stadium's locked gates. A total of 315 people were killed in the chaos, with more than 500 others injured."
Rivalries
"Peru maintains prominent football rivalries with Chile and Ecuador. They have a favorable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile.[72][73] The first time Peru faced both its rivals in an official tournament was during the 1939 South American Championship held in Lima; Peru won both matches.[74] In the FIFA World Cup, Peru's first confrontation against both rivals happened during the Argentina 1978 World Cup qualifiers, in which Peru directly eliminated Ecuador and Chile after defeating them in Lima and securing away draws.[72][73]" Perhaps:
"The Peru football team maintains prominent rivalries with its counterparts from neighbouring Chile and Ecuador.[72][73] The Peruvians have a favorable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile. Both of these rivalries date back to the 1939 South American Championship in Lima, when Peru first faced Ecuador and Chile in an official tournament; Peru won both games.[74] Peru's first FIFA World Cup matches against its two rivals were played during qualifying for the Argentina 1978 World Cup; Peru defeated both Ecuador and Chile over two legs, directly eliminating them both.[72][73]"
"considers it to be" perhaps "ranks it"
"Chile has" perhaps "the Chilean team has"
"Both nations further dispute the origin of the football move known as the bicycle kick, with Peruvians naming it chalaca and Chileans calling it chilena." Perhaps "both nations furthermore claim to have invented the bicycle kick; Peruvians call it the chalaca, and it is the chilena in Chile."
"prevent both sides from facing each other" perhaps "prevent a match between the two sides"
Okay that's it for now; more later or tomorrow. Hope this helps —Cliftonian(talk) 17:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is fantastic. To my mind comes that quote attributed to Michelangelo: "Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it." I brought the stone, and you're the artist making a masterpiece out of it. [:)]--MarshalN20Talk 14:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you for the extremely flattering words! I'm glad you feel that way. I noticed that one of the images lower down infringed on copyright (falsely labelled as self-published, but actually from Popperfoto), so I took it out. I don't think it's a great loss anyway. Okay, on to "Competitive records".
FIFA World Cup
"Peru has participated in 14 World Cup qualifiers and 4 World Cup finals." Try "The Peruvian team competed at the first World Cup in 1930 as invitees, and has entered each tournament at the qualifying stage since 1958. Having qualified three times (in 1970, 1978 and 1982), it has taken part in the World Cup finals four times."
"In the qualifiers, the squad has a record of 35 wins, 30 draws, and 59 losses, with 130 goals in favor and 174 against." Perhaps "Peru's all-time record in World Cup qualifying matches as of 2014 stands at 35 wins, 30 draws and 59 losses; the team has scored 130 goals and conceded 174."
"In the finals, the team holds a record of 4 wins, 3 draws, and 8 losses, with 19 goals in favor and 31 against." Maybe "In the finals, the team has won four matches, drawn three and lost eight, with 19 goals in favor and 31 against."
expand to "During the 1930 competition, a Peruvian became the first player sent off in a World Cup—his identity is disputed between sources."
"first tournament goal" why not "first World Cup goal"
"Teófilo Cubillas is the team's top World Cup scorer with 10 goals in 13 games" this is including qualifiers, right?
On reflection, I don't think the large tables and templates in the "competitive records" section really belong in this article about the Peru football team in general. They are rather intrusive and detract somewhat from the prose, in my opinion. I think these would be better off in the individual articles linked to or in an article on the Peru football team's statistics. —Cliftonian(talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon the delay in updating the article. I'm currently stuck with a few dull tasks at work. [:/]
The achievement tables are a standard across all national football team articles. I personally agree with you that they are bulky and detract from the prose. However, this would be a long-term matter to discuss with the editors at WP:FOOTY and change the format.
Hmmm. Is there a way to make it so these tables are hidden by default? This might be a good way around this—the information would be retained for those who want it (who can easily open the table), but would not be as intrusive and distracting. I think we can do this by going to the individual template pages and changing the class to "wikitable collapsible collapsed". I would recommend taking the templates with the squads for each tournament out. —Cliftonian(talk) 08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Polca criolla" is the same in Spanish and English. Another common name in English is "Peruvian polka", which is the correct translation of the other common Spanish name "polca peruana". Based on GoogleBooks results, I get the impression that "polca criolla" is more common in the academic realm (perhaps because it has a more exotic tone to it). Regardless, I think either is fine. Which do you prefer?
I think we could best put it as "Peru Campeón, a polca criolla (Peruvian polka)". I hope this is okay with you? Don't worry at all about delays, I understand completely. I hope all this is helpful and that you are well —Cliftonian(talk) 08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I hope to soon create the "polca criolla" article, but I'm debating on whether to focus on that first or expand the Musica criolla article.
I am now on the records section. The boxes are now collapsed. The team templates need to be in the article. I can move them to the bottom of the page. Would you prefer them to be at the bottom of the article?
I'm sorry it took me a couple days to get back to this. I think perhaps having them at the bottom would be best as they are a little in the way as it is, even though they are collapsed. I will copy-edit the rest of the article over the next few days and then have a final look over. I hope this is okay and that you are well. See also my note below. Thanks, —Cliftonian(talk) 17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some copy-editing and reorganisation but have not finished yet; please give me a couple more days. Thanks —Cliftonian(talk) 19:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still awestruck by the improvements. I do, nonetheless, feel nostalgic for the kit evolution pictures.--MarshalN20Talk 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished copyediting the article now, and am now concluding this part of the review. I hope all the changes I have made are to your satisfaction. I have just one more query regarding the prose and captions: "The renovated Estadio Nacional offers high-quality lighting for HD newscasts"—what does this mean? I don't understand. Apart from this I am happy enough to support so far as prose is concerned. You also need to go through and work on the reference formatting (for example, you have "CONMEBOL.com" and "FIFA.com" listed as publishers, when it should just be "CONMEBOL" and "FIFA"—the publisher is the organisation, not the name of the website). Also keep in mind what I said about sourcing; you have quite a few blogs in here and these are sure to throw up question marks. I am sorry but I still don't feel comfortable supporting this for FA status while these issues remain surrounding the references. I hope you're well and having a nice weekend. Cheers, —Cliftonian(talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes are fantastic. It may just be nostalgia, but I would have liked to keep the kit evolution pictures in the "Colours" section.
The "high-quality lighting..." part refers to the improved lights of the stadium, which (according to the source) make High-Definition (television) newscasts possible.
All the ".com" issues should now be resolved. Certain websites, such as "Peru.com", have the ".com" as part of their official name.
All of the blogs are reliable per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
The only website I can agree that is borderline acceptable is "ArkivPeru", but I think it can be removed if you think the article would be better without using it.
Thanks for all the improvements!--MarshalN20Talk 15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed ArkivPeru from a couple of citations, replacing one with a source from El Comercio. I left it for the citation of Peru's kit history (no other source has such a detailed account of it).--MarshalN20Talk 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is okay, well done. The issue I mentioned above regarding the publisher formatting still remains, though—in a lot of instances you give the web address or the work as the publisher rather than the publisher itself.
El Comercio, for example, is a newspaper, right? It should go under "work", not publisher. The publisher is "Empresa Editora El Comercio". (this is also the publisher for Peru.com, Peru21.pe, Depor.pe and Laprensa.pe; these are all works).
Give RSSSF in full: it is the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation.
"Jaimepulgarvidal.blogspot.com" should be his name: "Jaime Pulgar-Vidal Otálora".
Is Clarín a company or a publication/website? If the latter, it is a work; find the publisher.
"El Universal.mx" should be "El Universal" and included as a work, not a publisher.
"Libero.pe" should just be "Libero".
I hope this helps and that you are well —Cliftonian(talk) 11:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is good. Clarin is the work, and "Grupo Clarin" is the publisher. Thank you for teaching me to distinguish between both.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that adding the common acronym to the first full citation, such as "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF)", would then permit me to solely use the acronym in subsequent citations? I just did this, but can also quickly change everything to the full name.
I hope all is good with you as well. Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk 14:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why this would not be okay (RSSSF is the more common term anyway). —Cliftonian(talk) 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from John
I now support this candidate. Well done for all the improvements. --John (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my note in talk. Was there a reason this was changed from UK to US English? --John (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John:. This article hasn't been "changed from UK to US English". I wrote most of the pre-FA review draft. English is not my first language, and I learned to write/speak it from a variety of individuals, including French Vietnamese, Midwestern Americans, and British Peruvians. Basing a "procedural oppose" on the language of a subpar version of the article, from nearly a decade ago ([58]), is astonishing.
Moreover, my first edit on the article was in 2007 ([59]), by which time there were no mention of "colours" or "neighbours" (which are the only UK English words I could catch from the 2004 version). I hope this answers your query. Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk 23:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It should be kept in the original dialect per WP:RETAIN. If you didn't change it (and I accept you didn't), it should be easy enough to change it back. --John (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have minded at all to write the article in UK English, as I did (with the help of UK English writing editors) in Falkland Islands, but at this point the request is excessive.
In fact, I consider the following part of WP:RETAIN to apply to this case: "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety. The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." Two words ("colours" and "neighbours") do not establish a consistent variety.
Nonetheless, if you would like to change the language from US to UK English, please feel free to go ahead and do it (and tag it accordingly on the talk page). However, please don't oppose this article's nomination based on a 2004 edition, which was little more than a stub with only two identifiable UK English words.
I'm somewhat bemused by the idea that this should not go to FA status on the basis of an ENGVAR issue from a decade ago. The only important thing for me is that one variety, either UK or US English, is used consistently throughout. I would personally prefer UK-style English just because that's what I'm more used to. One though that has just occurred to me is that using British English would be a quite nice way to subtly give a nod to the British founders of Peruvian football. What do you think? Whatever we decide, I am happy to go through and make sure the whole article conforms to one variety. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any preference over either variety. However, I am unable to conduct such a massive change at this time. If perhaps John or you could please do then change, then that would be great. Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk 19:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will convert the article to BrE in a couple days (I'll be unable to until then because of real life commitments). I hope this settles this issue. —Cliftonian(talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now in British English. I hope this is okay with everybody. —Cliftonian(talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you have tried to fix this. I cannot support though because the prose is still not at the requisite level. "Furthermore" and "however" are danger flags of bad writing to me, and I see we still have "centered" among the UK spellings. I think a good copy-edit could take this to the standard but it is not there yet. --John (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about this. I will endeavour to rectify this when I copyedit this article in a few days. I hope you're well and having a pleasant week. Thanks, —Cliftonian(talk) 20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished copyediting now; what do you think now? Thanks —Cliftonian(talk) 11:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Friend, the article underwent a thorough copy-edit carried out by Cliftonian (see above for more information). Everything you mentioned was addressed (UK English and good copy-edit). Only two "however" are in the article, and these are appropriately used in the history section. Given these major changes, would you keep the oppose or change to support the nomination? Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, yes, thank you very much for the improvements.--MarshalN20Talk 00:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review by Wizardman
Image review: I see an img review was done in the last FAC, but doesn't hurt to double-check. 10 images in all, first one is a logo that passes copyleft status due to its simplicity. Rest of the images check out ok except for the ones noted. First, File:Perurumania1930.JPG is tagged as PD for Chile, but it shows a Peru-Romania match. I'm sure it is PD, but is that the right tag? If Los Sports, the source, is Chilean, perhaps make that clear. If it is based in Peru, then change to the Peru PD tag you use elsewhere. Also, I'd like to see File:Inside Estadio Nacional (Lima, Peru).jpg's description fleshed out due to how vague it is, though it is not a requirement. Wizardman 04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Wizardman. Yes, it seems Los Sports was a Chilean magazine published during the 1930s (there's a substantial article on it in the Spanish Wikipedia). The Peru-Romania match was surprisingly violent, so that may be the reason it got coverage in Chile. Although I imagine the World Cup was also the only notable sporting event that took place in South America at that time.
I improved the description of the Estadio Nacional image, but I really don't know what was going on the day it was taken.--MarshalN20Talk 05:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and linked Los Sports on the image, since I didn't realize we had an article on it (one sentence, but it exists). Everything else looks good now img-wise. Wizardman 00:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nergaal
There are a bunch of issues I noticed and I will try to list them as I go through:
Intro
"he 1930s and 1970s" there should be another the after and
" and is without a manager..." there is something weird about this whole sentence
second para and on: I don't really like how the intro is organized; please try to talk about each set a competitions in an order: start with WC record - by taking 2 or 3 sentences; then talk about the copa america; then other stuff such as the olympics
have 3rd para talk about say famous people and managers
then perhaps talk about rivalries, jersey, etc
last intro para talk about recent developments and current trends in performances
History
I don't really like how this section is and I think you should have 3 subsections: 1) early beginnings and first world cups (1930s); after Rodillo Negro up to 1982; 3) modern/recent era
when was the first friendly and first official international game played?
"Starting with Ciclista Lima in 1926, Peruvian clubs toured Latin America." needs a citation
"Peru took part in the inaugural FIFA World Cup in Uruguay in 1930" move to next para
" the national team's underperformance" during what period?
" reached its highest-ever position in the FIFA world rankings" I think you need to specify here since when are the rankings recorded/calculated
"It failed to qualify for the Brazil 2014 World Cup finals, nonetheless" please state the place. You should clearly state the performances for whenever you say it failed to qualify (i.e. was it #9 or #4?)
After history
"the country's national colours" are they national colors, or just flag's colors?
" it was most recently renovated i" plural?
the stadium section is a bit longer than it needs to be; who cares about vip boxes and other aluminium crap?
when was the last time a game was played at a different stadium?
supporters section could probably benefit from an image (of supporters painted/dressed in whatever color(s))
rivalries
please give some statistics of W/D/L games
Records
"During the 1930 competition, a Peruvian became the first player sent off in a World Cup—his identity is disputed between sources" should probably be moved in the history part
"eru came top of their group in the first round, eliminating Chile and Bolivia, and in the semifinals drew with Brazil over two legs, winning 3–1 in Brazil but losing 2–0 at home. Peru were declared winners by drawing of lots. In the two-legged final between Colombia and Peru, both teams won their respective home games (1–0 in Bogota and 2–0 in Lima), forcing a play-off in Caracaswhich Peru won 1–0" should be summarized in the history section
perhaps mention here that only the big three won the cup more than twice
the bottom two para in the olympic section are TMI
Players
please decrease the font size to something like 90% and auto-hide the recent callumps stuff
add a (hidden) table for the notable players section with caps and goals
Thank you for the review Nergaal. I addressed the most important that I could easily fix at the moment. Some comments:
The Ciclista Lima etc. citation (#22) covers two sentences.
I'm very limited when it comes to tables & other such Wiki-gadgets. Plus, I remember the WP:FOOTIE members did not want for the player tables to be altered from the current consensus (all football articles have the same format for the player tables).
I'd prefer for the history section to have no subsections.
Ian plans to close this FAC on either Friday or Saturday. Hopefully it will pass so that this FAC review matter is not again repeated for a fifth time. We can discuss the other suggestions you're making afterwards. Best regards.--MarshalN20Talk 04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since after spot-checking some pf my comments they didn't appear to have been addressed yet. Nergaal (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, most of your suggestions are merely personal preferences over non-major matters (including points that challenge the established consensus at WP:FOOTY). I have addressed those points that indeed required immediate attention (such as: [60]), but the rest can be discussed at a later date. As much as I appreciate your review, simply not abiding by everything you list does not entitle a logical oppose to this nomination. Best wishes.--MarshalN20Talk 21:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when Marshal and I discussed on my talk page, I said I'd close it Friday/Saturday if nothing much had changed, and since then John's concerns have been resolved and we've had an additional review, hence it's remained open. Now, it may be that some of Nergaal's suggestions are indeed not actionable because they don't follow football article conventions, and I know you've mentioned a couple of things and included a diff of changes above, Marshal, but it'd be easier for the FAC delegates to judge things if you responded to each of Nergaal's points to say it's been actioned or it hasn't been actioned because... Per FAC instructions, just don't use {{done}} templates or the like.
Also, have I missed a source review above, i.e. one checking the references for reliability and consistent formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. I'll address the points in a list (which should match, point-by-point, what has been presented by Nergaal:
Intro
Addressed.
Addressed.
Disagree; Because: subject to personal preference; current introduction is the result of various past copy-edits (the last being conducted by Cliftonian), and I like it as well.
You mean you disagree with my 4 of my comments? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is a single one, which you then proceeded to elaborate. I don't see how it can be interpreted in any another manner, but I respect your perspective if you disagree. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
Disagree. I prefer that the section remain without subsections because it makes the table of contents and the section too bulky.
You can have the TOC show only the 1st level subtitles Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First international game was already mentioned, please read second paragraph. Friendlies are rarely important (i.e., the "first friendly" is unimportant).
Depends if the friendlies were before the first official matches. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peru had no friendlies prior to the first official match.--MarshalN20Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed
Addressed
Addressed
Addressed
Disagree; too much detail for summary.
After history
Addressed. National colours.
I don't see how. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction & body did not have the same information. Introduction mentioned flag, but body talked about national colours. I addressed the problem with the following edit: [61]. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean.
Addressed. Section is 4 paragraphs, the standard summary length.
Addressed.
No image available. Addressed.--MarshalN20Talk 15:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalries
Disagree; too much information. Also, information is not available without conducting WP:OR.
How can you talk about a rivalry without saying who is winning that rivalry? It is like saying USA and USSR had a big rivalry during the cold war and not saying one of them eventually failed. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, the second sentence of the sections states: "The Peruvians have a favourable record against Ecuador and a negative record against Chile." This sentence indicates who is winning the rivalries. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Records
Disagree; this is a World Cup record.
Disagree; information is specifically related to Peru's Copa America record (second victory).
Good, but not necessary.
Addressed. Mixed the two paragraphs into a single one, removing extra information not directly related to the Olympic tournament.
Players
Recommendation is against WP:FOOTY conventions. All football articles have the same table.
Disagree. The player records section is at the end of the article.
Just based on the above it does look to me that the nominator has made a reasonable attempt to deal with these comments, and I'd welcome Nergaal's response. In the meantime, a source review is still needed, and I've listed a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian & Nergaal, I have also addressed the supporters image recommendation. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk 05:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, Cliftonian appears to have done a source review above - did you want another? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Ah, I did miss that -- no, that's fine tks, Nikki, stand down...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sorted, I still believe the nominator has made reasonable efforts to address the concerns of the one opposing review, so it's time (finally) to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Comment from Giants2008
Comment – "the last incumbent was Uruguayan Sergio Markarian, who managed the team from 2010 from 2013." Last "from" should be "to" instead.Giants2008 (Talk) 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Thank you Giants2008.--MarshalN20Talk 04:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Been working on this article for the past year or so, probably the most comprehensive on the net. Reviewed by several top sports contributors. Tragic sports figure. Fixed all the problems from the previous FAC, which I fell inactive for a few weeks, and the peer review pretty much. Looking forward to your comments. Thanks Secretaccount 04:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure all refs are in numerical order. For instance, [2][1] should be [1][2] Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 04:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that time, Umbricht's cancer had started to spread throughout his body and he needed to be sedated at times because of the pain. - Should a link to relapse be somewhere around here?
Any information about his personal life? Very little to go on here.
Is there a larger resolution copy of the back of File:JimUmbricht.JPG? I can't read it to check for a copyright notice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed what Secret didn't get to. A few comments on the comments. Charged with is more proper since it implies he was given credit for the pitching decision; blamed for makes it sound like media or fans said he lost instead. Found nothing on leaving basketball, my guess is when he joined the minor league team he decided to just continue on that route. As for the baseball image, since they (the retired number pics) were all created by the same guy I would be shocked if there was an issue. I'd ask him but he hasn't edited in a year. As for personal life, I'll do some digging yet. Wizardman 00:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. That looks like most everything except personal life has been taken care of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had some information on his personal life that was inside the body of the text. He was known as a "cleancut" "bachelor" but I had to remove it per the last FAC as not relevant, should I readd it? Secretaccount 17:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he never married, that would be pertinent for the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: This looks better than last time it was here, but there are still quite a few prose problems that we shouldn't be seeing by the time we get to FAC. I've read about half-way down, and assuming that the nominator replies to Crisco and to my comments here, I will add more later. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”He pitched the entire 1963 season as a reliever”: I’m still not happy with “pitched the entire season”. It looks like there is a preposition missing, unless we are just using sports-speak, which I would not be happy with at FA.
”the future home of the Colt .45s. The Colt .45s retired Umbricht's jersey number”: We have “The Colt .45s” used next to each other at the end of one sentence and the start of the next.
”He was the only player from that squad ever to appear in a Major League Baseball game.”: Is this surprising? I’d imagine it was quite common at that level of baseball.
The last paragraph of Early career is a little stats-heavy, which makes it quite hard going compared to the rest of the section.
”gave up two earned runs in the ninth inning for the blown save and the loss”: This gets jargony. I’d imagine many readers, including this one, get a bit lost through this. Links would be a minimum, but a little more explanation within the sentence would be preferable.
”t the beginning of spring training, Umbricht competed against fellow rookies Bennie Daniels and Joe Gibbon for a place.[10] The Pirates began strongly in spring training”: Close repetition of “spring training”
”Manager Danny Murtaugh was impressed with Umbricht's pitching and expected him to become the Pirates' fourth starter by opening day. He won the spot and in his first start of the season…”: Unless I’m missing something, this says “his manager thought he’d start. He started.” I think we could lose the “and expected him to…” part of this without losing the meaning.
”Umbricht had terrible control” A bit harsh, and slipping into a POV editorial voice.
”Umbricht was soon demoted to the bullpen”: I think at least a link is needed for bullpen.
In the paragraph beginning “Two spots in the starting rotation were available…” we really start to overuse “Umbricht”. Some of these need switching for “he” or rephrasing. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A note that I'll address these tonight. Sorry for the delay. Wizardman 00:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few of the fixes, but I won't have time to finish addressing them. Since Secret seems to have moved on to other things this should probably be closed. Wizardman 15:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will take over the FAC again, considering that my WikiBreak failed miserably. Secretaccount 17:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Secret. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- This nom seems to have stalled without any kind of consensus developing so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a formidable but politically untalented queen whose disastrous regency ended with her grisly death. I have addressed the points raised a year ago, which I was unable to do before the first FA nomination expired. If it passes, it will be the first Bosnia and Herzegovina-related featured article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Mary_%26_Elizabeth_of_Hungary.jpg needs US PD tag
File:HAZU_77_17_lipnja_2008.jpg needs a licensing tag for the original work as well as the photo
File:Lands_under_Louis_the_Great_in_the_middle_of_the_14th_century.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have fixed the first two, if that is what you had in mind. I do not know how to deal with the last one, though. How can I "resurrect" the link? Or is removal the only solution? Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we decided that a footnote was for the best, given that so many name forms would clutter up the lead. Serbian, for example, is as relevant as Slovak or Ukrainian.
I see, but the main point of the sentence is that Elizabeth broke free from her mother-in-law's influence when the latter was sent to govern Poland. That did not happen the same day Casimir died, so giving a precise date might be an overkill.
It took me awhile, but I think I found a way to incorporate the link without going into too much detail and straying off topic (the topic being the queen). Thanks a lot for adding other inter-wiki links! Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the names would look better in the lead than in the footnote, after all. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion on this. One more thing. The family tree section is unreferenced... Other than that, I am ready to support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The family tree section is an illustration of relationships already described and referenced in preceding sections (modelled after Mary, Queen of Scots#Family tree). There is no single reference that would cover such a large and complex family tree, and I am not sure how copy-pasting references from the article body would work. I hope this won't be an issue. Thanks so much for your comments and suggestions! Surtsicna (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the difficulty of inserting citations in such tables was discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary, Queen of Scots/archive1. The solution reached there (and eventually discarded) could not be applied to this article. Parts of the family tree can be seen here and here. I have inserted these and also copied citations to Elizabeth's side of the family from the preceding sections, as those are rather simple relations (the identities of her parents and cousin and her mother's Polish heritage). To do so I had to add an additional sentence, because the citations have to follow something. I still believe that this is unnecessary, as the tree is a summary rather than a piece of information on its own - thus comparable to the lead section. You are probably correct, however, in thinking that some might nevertheless object to a lack of references there, so I would rather play safe. Surtsicna (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, apologies for coming to this late; missed it in the queues.
"the queen dowager secured the Polish throne for her youngest daughter, Hedwig" - I think the MOS on titles,
WP:JOBTITLES, would have this as the Queen Dowager, as it is standing in for her name.
" the ban of Bosnia " - similarly, see WP:JOBTITLES.
"he eventually dispatched Elizabeth" - we've got three Elizabeths by this point - probably worth spelling out which one this is.
"in order to regain Zachlumia." - any chance of adding in what this is? e.g. "to regain the town/province/etc. of Zachlumia."?
"The tsar" - as per WP:JOBTITLES.
"who hoped to counter Dušan's expansionist policy either with her father's help or as his eventual successor" - didn't quite work for me - the final clause didn't quite run smoothly.
" the young ban" - as per WP:JOBTITLES.
"the childless king's death" - ditto
"John's own death in 1360 made the extinction of the Hungarian House of Anjou a real possibility" - I think this is the first time the House is mentioned, and it probably needs explaining what it is.
"to the queen and king in 1365" - as per WP:JOBTITLE (and similar onwards)
"However, all copies have been lost" - given that you use the word "copy" in the previous sentence, perhaps "all versions" have been lost might be easier (we're not talking about the copy, or copies of the copy here, but all the texts)
"to the Polish nobility by the Privilege of Koszyce," - would "in the Privilege" or "through the Privilege" sound more natural?
" the centralization of power as means of ensuring" - a missing "a" before means
"In Hungary, he focused on the centralization of power as means of ensuring that his daughters' rights would be respected.[21] Securing marriage to one of the princesses was a priority in European royal courts." - these two sentences didn't quite flow together.
Note: @Surtsicna: I haven't seen any activity from you on this article since before Hchc2009 posted his comments above. The fact that he may have more to add doesn't preclude you from actioning what's there, and unless you can do that soon I'll have to assume the nom is not progressing and archive it. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the revolt of the Natchez people against French colonists in 1729. It describes the background to the conflict and its results, which was the annihilation of the Natchez as a separate ethnic group. Under the previous title, Natchez Massacre, the article has undergone two failed FA reviews here and the latest in December 2012. Through 2013 the main contributor, Jsayre64, and myself (who participated in the failed 2012 review, opposing it) have added a lot of new content and many new secondary sources - the article now includes citations by all the main works describing the massacre, focusing on the most recent ones by Barnett and Sayre. The article just passed the MilHist A class review, which was a suggestion by a reviewer in the 2012 review, as a precondition for a further FAC review. Jsayre64 and myself feel that the article is now ready for a third and hopefully final try.
Comments Support by Cdtew - I've read through this several times, and can't find much with which I can quibble. As one editor who's focused on colonial America, I'm impressed by the quality of what you two have produced. Below are a few comments, which I hope you will address:
"They also built numerous large plantations and concessions" - Do you mean Concession (territory)? If so, it may be helpful to wikilink it, since concession is not a common English word.
"it was the Natchez female chief Tattooed Arm" & "When the Great Sun died in 1728 and was succeeded by his inexperienced nephew Tattooed Arm..." - It seems, based on the article linked in the latter sentence, and the plain meaning of the first sentence, that Tattooed Arm was a female, and was not the successor to Great Sun. If this is correct, is this an accidental omission? Or were there two Tattooed Arms, one being female and the other male? Regardless, it would appear that the wikilink in the latter sentence is incorrect.
"One woman's unborn baby was torn from her before she herself was killed" - It's always tough trying to determine whether European claims about barbaric actions are true or exaggerated. I haven't read the source on which this statement is based (although it's on my list to read), but I think it's usually best to qualify these sorts of statements by saying something like "Dumont de Montigny later reported that one Frenchwoman's unborn baby was torn from her before she herself was killed." Even that gives a little bit too much credence to a potentially biased statement, but at least it identifies the person who reported it, allowing a reader to doubt it if they choose make their own decision.
"Some scholars argue that the fact that the Natchez spared the African slaves was due to a general sense of affinity between the Natchez and the Africans" - who are these scholars? I think this needs some direct attribution.
"tortured to death at the frame in New Orleans" - this is a little unclear, you might want to explain or clarify this, particularly so a general reader will know what "the frame" is. Other than the later parrilla, I'm not sure I even know what you mean.
"the Great Sun" Appears to refer to one individual, although it also appears to be a title. This is problematic when, after the death of the Great Sun, you mention "A subsequent expedition led by Périer in 1731 to dislodge the Natchez captured many of them and their leaders, including Saint Cosme, the Great Sun and the Female Sun Tattooed Arm." Some clarification would help greatly.
"In 1734 Governor Bienville attacked the Chickasaw" - this seems a little thin. In what way did he attack them?
I think the "Historical Interpretations" segment needs something extra. It should either be re-named "Contemporary Interpretations", or should include the views of scholars from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. In other words, presumably the way the event was viewed in the 18th century likely doesn't persist. How did chauvinist late 19th century historians view it? How did ethnohistorians of the mid-late 20th century view it? Is there a difference between how French historians and U.S. historians write about the revolt? I think expanding this would make it truly comprehensive. You appear to have the sources - and, having read Gordon Sayre before, I'm sure those sources in particular will be useful in this task.
Really, that's it. It doesn't seem like much, but the historiography issue may be easier said than done. I will look in my sources to see if I have something useful for you. Cdtew (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've adressed those of your concerns that can be handled without additional sources, some clarifications mostly. The historiography is trickier, Sayre definitely writes about it in the Indian Chief as Tragic Hero, but not in as much detail as you suggest outlining trends in historiography up untill the present. There is a clear trend regarding the early French depictions that is described both by Sayre and Balvay, perhaps more could be included on this. I don't think "contemporary interpretations" would be a good title, but perhaps simply "subsequent interpretations" or "historiography" might work?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can keep the "historical interpretations" title, but all I was saying is that the title implies there will be historical interpretations, not contemporary observations and reporting (which is what's in there for the most part). I don't think it requires an overview of the historiography, but just insert some comments about how the various historians have interpreted the event in your sources. Cdtew (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have almost addressed all your comments, Cdtew, just not entirely the historiography matter. Do you think that section in the article is looking better? Jsayre64(talk) 03:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I am a little slowed down right now by some other work, and it may be a week before I have time to start rereading Sayre. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jsayre64Maunus The historical interpretations section is looking a little better, but a lot has happened in historiography since 1854 (your latest source cited in that section. Historiography can be the toughest part about writing an article like this, but given it is likely a subject of some controversy (as most Euro-Native conflicts tend to be) I would imagine there has been some difference of treatment in the past two centuries. Without a more extensive view of how historians have viewed the revolt (provided that information is out there, which I believe it is) I'm not sure this can pass 1(b) and 1(d) in my mind. Keep working, though, you're putting out a high-quality product. Cdtew (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked for some sources that explicitly describe the changing views of the Revolt, but they are not easy to come by. For example Balvays book could easily be seen as a revisionist account that emphasises the colonial aspect of the interactions, but even in reviews of the book I do not find this characterization explicitly made through comparison with other earlier accounts. Sayre only evaluates the 18th and 19th century views. I could easily write a summary of the historians who have worked on the revolt in the 20th century as it is only about half a dozen - but any comparison would in effect become OR. It is not the case that the revolt has been a subject of controversy, most ink spent on writing about the Natchez has touched their kinship system about which there has been some debate (if not controversy). The most important change in writing about the revolt has been to start emphasizing the role of French colonialism as the trigger of the revolt (as opposed to mere savagery) and to see the revolt in relation to the disproportionate response that devastated the Natchez as a people. I could write this but currently it would be a kind of original research.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jsayre64: Let me know when you've finished adding to historiography, and I will take another look. Cdtew (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jsayre64Maunus I have read through the historiography section, and I'm satisfied that it's as comprehensive as it needs to be. I did do some rearranging, so that there would be some thematic consistency here. Feel free to tweak or revert if you disagree or think there's a better way to arrange it. It just seemed like it went from "Conspiracy" to "proven not to have been a conspiracy" back to "here are some more authors that think it was a conspiracy." As it is now it goes from "General interpretation" to "Conspiracy" to "No Conspiracy" to "Americans have historically had no interest". Cdtew (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It looks great now, more organized. Jsayre64(talk) 16:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments by Ian Rose -- Recusing myself from delegate/coordinator duties, this is not exactly my area of expertise but thought I might be able to offer an additional perspective on prose, readability, etc...
Copyedited, so pls let me know if I've misinterpreted anything; outstanding points:
"By 1700 the Natchez' numbers had been reduced to about 3,500 by disease, and by 1720 further epidemics had halved that population" -- Diseases introduced by contact with the colonists? Might be worth clarifying either way, and perhaps naming some as examples, if known.
"giving the signal for a coordinated simultaneous attack on Fort Rosalie and on the outlying farms and concessions" -- "coordinated simultaneous" sounds redundant to me, suggest dropping "coordinated" as "giving the signal" effectively conveys that IMO.
"A year earlier, the French West India Company gave up control of the colony to Louis XV" -- I don't get the significance of this point; also, if it does remain, I think "had given up" works better than "gave up" since we're going back a year.
"Saint Cosme, the new Great Sun and his mother—the Female Sun, Tattooed Arm" -- Just like to clarify who's who here, are Saint Cosme and the new Great Sun the same person?
Structure seems straightforward, and the article appeared comprehensive and sufficiently detailed, overcoming one of the main issues raised in at least one earlier FAC.
No dablinks found.
I'll take as read Nikki's image review; haven't reviewed sources.
Overall, I found this well written and easy to follow -- good job. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The disease is difficult to clarify, ultimately it did of course come form European contact, but many Indian peoples were decimated by European diseases years before they ever saw one themselves, so it is difficult to know whether it was in fact the secific French colonists or just the general onslaught of disease on the continent brought on by contact. I'll remove "simultaneous" as you are correct it is redundant. Saint Cosme was the new Great Sun, I'll try to make that less ambiguous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I believe I have addressed the rest of your comments. I am still working on the historiography issue that Cdtew raised, mainly planning things off-wiki, and I know that Maunus is too. Thanks for your input. Jsayre64(talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the resolution of my comments above, and see no issues with other changes since I copyedited. Let me know when the historiography mods are more-or-less finalised (we may be at that point now, I don't know) and I'll take one more look before formalising my support. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cdtew, Ian Rose, the last section of prose should be pretty solid at this point, but tell me if you have recommendations for tidying/organization, as the section has gone through almost a re-write. Jsayre64(talk) 16:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now everyone seems happy with the final section, I'm pretty well ready to support too. One minor query: was Chepart's title/rank in actually that of "commandant"? If so, I think the last sentence of the first para in the historiography section should say "Commandant Chepart" (which you in fact use as the title of one section) not "the commandant Chepart". If "commandant" is an informal term, then I'd punctuate things, i.e. "the commandant, Chepart" (and you might even want to reconsider the section title). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That was his title. Jsayre64(talk) 04:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, all looks fine to me now -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
For passim refs, use the "loc" parameter instead of pages
How are you ordering multiple refs by the same author? It's mostly chronological, but then Sayre isn't
Second Balvay title needs endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. I see that the earlier FAC complaints centered around too many primary source usage; assuming the listed bibliography & refs are accurate (can't really spot-check myself), that seems to be fixed now, so good work. My only complaint: the description of Chateaubriand's Les Natchez is incoherent. Who's Chactas? Does it matter that his name is the same as the Chocotaw tribe? (Checking the linked articles - which shouldn't count for this paragraph - he's supposed to be a Natchez Indian, not a Chocotaw.) Wait, Chactas has opinions on the French Revolution of 1789 but dies before the Natchez Revolt of 1731? Okay, I guess it means Chateaubriand has opinions on the French Revolution, but those opinions are being shifted back 100 years for more a loose parallel... maybe? I can understand that you don't want to spend 2 paragraphs on this, but this should either be expanded to explain Les Natchez in enough detail to make sense, or else not even bring up things that don't make sense without context. SnowFire (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, that does need some clarification. I will try to work on that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the details about Chactas, because it probably isn't necessary to dive into the plot of that work of fiction and confuse readers. Jsayre64(talk) 05:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about... Mulberry Street, basically Dr. Seuss's first book. Because it was his first, many writers have focused on it, and as far as I know, this Wiki article cites all of them. I don't really know anything about FACs, but Curly Turkey, who has been working with me on this article and who seems to be a regular here, says this article is just about ready. I'll take his word for it and brace myself for the deluge of constructive criticism. :D Bobnorwal (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:And_to_Think_That_I_Saw_It_on_Mulberry_Street.png: who is the cover artist?
File:MS_Kungsholm_1928.jpg: can we translate the permission details, and give a more specific source than "internet"?
File:Beatrix_Potter1.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whooops! I missed the bit about the source for the Kungsholm. I'm not having luck tracking down another copy of the image online, so for now I'll just comment it out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great topic, really interesting read. I made some small changes. (I love the link between Seuss and Potter, which I'd never heard of before, despite reading them both as a young child.)
"By 1943, it had printed 31,600 copies, and Geisel's royalties were no more than $3,500" How about "but"? Also, what's that in today's money?
I think "and" works better. I'm not really sure if that was a small, average, or above-average amount of royalties to receive from that amount of sales at that time, so the "but" would be too presumptious at this time. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2012, on the occasion of the book's 75th anniversary, Michael Winerip argued that later Dr. Seuss books were more entertaining and inventive than Mulberry Street but that it is nevertheless important as a harbinger of the many books that followed." This is apparently unreferenced- perhaps move the reference to after this statement, or add another reference after it?
Fixed. Curly warned me about the ambiguity of my sourcing method at GAN. I fixed some of the sources but not all. This was one of them. You pointed out another one a few points down. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"other Dr. Seuss books" Why do you use the pen name here? Are you referring only to Geisel's works written under that name?
Fixed. I changed it to "Geisel's other books". Thank. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Deems Taylor adapted Mulberry Street into an orchestral work, Marco Takes a Walk. The work opens with a theme that represents the horse and wagon, which is followed by six variations that represent the various changes in Marco's story. The work's premiere, conducted by Howard Barlow, occurred at Carnegie Hall on November 14, 1942.[36]" I wonder if there's any more information about this?
What more would you like to know? The source that I based this passage on goes on for about three pages about that musical work. I haven't found any other sources about it, although they're probably out there. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd at least note that it may have been a one-off performance: Dr. Seuss and Mr. Geisel: A Biography: "Ted [Geisel] missed the event, and to his knowledge it was never performed again". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"nother group of children held up a banner that read, "And to think that we saw him on Mulberry Street"." What's the reference for this?
Can I suggest that the Fogerty point be moved to the paragraph with the orchestral work, while the homecoming thing is moved to the paragraph talking about the Springfield Cycle?
Really nice read- I'll take a snoop around for other sources soon, as I note that you haven't cited any journals- I imagine that there's going to be a bit of coverage of Seuss out there. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've jotted some comments on this page's talk page concerning possibly missed sources. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work! As you can see, Curly and I are working to address all your points. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, thanks also for all your hunting down of sources. You're quite right about the lack of scholarly journals. The problem is one of practicality. I just don't have access to Project Muse, or at least I don't think I do. Bobnorwal (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! I found out I have access to it today. It's the weekend now, though, and I can only access it from my school's campus. I'll sift through the sources within a week. Bobnorwal (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- After remaining open a month without approaching consensus for promotion, no activity for a couple of weeks, and apparently further research to do, it's time to archive this nomination. Per FAC instructions, pls wait at least two weeks before returning to nominate this or any article; you can take that time (or as long as you need) to improve the article outside the pressure of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving it a second try. The article saw further considerable work since the first nomination and achieved an A-class at WP:MILHIST. Meanwhile I managed to obtain a reference whose print run is just 150 copies (previously the Russian Arkhangelsk Library had generously emailed me for free some scanned refs), all those sources are now there. I feel that the article has now reached a point where the vast majority of reliable English and Russian sources about her are involved. Brandmeistertalk 16:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
File:Roza_Shanina.jpg: when/where was this first published
File:Roza_Shanina,_1944.jpg: not seeing a strong enough rationale for inclusion of such a non-free image
File:Roza_Shanina's_diary.jpg: the information in the "Permission" field seems more logical than the current licensing tag
File:Roza_Shanina_with_badge.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Roza_Shanina.jpg was published between April and September 1944, likely in the local Soviet press. The license of File:Roza_Shanina's_diary.jpg has been clarified. File:Roza_Shanina_with_badge.jpg was published between September 1944 and January 1945, also likely in the local press. As for File:Roza_Shanina,_1944.jpg, this is the only available photo, showing her standing in full height and I think the caption provides useful information (contextual significance per WP:NFCCP 8). Brandmeistertalk 20:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
Feel free to disagree with anything here:
The lead's pretty short—at 20kb of readable prose, two paragraphs doesn't violate WP:LEADLENGTH, but those are awful short paragraphs, I think.
Alt text for the images would be nice, though apparently not an FAC requirement
Generally it's not a good idea to set image sizes—the sizes may look great on your screen, but screen sizes, dimensions, and orientations vary widely; also, logged-in users can set their own default image sizes in their preferences, but apparently this is overridden when image sizes are set by article editors.
MOS:IMAGELOCATION says there are problems with left-aligned images at the beginning of a section
Early life
"five brothers; Mikhail, Fyodor, Sergei, Pavel and Marat.": is this a normal way to use a semicolon?
"apparently walked": is there doubt?
" (the trek was later attested by Shanina's school teacher Alexander Makaryin)": is there any reason for the parentheses?
"kindergarten №2": per MOS:NUMERO: "Do not use the symbol №."
"(lately known as Beryozka)": maybe an "as of" would be better than "lately"
Tour of duty
"was [[aerial bomb|bombed]]": WP:EGG tells s to avoid this sort of linking
"She first learned to shoot at a shooting range.": was this at this point in the chronology?
" (Yekimova would later die in the war)": this seems like an awkard place to put this.
"from the academy with honours": what variety of English is this written in?
I'd break this off into a separate section, rather than subsection—it comes off as a tangent from the main narrative. Maybe even put it in the "Character and personal life" section?
"and would often send letters": "often sent"?
"She started writing a combat diary;": "she wrote" or "she kept"?
"(such as The Front Diary of Izrael Kukuyev and The Chronicle of War of Muzagit Hayrutdinov).": I don't thik the parentheses are necessary.
"Shanina kept the diary from 6 October 1944 to 24 January 1945.": I might merge this with the "She started writing a combat diary;" sentence
East Prussia
"his death the latter day.": What latter day?
"from Germans by the troops": "from Germany"? Or was it just a bunch of Germans?
"felt the pain; "the shoulder was": should that semicolon not be a colon?
"the Book of Memory of Arkhangelsk Oblast": What's "the Book of Memory of Arkhangelsk Oblast"? If it's the name of a book, it should be in italics. Either way, could we get a quick explanation as to what it is?
Death
"the Germans tried to strengthen the localities they controlled against great odds.": Was the control or the strengthening against great odds?
"near the Richau estate (later a Soviet settlement of Telmanovka), 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) southeast of the East Prussian village of Ilmsdorf (Novobobruysk)": Are there links for any of these places?
Posthumous honours
"the open shooting sports championship in her memory": "an"?
" (which would have made her a Full Cavalier of that order)": I don't think the parentheses are called for.
"In 2013, a wall of memory, featuring graffiti portraits of six Russian war honorees, including Roza Shanina, was opened in Arkhangelsk.": Genereally one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Merge with the one above?
Character and personal life
"typified her own character as like that of the Romantic poet, painter and writer Mikhail Lermontov": in what way?
"with sombre tones, Shanina would write that": or "wrote"?
Ok, mostly fixed. The reason for the parentheses in "the trek was later attested..." is that the sentence doesn't look to me like a mandatory follow-up of the previous part, but rather an auxiliary tidbit. As for the shooting range, yes, she learned to shoot at that point. "From the academy with honours" is British English (if you mean "honour", but I don't mind swapping to American "honor"). "Started writing" looks like correct English to me. "from Germans by the troops..." means that Schlossberg was once occupied by Germans, but on that moment it was retaken by the Soviet troops. The Book of Memory of Arkhangelsk Oblast is a website, I added "online". In "the Germans tried to strengthen the localities they controlled against great odds" "against great odds" is related to control, but relation to "strengthen" also looks correct to me. What I hesitate to change are some image sizes (as otherwise they look too large in my Mozilla browser by default, but I don't mind if all sizes are removed). Thanks. Brandmeistertalk 15:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me a while to return to this. Image sizes are not a make-or-break issue, but it's best to keep in mind—what looks good on your own screen often looks terrible on another's, and it's the "others" you're writing for, no? A couple more things:
"Shanina's indomitable bravery": "indomitable" is unnecessary
"but came at odds with the Soviet policy of sparing snipers." Sparing from what?
"Her preserved combat diary was first published in 1965." If it was published, then of course it was preserved
Ok, all done, thanks once more. Brandmeistertalk 16:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me now, and I'm happy to support on prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Unfortunately this hasn't attracted sufficient commentary over the month or so it's been open to form any consensus for promotion, and with no activity for two weeks it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about… Franklin Peale, a major figure in the history of the United States Mint, and a controversial one. Almost all of the coinage machinery used in the latter two-thirds of the 19th century there was designed by him or based on his work. And yet, in December 1854, he was fired for using his position for profit. The son of the painter Charles Willson Peale, Franklin's life was unusual, from getting his name (Benjamin Franklin Peale) from a vote by the membership of the American Philosophical Society to the end, and I think, with the possible exception of Roger Burdette's works on 19-century Mint technology, this may be the best resource anywhere on him. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Second" mint is confusing. This should be expanded to show that it means the second building, or removed from the sentence.
Clarified. Numisspeak, I am afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fifth paragraph of the section, beginning with "Some of the machinery that would be . . . ." seems short at three sentences compared to the other paragraphs. Can this be expanded at all, or merged with another paragraph?
The quote beginning with "the performance of the press . . . ." is 84 words and should be a block quote. A later quote of 77 words is done as a block quote, and you should be consistent in the article.
Counting board needs to be wikilinked or further explained. Perhaps an image would be appropriate, if one is available.
There's a PD one in Burdette's new book, which also comes on CD-ROM. I'll do the upload later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a different one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appointment and early years section:
How long did Eckfeldt continue to work? In other words, did he work up until his death? And when was that? It is explained later, but something needs to be where it is first mentioned.
Thanks for that. I don't know what the problem is on the Reed ISBN, as I said in a hidden note, I checked it against the physical copy of The Coin World Almanac (sixth edition) that I have and it is OK. I will work through the other comments later on today. I can email you the back cover of the book showing the ISBN if you send me an email.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. En dashes don't work in ISBN fields, so I changed it to hyphens. GregJackPBoomer! 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I think I've addressed your points.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful review, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some of the details in the infobox - for example, the resting place - are unsourced
FN24: page formatting
Be consistent in where you include states and how this is formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will look this over and take care of it in the next few days, I'm somewhat at sea right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced the resting place. Most of the other infobox details are mentioned in the article, and so sourced. I think I've caught the other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I carried out a lengthy peer review, since when an already first-rate article has been improved – some 400 words of text added together with a fine new image. Nothing further to add, really; an interesting story of professional competence and moral compromise. A great addition to the coin-related corpus. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I feared complaints about length, but I felt that it was best to carefully cover the things Peale did, rather than worry about arbitrary figures.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I hadn't run across Peale before, and have enjoyed making his acquaintance. The text meets all FA criteria in my opinion. A well-balanced article on an interesting man, well capturing his personal mix of pioneer and buccaneer, and setting out his achievements clearly and without bias. Well sourced and cited, and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco
Have you had an image review yet?
I had asked Brianboulton recently, if you would like to do it that would be great but kindly let him know. Thanks either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
K, I'll do it in the morning (my time) if Brian hasn't gotten to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The boy was born in the museum of curiosities that his father kept. - is this really necessary for the lede?
It's a judgment call, I suppose. I was trying to evoke the unusual childhood that formed a brilliant but unusual man.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
German mints of Dresden, Stuttgart, and Karlsruhe. - any articles?
I don't see any. The articles on the DM and on German euro coins don't show any links.
Contamin - Got a first name?
Not offhand. Contemporary sources per google search say "Contamin of Paris" or else without a first name.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and as these are completed, the coining by human labor be abandoned, and the work that can be executed in ... the Mint will be greatly increased." - Is the original quote lacking "can" in "human labor be abandoned"
I cut and pasted it from the web page where I got it. I went and looked at it, it's the same. I don't see anything else online with that quote, so they may have mistranscribed, possibly, or else they just spoke funny back then. I don't think it's worth a sic template.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Contamin lathe, which had been imported from France after being seen by Peale there." Didn't you mention the Contamin lathe above?
Yeah, but I didn't mention its importation, just that he saw it and copied it. In one of the reviews, it was suggested I avoid saying what happened when he got back as much as possible in the trip section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either of Peale's inventions worth articles?
Not to my knowledge.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
mal construction - space in the original?
Yes. The original has a sic which I decided against, it's clear enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Journal of The Franklin Institute - Notable enough for a redlink?
Not to my knowledge. Your mileage may vary.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image of Taylor medal is (copyright-wise) fine. However, considering the blur I think scanning was not the best idea... photography would give more depth of field and thus allow the text to be legible. Similar to what I did here. (I note that this is not an FA requirement, just a suggestion).
I'll retake it when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming Jonas McClintock is Jonas R. McClintock, as you have him in the infobox.
Above two linked.
catalogued or cataloged in AmE?
I think it's OK.
Overlinking: turning, Levi Woodbury, and gold dollar.
Gold dollar unlinked. The other two were all enough apart to be worth another link. The turning one is especially necessary. Woodbury was mentioned once in passing, and is being mentioned a bit more substantively about nine paragraphs later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, by the looks of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, must have missed it. All done now. Sorry about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Solid article, as usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: All images appear to be in the public domain and are appropriately licenced. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: while reviewing te images I noticed that something is apparently wrong with ref 2 - please check it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I've fixed the problem you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- There are repeat links for Levi Woodbury, turning, Martin Van Buren, and American Philosophical Society; won't hold up promotion but pls just check if they're necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. How Brown Saw the Baseball Game is a 1907 comedy film that has mostly languished in obscurity, which is a shame, because you'd think a film about a drunk guy watching baseball would have a cult following. The article, while short, is as comprehensive as possible, and it received a GA review by Khazar2 (talk·contribs) and has been through FAC before. Some copyediting work has been done between the two FACs. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Taylor Trescott. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport from Crisco 1492
As I have written several articles on lost or probably lost films already, I think this will be an interesting article to review.
comprised 350 feet (110 m) of film - Perhaps a footnote about how long this would be at 16 FPS? Not necessary, of course, but most readers will not really understand feet of film.
I have been unable to find File:SiegmundLubin.gif in an online archive of Moving Picture World. I did find another picture, which I will post soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's everything from me. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of complaints from the unpleasable Curly Turkey
Support. The only of my concerns left unaddressed from the previous FAC (publication date of the image) has now been addressed (with a different image). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image was the only thing to hold me back last time, and now that is obviously cleared up. (I think the new one is so much better though). One nitpick:
You should have retrieval dates for all online sources. Right now I see a couple that dont have any.
Will be posting some comments shortly (10-11JAN14).--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough article to review as much as a tough article to write since (1) it is a very short article and might be the shortest FA if promoted (which means there's fewer places for less-than-FA-quality work to hide), (2) the article's subject has not survived and cannot be used to improve the article's coverage, (3) the article's subject is only known by the reports of others long dead and no one around now has likely seen the film, (4) there's not much out there about the topic outside of the film and the reviews.
I did a copyedit on the article to polish the writing and rearrange some material for better continuity (let me know your thoughts on my copyediting/revision). I consider the first polishing, since there are other things I need to reread and think about and I'll come back in the next day or two and give it another look toward copyediting. Structurally, there are a few things that need to be worked on--better organization. I don't know what would be better--but the arrangement seems a bit disorganized in a way that I can't put into words (but try to below).
I was just thinking the infobox looks odd without an image only to have an image further down in the article floating between two sections. I would disagree with it being not relevant (like if a frame from the film appeared and was usable, that frame would be more relevant), but I can defer to your judgment on that matter if other users don't see a problem.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found a newspaper advertisement and added it to the infobox. What do you think? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like that very much. Good work. One addition...if you have a year for that advertisement, add it to the caption--i.e., something like "Newspaper advertisement (1908)" You mention 1903 on the image's information, which I assume is a typo for 1908.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the sources tell what kind of film stock was used? or the frame rate? If you knew that, you could estimate how long the film was. 8mm film can be 12-15 feet per minute, but modern 35mm film is about 90 feet per minute.
I am actually surprised there isn't any single-frame stills of the film--many other lost films have them available.
Release and legacy --> I think "reception" would be a better word than "legacy" because (1) it is largely a section discussing critical reviews and (2) how can a film that no longer exist really have a legacy?
The last two paragraphs of the "Release and legacy" section might better belong with the material in the "Production" section.
I'll probably merge some, but keep most of the critical discussion there. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either way would work. I just wonder if some of the content would work better there and we'd only know by experimenting.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): GinaJay (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about singer-songwriter and Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine. I think the article gives a fair, detailed idea of him and his work. It passed GA criteria in April and since then it's been edited frequently so that it now meets FA criteria, or so I fervently hope. GinaJay (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to the talk page
Images look solid. I would like to see another review of prose/references before I support. I'm still not quite certain the article is up to par. Thank you for your patience. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thank you for your time. GinaJay (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Solid article. Good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! GinaJay (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - taking a look now (I did look over it a couple of days ago and it doesn't look too bad). Will jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The group played their first gig at the Whisky a Go Go, a nightclub in West Hollywood, California, with Levine performing both the vocals and the guitar - one doesn't perform the guitar, would suggest just, "The group played their first gig at the Whisky a Go Go, a nightclub in West Hollywood, California, with Levine on vocals and guitar"
We wouldn't have the "the" here - so removed two of them. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its title is supposedly an allusion to Levine's ubiquity. - I guess that would be public ubiquity - presuming it refers to his appearances on media?...or....what?
Just his general all-over-the-place-ness ... which would be public ubiquity, yes. GinaJay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Musical collaborations segment comes across as a bit listy - if there are any comments about any of these collaborations Levine particularly enjoyed..or didn't...or any that were particularly cirtically praised, inserting this material will break up the listiness of it a little and improve the flow.
The same is true of the Early life section - any colorful stories would liven up this bit a little.
Drugs, religion and little brothers aren't colorful enough? I suppose I could find something along the lines of "I hated school, I wanted to do music" ... like the first few sentences of artistry? Will get to it soon.
Cautious supportOther than that, reads quite nicely. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments and support. GinaJay (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image Check and my Support: I didn't realize there already was an image truck, but a second one never hurts, I suppose. I was the user who passed the GAN and I have kept this article on my watchlist. It meets the criteria now and, due to the tireless work of the Nom, likely will continue to be built and stay up to date. PrairieKid (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support PrairieKid! GinaJay (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Hi GinaJay, is this your first FAC? If so I'll want someone to spotcheck sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we promote (unless someone's done that and I missed it).
Also, as a general rule, all paragraphs should end with a citation -- Musical collaborations and the third para of Artistry do not as yet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Added the citation for those two paras. GinaJay (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecking:
Cite 2 (this article) may not be RS and does not contain Levine's middle name.
Replaced that with another [69], though I'm not sure it's RS. It obviously takes after his wikipedia article, but there's a copyright at the end .... GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cites 1 and 6 lead to specific pages in the article, but neither of those pages actually contain the information in the article.
The info in the first one is there in the article- I've linked it to the one-page view. The other article has the information in the next page, but there is no option showing it in a single view. Changing the page wouldn't help since there are other sentences that refer to that particular page. Separate refs for the same article, then? GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Kara's Flowers, it is said that they were discovered at a beach party in Malibu. Can't find that in the citation. Really, most of that is not cited.
I also don't see anything saying the album The Fourth World had higher expectations for sales.
Most of the Kara's Flowers section comes from here. I've added that ref wherever it's cited. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done up to Kara's Flowers. Will continue soon. PrairieKid (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that, to me, some of the citations don't appear to be WP:RS. I am not used to entertainment articles, so I'm not positive and I would like someone else to triple check that for us. PrairieKid (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm very sorry I haven't gotten back to this sooner. The Internet is down at my house and I don't have regular internet access. I am writing this from school but I won't be able to finish the spotcheck for a day or two. Huge apologies. I will finish ASAP unless someone else wants to take over. Thanks for the understanding. PrairieKid (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time, pending significant cleanup on sources and MOS issues. There are many inconsistencies in how sources are presented, and many citations that are incomplete. There are also some questionable sources in use, such as the Daily Mail, and a "clarify" tag to be addressed. In terms of MOS concerns, I see hyphen/dash confusion, inconsistent treatment of ellipses, repeated wikilinks, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brought all references to cite web form, addressed the tag and the ellipses. Also, it's all en dashes in the article now, except in the quote box and the chart tables.
Whatever's been linked in the lede and infobox can be linked again (once) in the later sections, right? Outside of that, I think I removed all the other repeating links.
I'm surprised to know Daily Mail is a questionable source. Why so? And could you tell me the other unreliable sources in this article? I'm a little clueless when it comes to reliability of sources. GinaJay (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looked over the citations. They're incomplete because some information just isn't given - date issued, name etc. GinaJay (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes information isn't given by the source, but other times it is: for example, the link for FN48 clearly identifies the publisher. There are still inconsistencies in the citations beyond missing info: for example, Daily Telegraph is not italicized in FN4 but is in FN91. MOS issues too have been partially but not completely addressed: for example, it's fine to link in both the lede and the body, but you've got Stevie Wonder linked twice within a few paragraphs.
In terms of questionable sourcing, Daily Mail has been discussed extensively at WP:BLPN and WP:RSN ([Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_the_Daily_Mail|recent example]]), where the consensus has generally been that it is not a high-quality source, particularly for BLP-related material. Other questionable sources would include 411mania and Reality Nation, and I'd suggest checking whether there were independent sources to supplant some of the press releases currently being cited.
In some cases, you should also look at citing the original source, as with this (the source is the show, not that site). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except that one press release on his ADHD project is still cited - I can't find anything else that gives as much infromation about it as the PR, other than articles that directly quote the PR itself. GinaJay (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status of this now? I notice the article's been edited since Nikki's last comment here; the concerns need to be resolved ASAP if the article is to be promoted. The nom's been running for over two months now -- a long time at FAC even these days -- but if we're close to fixing outstanding issues I'll let go a bit longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Long time indeed. I've addressed the issues Nikkimaria's raised so far. If she does have more to add, I'll try resolving it ASAP. But I think they're mostly technical in nature, so that shouldn't be a problem. Is a week too much to ask? GinaJay (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about that spotcheck: PrairieKid is apparently unable to complete it. Could you please put in a word for it at the WT:FAC? GinaJay (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sources used aren't the best. Should an academic resource like Wikipedia cite a tabloid like The Hollywood Reporter—seven times? A scan through the references reveal several other such low-quality sources—People, Glamour, Cosmopolitan...
Since Levine is an entertainment figure (and hasn't exactly reached the sort of global icon status that would make The New York Times regularly publish articles on him), the primary sources will have to be magazines like THR and People - both of which are quite reliable in entertainment news and are regularly used in wikipedia's media-related articles, including FAs (this, thisthis etc.) As for Glamour, it's used only to cite one of its own celebrity list. Deleted the cosmo ref. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other major source for the article, used five times, is a book published by the Hal Leonard Corporation, a music publishing company. They publish Maroon 5's music too, so I doubt they are a neutral source.
They may not be netural, but the book is used to cite only some basic facts about Kara's Flowers (when, where, who) and a direct quote by Levine, both of which are probably not affected by the neutrality of the book. The way I see it, it's like citing Maroon 5's website - it's a bad ref for things like their global impact or level of success, but facts (like when they were formed) would be correct. This is the only ref I could find that gives this level of details and IMO the article would suffer from its removal. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the prose could do with some polish. It is often ungrammatical, 'While earlier work was deemed "vaguely funky white-soul" and "rock", recent ones have been judged to have a more reggae, anthemic pop sound, and being "top shelf radio sucrose", evoking comparisons to Coldplay" or repetitive:
The project targets young adults and adults who were previously diagnosed with ADHD, focusing on how ADHD may continue into adulthood. Levine, who himself was diagnosed with ADHD as a teenager, said, "This campaign is important to me because it can help young adults and adults realize that there's a chance they may still have ADHD if they had it as a kid". In connection to this, he wrote an article in ADDitude Magazine about his personal experience with ADHD.
Rewrote the two. GinaJay (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Here we go again. I am nominating this for featured article because, like both previous times, I believe that it meets all the criteria for becoming a featured article. It has received a peer review and a copyedit. At the first FAC, there was one support, and two reviews that had been addressed, and for the second one, there were four supports and one oppose. Again, this is the first step in my attempt to get Navy's bowl games up to a featured topic.
From last time, the 1924 Rose Bowl was the first time either of the participants, Washington and Navy, ever participated in a postseason game. It was a first for many things, including radio broadcasting. Washington was predicted to come out on top, but Navy led in nearly everything (except the score). It would be 30 years until Navy came back to bowl games, while Washington returned to the Rose Bowl in just two years. There are currently just 10 bowl games at featured article status, none of which are at least 15 years old. This article is on the short side compared to them, but since its been nearly 90 years since this occurred, info is pretty scarce. All comments appreciated. Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Toa Nidhiki05
As a whole I think this is an excellent article. The biggest concerns remain with prose, but I think these can be solved over this review.
Team selection
The last sentence in Washington's subsection is unneeded as this is explained earlier.
Removed. I had been thinking about axing that sentence earlier.
Game summary
"Two plays later, Ira McKee ran the ball in from two yards out for a touchdown. McKee then converted the extra point." I would merge these two sentences to make it flow a bit more.
Combined.
Change "tying the game at 14–14" to "tying the game at 14".
Removed the extra 14.
Aftermath
Remove the quotation marks around A Streetcar Named Desire.
Removed the quotation marks. I have no clue why I left those for so long.
Thanks for the review, especially for how quick you responded. I have attempted to address all of your points, all of which were mistakes I should have caught a while ago. Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support after fixes. Great work on the article! ToaNidhiki05 03:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I reviewed this article during its previous two trips to FAC, offering in-depth suggestions which Awardgive implemented or gave appropriate consideration. It was good to begin with, and has improved greatly through the process, and so I had also supported it before. I'm impressed by the research Awardgive has put into the article, particularly given the paucity of records from a game 89 years in the past. It's remarkably thorough and precise even compared with many more recent games. I think the comments above from Toa Nidhiki05 are reasonable (definitely on point with the quotation marks) so once these changes are made, I would encourage anyone reviewing this to join me in strongly supporting it for FAC. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and for putting up with a review for the third time in a row. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I can't believe that I missed that for so long. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Isn't postseason one word, sans hyphen?
Yep, corrected it.
"Following the inaugural game's blowout score," Linking the original one here would be helpful, though I see it is later in the article.
Linked it.
"including congressmen Andrew Fenic and high-ranking military officials." I'm not sure about this one. I can't find anything about an Andrew Fenic online, let alone on-wiki. I'd remove that part of the sentence.
I had to remove it. That was the one source I originally got from Google News, and since they've completely changed how the site works, I have no clue how I'm going to find it again. Looks like I really should have linked it.
I'd imagine you have been asked this already, but any reactions or comments at the time on Washington taking Navy over other stronger teams?
Actually, that seems to be the one question I haven't been asked yet. But anyways, I couldn't find any reactions, which I was slightly shocked about.
"The game began on time, with a temperature" Did this mean it in fact started at 2, or the rescheduled 2:16? Not entirely clear, but I may be over-thinking it.
It started at 2:16. I tried to clarify that.
"completing a perfect six of six passes," maybe reword to "completing all six passing attempts" just to make the language crisper.
Changed, and it does sound better.
A good article overall, just make the above fixes and I'll support. Wizardman 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I tried to respond/address all of your concerns. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good now. Wizardman 00:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Awardgive. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
All ref formats are OK. As far as I can judge, the sources are all of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability to meet FA statndards. I have not carried out spotchecks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about... a new roller at Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky, Ohio. I am nominating this article for a 2nd time because the comments from the first nomination have been addressed and is ready to be reviewed. It has gone through copy edits, a peer review and a GA review. As the creator, I've been watching and contributing to the article from the beginning and could answer any question that might come up about the ride. Thanks, Astros4477 (Talk) 21:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had to stumble by, given I have an FAC of my own, and I've been to Cedar Point before.
In the infobox, should you clarify that the total cost is in 2013 U.S. dollars? Is that standard?
We do usually clarify it it's US but I don't think we've ever clarified the year in which the amount is.--Astros4477 (Talk) 02:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is Cedar Fair?
They are the owners of the park but I don't know how I would incorporate that into the article.--Astros4477 (Talk) 02:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of "History" section has a few too many instances of [X person said Y]. For example: "On May 30, 2012, the Sandusky Register reported that a memo written by Ouimet to Cedar Fair's board of directors on February 15, 2012, stated that a new Wing Coaster code-named "CP Alt. Winged" would be introduced in 2013, and that it would set new records for its drop, speed, and length, and that the new coaster would have a "Front Gate Statement—a roller coaster that flies overhead, rolls and flies back—highly visible above guests entering the park."" - one, that's a bit long for a single sentence, but two, the emphasis should be on what happened, not who reported what happened.
"a 170-foot-tall (52 m) Wing Coaster which would be manufactured by B&M" - "which" --> "that". Ditto later with - "the first element of the coaster which is similar to the dive drops on"
"On April 10, 2013, Cedar Point launched an auction in which bidders could bid to become one of the first 64 public riders on GateKeeper on May 11, 2013. The auction ended on May 6." - these sentences could be merged. Also, no need for the two year mentions, IMO.
Removed years and second sentence, I realized it's not really needed.--Astros4477 (Talk) 02:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Construction" section has some great facts, but it's pretty dry prosewise.
I was able to merge and expand some sentences.--Astros4477 (Talk) 03:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"12 million pounds (5,400,000 kilograms)" - why does one say "million" and the other have all the commas?
Probably because IMO, it looks better than 5.4 million. But that can be changed.--Astros4477 (Talk) 03:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a huge deal, but I just thought consistency would be better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"turns 180 degrees to the right" - isn't 180 degrees basically a U-turn? Might there be some less technical way of saying it turns to the opposite direction or something?
I'm not sure what we could change it to as it does make a U-turn.--Astros4477 (Talk) 02:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, thinking about it again, it's fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent whether or not you have a dash for "170-foot "
"67 miles per hour " - any reason for writing it out?
Nope, but I rarely see it abbreviated.--Astros4477 (Talk) 03:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You abbreviate it in the lede though. And since km/h is abbreviated, so should mph. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Next, the train goes through a giant flat spin, which is followed by a zero-g roll, which features two keyhole points as it passes through two 100-foot (30 m)-tall towers." - don't use "which" twice
"GateKeeper is the fifth Wing Coaster to be built and the third in the United States—the others being X-Flight at Six Flags Great America and Wild Eagle at Dollywood." - no need for dash when comma would work.
"It is the longest and fastest Wing Coaster, has the longest drop, and features the most inversions of any Wing Coaster" - don't say "Wing Coaster" twice
"Complaints about the shoulder restraints becoming too tight for tall people sitting in the brake run at the end of the ride have been received" - wording is a little awkward
"GateKeeper also helped Cedar Fair to achieve "record revenue, record attendance, record distribution and record stock pricing" in 2013" - who said this quote?
Thanks, I'm happy to support now! Just a few last things that aren't that crucial to my support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- with no activity for some weeks this review has clearly stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): 1ST7 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a 2010 thriller film inspired by Nebraska police officer Kathryn Bolkovac's account of human trafficking in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. It passed as a GA in October 2013 and underwent a copyedit by the Guild of Copy Editors in December 2013, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. 1ST7 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Why so many citations in the lead?
Long quotes like "I completely understand..." should be blockquoted
Use a consistent date format
FN4: author?
FN16: formatting is not consistent with other refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review. I've removed the citations from the lead, blockquoted the "I completely understand..." quote, made the dating format consistent, added the author for ref no. 4, and made ref no. 16 consistent with the other refs. --1ST7 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 1ST7, that was just an example of a long quote - generally anything over 40 words should be blockquoted, so there's a few more to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. All quotes longer than 40 words are now blockquoted. --1ST7 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality article, meticulous use of sourcing throughout. My only minor quibble would be to suggest renaming the long section name of Response from the United Nations and DynCorp International to the shorter recommendation of simply, Aftermath. Excellent effort overall. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support. I've renamed the section as you suggested. --1ST7 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great article. Just some points I felt I had to bring up. In the third paragraph of the lede:
...The film received mixed reviews: the performances by Weisz and her costars were praised but the intense violence depicted in several scenes was debated by critics, with some calling it exploitive. I suggest you reword this as "The film received mixed reviews. The performances by Weisz and her co-stars were praised but the intense violence depicted in several scenes was debated by critics, with some calling it exploitive."
The first sentence of the "Reviews" section could be worded better. The sentence currently reads ...Rottentomatoes.com graded the film 74 percent, with a rating of 6.5/10. Out of 109 reviews, 81 were positive." A look at Rotten Tomatoes indicates that 115 critics have reviewed the film. I suggest you change the sentence to: "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 74% approval rating based on reviews from 115 critics, with an average score of 6.5/10. The website reported the critical consensus as "Rachel Weisz puts on a compelling smoldering act though the film suffers from a literal-minded approach to the material"."
Other than that, the article looks great. I'm happy to support this for FA. 23 editor (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support. I've made the changes you suggested. --1ST7 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Eight images in total. First is the film poster with a good non-free rationale. The image of Balkovac is ok despite Flickrbot never tagging it as good for whatever reason. For all the other images their free status checks out. Wizardman 04:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! --1ST7 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just wanted to stop by and reiterate my Support for promotion of this article to Featured quality. Since my original comment at the FAC, the nominator responded politely and swiftly to my recommendation, and it has had a successful Source Review and Image Review. I went over the article again and it only looks better since then. It's well-referenced, well-structured, and well-presented. Great quality improvement effort by 1ST7. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment - Sadly this nomination has stalled and I will archive it shortly. The nom has been running since Christmas but there have been no new reviews for some weeks. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wells Cathedral has unique Gothic architecture and complex history. These are described and illustrated within the article, which has been edited and reviewed by dozens of editors, so that I feel it now meets the FA criteria. — Rodtalk 12:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't. Check for other grammatical problems in captions, like the extra comma in the Ministry image
I've added some full stops and other punctuation - hope I've got this right?— Rodtalk 21:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked them. Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:WellsCathPlan_numbered.JPG: when/where was this first published?
Fixed, AJM
File:Wells_Cathedral,_Chantry_in_Nave_by_Francis_Bedford.jpg needs US PD tag
Fixed, AJM
File:Wellsgrotesque.jpg: I'm not seeing any info about licensing at the source link?
Response I did not find a license at the source link either. I presume that the license under which it has been uploaded to Commons reflects the request at the source link that Cornell should be acknowledged. AJM
File:West_Front_of_Wells_Cathedral_c.1795.jpg: should use creation/publication date rather than upload date. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I peer reviewed this article, and my minor queries were thoroughly dealt with. Since then the page has been further reviewed and improved. I don't as a rule comment on images as WP's arcane rules are beyond me, but the text is in my judgment clearly of FA quality: the prose is a pleasure to read; the balance of the article is judicious; the sources are varied and well cited; there is ample but not excessive detail. Any visitor to Wikipedia in search of information about Wells Cathedral will be well served by this article. A fine piece of work which it is a pleasure to support. – Tim riley (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've also reviewed this one and am happy to support it for FA. Only one minor quibble would be that I think the big table and plan might look better a bit further down the article and seems to affect the flow/appearance a bit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that. The boring box is now a boring list of statements. Ha! I know what I'll do..... I'll pretty-up the ground-plan with some colour for the different dates. I can't hope to emulate what JooperCoopers did at Chester Cathedral, but it might look OK.Amandajm (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dismail Fail I cannot make the map look plan in colour. Never mind! Amandajm (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody who assesses images or MOS issues might want to review the image alignments and sizes. On my browser a lot of the images look very large and there's quite a lot of section breaks and page stretching.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they all seem to be set at upright=1.25 or above, which is a bit bigger than the default (upright=1.0 is the default thumbnail size, if I remember correctly). There's nothing in the MOS that prevents this, and it can be quite appropriate on particular images, but because they've all been expanded, it will create a strange effect on many screens. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have no idea what sort of "strange effect" your referring to. I look at these article on an ipad as well as a wide screen, and also experiment with the width, to make sure that the images remain in the relevant sections, regardless of whether the screen is wide or narrow.
The issues of left aligned and forced image sizes have been addressed below & as you say there is "nothing in the MOS that prevents this" so does this issue still need to be discussed? I've tried the article on several devices & screen settings without problems but can you specify the "strange effect on many screens", so that we can look at how to resolve it? Is this a wider issue which might affect other articles or specific to this one?— Rodtalk 09:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the article having all the images enlarged, the problem is that they will all look bigger than the default that's set on any individual system. With lots of images, this then can rapidly take up quite a lot of room. The MOS encourages standard sizing, which can be done very easily (i.e. just take out the "upright=1.2" bit, and they'll appear at default size) unless there's a special reason why they individually need to be bigger - you might argue the Victorian fittings needs to be larger, so you can see the detail better, perhaps, for example. Some of the multiple images are also quite enlarged from the default, although they're done using px sizing. I'd also advise following the MOS guidance on left justified images, namely that "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response on images. I don't understand why the image size of upright=1.25 is a problem. There seems to be a presumption that most users set their own defaults. In my experience, this is not the case. Most users don't know how to set default sizes. I have never had a computer that sized the images differently, and when I use computers in different countries, the images look the same size as they do on mine at home.
Basically, the thumbnail default it too small for looking at detailed images. It is a ridiculous size for an artwork, or a detailed piece of architecture. If you look at the view of the cathedral from above, for example, you can't make out the pertinent details at small scale.
The other matter has been dealt with, below.
I find the MOS guidance of left-hand images to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of both visual layout and readability. In the case of a short section of text, it is better to move the sub-section heading along with the text than to put the picture in a position where it chops up the placement of paragraphs in a short section. The present arrangement works better than the alternative. Amandajm (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re sizing of paired images. I have just reduced all of them. Amandajm (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the article as it stands is compliant with MOS:IMAGES, Amandajm, which is a requirement for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither am I, and unless it's fixed I'll be opposing this article's promotion. EricCorbett 12:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Placement of Images
(putting all this together)
I have just been, again, to the MOS re images. The only non-compliance with the MOS is this
Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
My response to this has already been given:
The standard placement of pictures (given elsewhere in the MOS) is immediately under the heading or sub-heading so that they fall in the right section. But, in the case of a left-hand placement, putting the image under the sub-heading splits the sub-heading from the text and affects readability, as noted above.
One solution to the problem, as given in the MOS, is to place the image beneath the first paragraph. This sometimes works. But it often results in the displacement of the heading of the unrelated paragraph below.
In the specific case of this article, the relevant sections are very short. This means that there is no option (in most cases) to put the image after the first paragraph.
The layout solution that maintains the sub-heading with its relevant text is to put the image immediately above the heading, as has been done here.
In this instance, the solution provided by the MOS is not a good one. The alternative solution needs to be written into the MOS as an option, in a case such as this, or in cases where the left-hand image is very long and narrow.
With regards to the sizing of images:
Detailed images need to be larger than thumbnail as per MOS. Upright=1.25 reveals far more in the highly detailed images than thumbnail does. (e.g. the aerial view of cathedral and precinct)
I have sized the majority of single images to the same upright 1.25 because the layout of the article as a whole looks better if the horizontal images are all sized the same.
A number of non-detailed single images (the font etc) could be reduced thumbnail. However, this would affect the overall layout of the article.
My preference is to maintain the constant size for the overall visual appearance. However, if there is good reason for downsizing the non-detailed images, we should do it.
Re sizing of paired images:
With similar overall layout in mind, I have attempted to size all the paired images in such a way that the boxes are the same overall size (within each major section) and sit well with the single images.
The sizing is not all that easy to adjust as the images sometimes simply refuse to appear at certain sizes.
I have just down-sized all the paired images so that they don't take up so much width. This has made some of the vertical images very small, but, never mind!
Support Comments from Jim A great deal of detailed high quality work, but inevitably some quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
overlinking—there is a fair amount of overlinking, I suggest you run the duplicate links script.
You were right. I have found and removed approx 25 of these.— Rodtalk 17:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the left-aligned images force headings into the text, very unappealing appearance.
Alternating images right/left is normal procedure. However, when the sections of text are relatively short, then the left images always displace the text. There are two separate issues here:
On any wide screen, images tend to displace text. The worst offenders are right-hand boxes which often push right-hand images right out of their section, yet are tolerated, and even liked! With left-hand images, if the sections are short, then the images routinely push aside those headings that are below them, and which are generally not the heading most relevant to the picture that is doing the displacing. It just has to be tolerated.
The other problem is in the placement of the relevant heading. With right-hand pictures, the image generally goes right after the heading, and nothing gets displaced. But with left-hand images, if the image is placed immediately under the section heading, then the section heading gets split from its text, and the eye has to jump sideways from the heading to the text of the section. For this reasons, it is preferable to place the left-hand image immediately above the heading that it relates to, so that the heading remains alongside the relevant text. It has been done like this in this article, because the alternate solution is worse, not better. Displacement of headings is going to happen at some point, unless you are using a narrow vertical screen. Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, it's my personal preference rather than mandatory anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that none of the major headings are affected, only the secondary ones that don't have a line below them. Amandajm (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove forced image sizes since they override user preferences, a particular problem on tablets etc.
The "forced sizing" has been done in a manner that does not cause problems on ipads. They all seem to shrink down to thumbnail size or upright. I cannot check it on a mobile at present, but have done so using the same format in a different article on a previous occasion, without problem . Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the most poetic of the English Cathedrals—is "cathedrals" capitalised in your source?
On checking the book it isn't capitalised so I've changed it in the article.— Rodtalk 15:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
four chief clergy, quattuor personae—why the Latin here, and nowhere else in the article? It only means "four people".
I'm not sure where this occurs. Maybe Rod has fixed it already. Amandajm (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its the last sentence of "Seat of the Bishop". I haven't changed that one as I wasn't sure if there was a particular religious significance.— Rodtalk 10:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now removed.— Rodtalk 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
excommunicated, Strainer arches, nave, lectern, corbel —please link at first occurrence.
If there is no link for strainer arch, add a parenthetised explanation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. They are simply arches that are taking the strain. It is explained in detail in the previous sentences. It has been changed to "bracing arches". Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
onset of the civil war—why lower case for theCivil War.
Changed.— Rodtalk 15:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
known as the Non-Jurors—convince me this should be capitalised.
It is always capitalised but can be: Nonjurors, Non-jurors, Non-Jurors or Non Jurors, although the adjective is "nonjuring". Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like hyphen followed by a capital, so I'd prefer "Non-jurors" or Ollard's "Nonjurors" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this to "Nonjurors".— Rodtalk 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
which are around £2 million per year—"as of 2013" (or whenever your data is from).
The figure was as of 2010 - added.— Rodtalk 15:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alec Clifton-Taylor —since you rely on his opinions, tell us who he is in the text, eg "English architectural historian Alec Clifton-Taylor".
Done.— Rodtalk 15:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Banister Fletcher —as above.
Done.— Rodtalk 15:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sheela na gigs—I assume you have capitalised "Sheela" as a proper noun. Convince me that it is a name
changed to l.c. Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sheela (today usually Sheila), is a *very* common first name. Ceoil (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of my books mention it. It's the sort of info you get in the local guide book. Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your web references are a bit of a mess. You must have a publisher, usually following the title. Some of your refs either don't have a publisher or have the publisher where the author should be. 128 is a particular shocker. The authors appear to be Tate and "Turner" (apparently not notable enough for initials or a link). The author is J. M. W. Turner, the publisher is the Tate Gallery. Refs 130/131 can't even agree where the same publisher should go! There may be others.
I've dealt with the ones identified (used your guidance for 128 even though the Tate gallery now styles itself as "TATE" across all sites) and identified one other with a publisher missing. I hope I've caught them all now.— Rodtalk 15:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to you if you want to change it back to TATE, I was more concerned about the publisher issue (although I hate the new "improved" form...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've left it as Tate Gallery
I'll have another read through tomorrow.
BBC or BBC News (refs 70/134)
I've changed BBC News and BBC Somerset to BBC as I beleive the subdivisions are not legal entities in their own right.— Rodtalk 09:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
116 has no publisher
Added.— Rodtalk 09:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers, like the Telegraph, should be italicised
I've italicised Daily Telegraph and Mendip Times. If I've missed any others please let me know.— Rodtalk 09:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.— Rodtalk 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography. Use a consistent capitalisation style regardless of how the source book did it. Adkins, Hay and Sale at least are out of kilter, and Thornsby is just plain weird. Also decide whether to put spaces between initials or not, just random at present.
I hope I've caught all of these now.— Rodtalk 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 105 for Malden, page range should have ndash, not hyphen
Done.— Rodtalk 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the final round of responses. One thing I noticed but forgot to put is that Royal Hist. Soc. should be spelt out in full, per mos. I'll leave that with you since I'm now ready to support, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on OR
A quick one. The article's using the inflation template to calculate the contemporary cost of a church organ (1620 costing of £398 1s 5d; modern equivalent £70,000) The template states the it is "only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets)" and warns that "incorrect use of this template would constitute original research". Church organs have never been part of the CPI in either the 17th or 21st century, and I would back up the wiki template in warning against using it for this purpose. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - I had never considered what was relevant to price inflation before. I've removed the conversion.— Rodtalk 13:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should fix the conversion, not remove it. EricCorbett 12:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the example, which I have followed - I had not idea there were so many different ways of calculating this.— Rodtalk 12:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fascinating area - comes right back to the underlying questions of what we mean by "money" and "value"! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this very impressive article. I work in a similar area and have been following its development for a few months. I have small quibbles that I can look after myself. One thing, the lead is five paras and thus a little choppy; I would at least merge the first two. And loose the see also section. I think the choice of images is exemplary, the discussions of architectural features obviously deeply informed and clearly written; its a pleasure to see this finally here. Ceoil (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unused bibliographic references: A few works listed in the bibliography are coming up as unused: Ayers, Cockerell, Colchester et al, Malone, Sale and Thornsby. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for drawing Cockerell's book to my attention. It's online so I will include some of the details, and reference them accordingly. Don't delete it. Amandajm (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the others to a further reading section or removed those not specific.— Rodtalk 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Fantastic work. I read through this with ease and have no issues to report. The article is certainly a leader in it's field. -- CassiantoTalk 21:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While no one can dispute the research and effort that has gone into this article, I think the prose could do with some tightening. I have addressed a couple of issues but think it could do with a copyedit from someone better than me. Scissors arch? J3Mrs (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response 1: "Scissors arch", I believe it has been deleted. I cannot believe that the following sentence doesn't describe the arches adequately:
"The unorthodox solution of the mason William Joy in 1338, was the insertion of low arches topped by inverted arches of similar dimensions, forming scissors-like structures that brace the piers of the crossing on three sides." NOTE: This description is teamed with a photograph, and the description of the arches being like a St Andrew's cross. Amandajm (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response 2: the article has suffered an ongoing problem from attempts to "tighten the prose" that have
significantly changed meanings of sentences,
diminished meaning by unlinking facts that should be linked
linked facts that were not closely dependent,
created the possibility for misunderstanding
changed statements so that they were just plain erroneous
gave certainty to facts that were deliberately expressed in a manner that did not imply certainty (the date of the foundation of the choir school, for example)
shortened grammatical forms by the frequent removal of the word "that" from the beginning of clauses, e.g. "The canons complained that they had borne the cost of the rebuilding..." simplified to "The canons complained they had borne the cost of the rebuilding ...." The former is grammatically correct. The article does not need to be turned into journalise as no-one needs to count the column inches.
There seems to be a misunderstanding (in some editors) of the use of participial phrases. A number of editors see the use of the present participle of a verb as a difficulty. Sentences like the following are grammatically correct: "The tracery of the windows is in the style known as Reticulated Gothic, having a pattern of a single repeated shape....". The sentence does not require changing into "The tracery of the windows is in the style known as Reticulated Gothic, it has a pattern of a single repeated shape..."
Response 3
I appreciate every effort of other editors to copy edit errors, whether they are spelling, typos, grammar, reference and number formatting etc etc. All these things are helpful.
On the other hand, the efforts to tighten up the prose have resulted in so many errors, potential mis-conceptions, poor grammar and poor expression that I have reached a point of frustration. I am sick and tired of having my expression tweaked by people who are not as familiar with the subject of the article as I am.
As a major editor of the article (and as a long-time writer on heritage related subjects) I am beginning to find the inadequate and inappropriate tweaking of my expression an affront.
As one of two major editors to this article, I ought to have some say in the manner of expression.
The bottom line is: If a major contributor prefers: "The canons complained that they had borne the cost of the rebuilding..." over "The canons complained they had borne the cost of the rebuilding...", then, as major contributor, I am requesting the right to maintain my preference, without feeling harassed about it.
You have two statements here, one from Cassianto saying that the article was easy to read, and the other, negative opinion, from J3Mrs whose efforts have introduced into the article a significant number of errors that have required fixing, and modes of expression of types that this major contributor to the article would not choose to use.
I am sick and tired of the petty, often unproductive, and sometimes detrimental nit-picking over the prose, which has been carefully constructed to convey encyclopedic material as accurately as possible.
God spare me from ever being so arrogant as to have to impose my "personal preferences" in matters of expression on an editor who writes accurate, grammatically correct prose, in the manner that some editors here apparently feel entitled to do!
Comment 2 I copyedited this article in good faith. I have corrected many capitalization errors, removed numerous "of the cathedral" type redundancies and other edits. Amandajm has posted this public berating and two private thank yous, I don't know what to make of that. I corrected what I saw as poor prose as it would have taken too long to catalogue. I stand by what I have done and think the article is better for it. I thought the idea was to review and improve not endorse what is lacking. PS the term is scissor arch and I would never use "being" instead of "was". J3Mrs (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response. J3Mrs, I apologise for the personally-directed nature of my comments. I want to stress that I appreciated all the tweaks to style and format. On the other hand, it was the tweaks to "expression" that changed the meaning here and there. I believe that at this stage corrections to expression (unless they are purely grammatical) ought to achieved by suggestion, rather than direct intervention. I respond to such suggestions as rapidly as I can, as does Rod, but I'm hampered in response if what I am doing is trying to sort out and rephrase things that have suddenly gone wrong.
Re Discussion of changes, the repeated use of the word "cathedral" for example, I have left your changes intact, but would have appreciated discussion on that matter, as another editor Derek Andrews, had complained on the talk page about exactly the opposite thing- the omission of the word "Cathedral" behind the word "Wells", seeing it as a sort of presumptuousness to simply call the cathedral by the name of the town. While you are obviously fully aware that "Wells" is the normal way to refer to the cathedral, other people are not.
Please read the new section and make as many comments as you like. It's already mentioned on the article talk page. Amandajm (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment3 This was not the first time you have attacked me in a very personal manner regarding this article and I noted on the talk page here that you consider I edit in "a very similar manner to vandalism", I think it best to say I am walking away. J3Mrs (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Nit-picking over the prose" is a long-established and important part of FAC reviews, which, as a co-coordinator, I find helpful when deciding if a consensus for promotion has been achieved. There are glitches that require attention:
Here, "Between 1275–1310 the undercroft and chapterhouse were built" and here "Between 1315–22 the central tower was heightened" for example. (In the Lead it is correctly written "The present building dates from between 1175 and 1490").
Some of the many "with" expressions might benefit from recasting such as, "with the body of the church being divided into distinct parts".
There is a formatting error here: Cockerell, Charles Robert (1851). Iconography of the West Front of Wells Cathedral. J. H. Parker. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFCockerell1851. Graham Colm (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Graham Colm. As I said above, that type of suggestion (or direct editing) is exactly the type that is desirable and most welcome.
I will look at the "with" expressions and see if this can better phrased.
Re Cockerell, I want to include a sentence or two that relates to that book. For this reason it hasn't been removed from the reflist. I'll get onto it, when I am not feeling quite so hassled about dealing with introduced errors.
Between the dates. I think that I have fixed all of them. Amandajm (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With Removed 13 of them. You may have suggestions re others. Amandajm (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have'nt, but you might want to check whether the ten or so occurrences of "being" would flow better using a simple—and more elegant—present or past tense. Graham Colm (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, it might be apt to footnote the bishop-to-be, Peter Hancock.[74]
Regarding placement of images to the left of subheaders, I have no opinion at this time, except to say that this practice could easily be reduced; e.g. put the first image (baptismal font) at right, put the second image (Bishop's Palace) at left and down, et cetera (this rearrangement could be facilitated by breaking the first paragraph of some subsections into two shorter paragraphs). You might also consider a two-to-one ratio of pics on the right relative to pics on the left (I don't think there's any requirement about a one-to-one ratio). Overall, it's a very excellent article, and I look forward to supporting it for FA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure about adding Category:Libraries in England as, although there is a paragraph on the library, it is not a major part of the article. Others such as Canterbury Cathedral which also have a brief mention of their library are not included. If we had a separate article on the library (similar to Lincoln Cathedral Library) then this would obviously be appropriate - perhaps we need a sub cat of Libraries in England for Cathedral Libraries? The new Bishop Peter Hancock has been discussed on the talk page and the suggestion was to wait until his enthronement (on some date in 2014) as he does not officially take office till then and therefore the post is currently vacant. I will leave Amandajm to comment on the images as the editor most responsible for the layout.— Rodtalk 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is already Category:Jewish libraries, so it would seem fine to start a Category:Church libraries or something like that. I don't see why it would have to be limited to England although it might be wise to limit it to really substantial libraries having more than X thousand books. The library at Wells Cathedral definitely is very substantial, and so adding Category:Libraries in England seems appropriate for now (that category already includes Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies which has more than just a library). Many Wikipedia articles have categories that do not apply to the whole entire article (e.g. Washington National Cathedral has a cat Category:Anglican cemeteries). I'm not a cat expert, so others may want to (purrorate) perorate on this matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As there have been no further comments on this I have added the category - this can always be changed if a more appropriate cat is created. I have also added the note about acting diocesan and bishop-designate.— Rodtalk 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The situation here is rather different to any of the articles that you mention above. (I have just looked at them all) With the exception of the article on Southern Rhodesia in the War, the articles are all very much shorter and are focussed on a considerably simpler subject: One person, one painting, one animal, one group of similar animals. In each case there are only a limited number of pics to be included. The topic of a major Gothic Cathedral with so much to described: Nave, choir, Lady Chapel, Chapter House, West front, tower sculpture, capitals, an organ, windows a palace, a street, gatehouse, cloisters, misericords, corbels, etc etc. Every one of these things requires illustration in order to do the subject justice.
Because of the complexity of the subject, their are lots of sub-headings and short sub-sections, nearly all with illustrations. This necessitates alternating the images right and left.
As I have written above, the layout choices are to put the left image under the sub-heading, or above it. If the picture is placed immediately below the the sub-heading, then the sub-heading gets split from its text. The alternative is to put the picture above the sub-heading, which moves the heading sideways and keeps it with the text. If you look at Southern Rhodesia in World War I, section Aviators and section Economic impact, you can see the result of allowing the sub-heading to be split from the text. It's not a good look.
If the section is long, the image can go further down. In the case of Wells Cathedral the sections are short, and this is not an option. If the pics move further don, they will still push headings aside, but it will be the one below, not the one relevant to the image. Amandajm (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amandajm for the thoughtful response. I know it's kind of a pain in the neck to have so many MOS considerations, but they do still leave much flexibility. It's kind of a fun riddle to figure out how to get an article to do what you want, while still doing what the MOS wants. As another editor mentioned, the MoS should be adhered to strictly in regard to images being after, not before, the subheading of the section to which they relate, and this is for reasons of both presentation and accessibility. If you can find any other featured articles that have many images placed before the relevant section, then you will have a more persuasive case. Otherwise, what's done now for Wells Cathedral will be the first precedent for this sort of thing, so we have to think of more than this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion: As indicated, I have now used the book by Cockerell on the iconography of the west front to create a new section. Wells Cathedral#Architecture
My problem now is that I think that because the new section is long, it creates an overall imbalance. On the other hand I am loathe to cut it down as the west front is a very significant work of art in its own right. There is a good deal more that could be added, without becoming plagiarist.
Opinions, please: Should I leave it in the article (with a relevant image)? Or remove it and create a short linked article?
Grudgingly opposeSupport - happy that my concerns have been addressed. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to have to grudgingly oppose this one. I believe that one of the FA requirements is that the article complies with the [Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images]. This includes using the default image size unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Every standalone image in this article (11 or so?) seems to be enlarged by 20%. This includes images that I would personally consider to be quite "normal" images, e.g. Vicars Close Wells Somerset.jpg. The MOS guidance on the placing of left-hand images is also being disregarded in this article. I say "grudgingly", as otherwise I'd like to support it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseHchc2009, you made a number of points before that related to sizing of images.
I responded, in point form, above, to every comment that you made.
I also went through the images and reduced in size all' the images that were in pairs, in direct response to what you had said.
I also addressed your present comment, This includes using the default image size unless there are good reasons to the contrary. I have responded to this earlier.
I have just reduced the image of the pulpit, which is the only image that doesn't show significant detail.
Re: The image of Vicars Close is only a "quite normal" image if you haven't realised its extraordinary significance. That is no "normal" street that you are looking at in that photo. It is the only remaining intact 15th century street in Britain (and probably in the world).
I have already explained that the mode of up-sizing allows the images to be viewed at a reduced size on small screens i.e. ion ipads and also on mobiles. I have checked the appearance of the article on both.
NOTE: Now that the only non-detailed image has been reduced, the images all comply with MOS in terms sizing to of include visual detail that is significant in the content of the article.
V. quick response (work beckons!). By "normal image", Amandajm, I meant that the image seems to be quite visible/adequate at a normal formatting size, not that the subject of the image (e.g. the street) isn't of historical interest. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hchc2009, As a person who deals with images on Wikipedia all the time, I find the thumbnail size too small to be effective for anything more than the simplest of images. At thumbnail size, It is clear that this is a street with houses, and that there appears to be a church at the end of the street. The difference to clarity that the additional 25% makes is enormous and justifies taking a pragmatic approach to the sizing. Wikipedia guidelines for images are not set in cement- they are recommendations.
I can only see one possible reason for enforcing the thumbnail rule- that is to allow the pics to work on a mobile phone. As I said before, the sizing of the images does work on a mobile phone. The images simply shrink to fit.
Is there any other purpose in setting the images all to thumbnail? Do we really have to enforce a "recommendation" as if it was a "rule"? Amandajm (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of changing the wording of the MOS and its recommendations on the default use of thumbnails, it's probably best to take it up on one of the related talk pages. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
But the question remains: Is it appropriate to enforce a "recommendation" as if it was a "rule", if, when all else it considered, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for the enforcement?
As I have said before, the current mode of formatting reduces the images to the required small size on mobile phones. Is there any other reason? Amandajm (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You probably want a specialist for this (User:Pigsonthewing or similar, perhaps) but I believe the guidance is there to allow users the most flexibility in configuring how the wiki functions for them. If articles regularly use default sized images as the norm, the user themself can decide if typically that is suitable for them (they usually work fine on my screen, generally) or perhaps too small (as you've noted is the case for you above) or perhaps too big (I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks that), and reset their preferences accordingly. Overriding that on special cases is fine too. On my screen, having all the images in this article enlarged by 20% on the standard size means they are rather large and overwhelm the text. In my opinion, one or two of them should be enlarged because the detail is critical, but most of them should just be the regular default size, as per the MOS. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You called? Thank you. Wikipedia allows signed-in users to set their preferred size for image thumbnails (and Amandajm should do this if images appear too small for their eyes, on their setup); and provides a default size (which is nothing to do with mobile phones -styling for them is handled separately) for other users. These user preference, and default, should not be overridden throughout an article, just because of one editor's personal aesthetic preferences or technical circumstances. Consider a reader who has a small screen (say, a 9" netbook) and who has already set thumbnails to the maximum size allowed. Increasing them further makes them relatively huge, and reduces the amount of text that can fit on the screen alongside them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Pigsonthewing. Could you also please comment about whether it's okay to put images to the left of subheaders? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS should be adhered to strictly in that regard (and images should be after, not before, the subheading of the section to which they relate), for reasons of both presentation and accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett; Thanks for your response. Yes, there is a problem with the MOS on this point.
The MOS states quite clearly that the subheading should not be split from its heading, because it creates a disjunction and disturbs readability.
This conflicts with the MOS recommendation that the image should be placed directly under the sub-heading (adjacent to the relevant text)
The above method works fine for right-hand images. It doesn't work for left-hand images.
The reason why it doesn't work for left-hand images is that it splits the heading from its text, in conflict with the MOS. In other words, its a catch 22.
So looking at the two options: 1. split the heading from its text, 2. displace the heading so that it stays with the text, the latter option is preferable.
I would take the instruction "Do not split the heading from its text" as the RULE that applies in every circumstance and the instruction "place the image immediately below the heading to which it pertains" as a recommendation (which works for right-hand cases and not for left).
As I have pointed out before, any article that has short sections and left-hand images, suffers displacement of sub-headings below the image. This occurs in very many cases regardless of whether the image is above or below the sub-heading. This isn't visible on upright screens (mobiles etc) but is very visible on wide screen modern computers. It is almost unavoidable. The only solutions are not to have any left hand images (and overcrowd the right) contrary to the MOS which recommends alternating images, or else ignore the displacement that occurs on wider screens.
The situation with the Featured Article James VI and I is typical of what happens in biographies, where, (in line with the MOS) portraits (upright and sometimes tall) are placed left. This article has a number of instance where the sub-heading is split, where the lower sub-heading is displaced, and in two instances a major heading and/or its accompanying line are displace by an image. (Please look on a wide screen, because the problem probably isn't visible on a tall one.)
So Andy Mabbett, Hchc2009, it's all a matter of which aspect of the MOS we are prepared to ignore: the instruction not to split off the Sub-heading causing disjunction in text, or the instruction to place the pic below the heading. I believe the solution that I have applied at Wells Cathedral and elsewhere, is the preferable alternative. Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further.
I have just reformatted the first major section of Wells Cathedral so that the problem of splitting the sub-headings from text is apparent in the context of the article under discussion.
Note that in a couple of instances, lower headings are displaced. It would look much better is all affected headings were displaced rather than some displaced and others split off. Please compare this with the other sections which I haven't changed. (please view on a wide screen) Amandajm (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain I understand the problem here Amandajm. The image MOS guidance we're trying to follow here appears to be:
Images should typically be at the default size, unless there are special reasons.
Images should be typically be on the right hand side of the screen by default.
Images can be placed on the left or alternated (its not a recommendation, but an option), but left hand images shouldn't be at the start of a paragraph, and should be placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
I'm about to tweak the first major section to illustrate this, including an alternating left-right image pattern at the beginning for illustrative purposes. (NB: feel free to revert this edit - it is illustrative!) Formatted in this way the section seems to comply with the MOS guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The images in the first section you have changed look OK to me on a couple of different screens. I haven't tested on mobile/tablet but I'm assuming they will work on these just as well.— Rodtalk 07:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett: Wikipedia allows signed-in users to set their preferred size for image thumbnails is something of a joke. Are we writing this ecncyclopedia for signed-in users, or for the World? The millions of people who use Wikipedia are mostly not "signed-in users". I can see a real purpose in taking mobile users into account, but the fact that some signed-in users chose to set images at a default really ought not dominate the way in which Wikipedia functions. It means that only the most computer-competent people are being well served by our product. It means that the choices of those who know they can chose over-ride the experiences of all those who don't. It takes care of the privileged few. Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told that the best way to increase the size of images effectively is to size them up as "upright= percentage", e.g. "upright= 1.5" etc. I have employed this system in sizing up images because I know that it works on a number of different devices. I have no idea how it affects those few "signed-in" users who like to set their own defaults (even if what it means to them is that some images are oversized as a result). I do realise that some of the people who set images large are those with poor vision. I have just checked some large-sized images to see how they fitted on the screen, and agree that in some cases the screen can look crowded.
The fact is that most Featured Articles on Art, Architecture and related fields have their images sized up, often to 300px. If they don't have their images sized up, then they are not conveying the pictorial information adequately to millions of our readers. If the article is talking about the pseudo-kufic inscription on the Virgin Mary's halo, the the reader needs to be able to see that it is in fact present, without interrupting their reading to go to the enlarged page. Wikipedia prides itself on the quality of its images, and rewards them for being of high resolution, and then sets rules that keeps them inadequately small, in the context of articles. Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hchc2009, your solution of alternating the images in the reverse order to the way they were previously has worked in most instances in terms of addressing the problem with the headings.
My complaint is relatively minor. Mainly, it may comply, but it looks bad from a point of view of layout. Almost everything about it looks bad, for one reason or another. The info box pushes the first image. The image looks ugly sitting under a box of a different size, the wider image (the aerial view) and the image below it look messy. Seen with the eye of an artist/art historian, it is bad layout. If ugly layout that offends an artists eye is what it takes, the so be it.
Anythingyouwant, The most beautiful image in the article is now at thumbnail size. And the most significant cathedral west front in England, (and arguably the whole of northern europe) about which there are not one but two sections in the article, has also ben reduced to thumbnail. It is frankly ridiculous that these two important images should be so small. Basically, the article, viewed on any normal screen, now looks a mess.
I notice that you moved the group of images to the centre again. Please don't. As my edit summary stated (when I moved them) they need to be left in order to be viewed well on mobile phones. Amandajm (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will try an entirely different solution to fix the present ugliness problem. Amandajm (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article. The images seem to be much more compliant with the MOS now, thanks. I did a similar thing at the John McCain article. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eric makes some good points below (though I continue to support). If User:Amandajm would like, I'd be glad to go through the article from top to bottom and adjust items such as those pointed out by Eric, subject to being reverted in case of any disagreement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind they were just a few examples. EricCorbett 22:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Good luck with it then. I think it needs a lot of work, but I'll revisit when you've had your evil way with it. EricCorbett 22:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll only do it with permission, and Amandajm may prefer to do it "themself" (as they say on Wikipedia).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, I have been around the traps, having had a very pleasant day off yesterday! Thanks for your offer! Amandajm (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add these examples to the list:
"There is a hierarchy of size, with the more significant figures being larger and enthroned in their niches rather than standing."
"The eastern range is of two storeys, the upper being the 15th-century library above."
Graham Colm, don't miss a trick, do you? I got rid of a dozen of them, only to write in a couple more. Oh well.... Amandajm (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed- and doing it gave me this kind of unbearable lightness ...... I think I need more coffee. Amandajm (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amandajm, the first paragraph of the lead is fairly crucial, and so I'd like to suggest some minor edits to make it read a bit more smoothly (underlines signify additions, and strike-throughs signify deletions):
“
Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle and it is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The present building dates from between 1175 and 1490, an earlier church having been built on the site in 705. It is moderately sized among the medieval cathedrals of England, falling between those of massive proportion, such as at Lincoln and York, and the much smaller ones at Oxford and Carlisle. With its broad west front and large central tower, it is the dominant feature of itsthe small cathedral city of Wells and is a significant landmark in the Somerset countryside.[10] WellsThis church has been described as "the most poetic of the English cathedrals".[11]
”
This makes it crystal clear that the cathedral is not dedicated to the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and differentiates in a crystal clear way between cathedrals and the towns where they are located (thus making the paragraph "idiot-proof" which a lead paragraph ought to be). Also, writing "it is the dominant feature of its...." had a bit too much "its" for my taste. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is rather clumsily written, a few examples:
"Since the 11th century the church had a chapter of secular clergy ...". Strange use of tense.
"The clergy were endowed with twenty two prebends ..." Obviously ought to be "twenty-two".
"The cathedral was conceived and begun around 1175 by Bishop Reginald Fitz Jocelin". Why do we need to be told this twice, once in the History section and again in the Construction section?
"The cathedral is designated by English Heritage as a Grade I listed building, and scheduled monument." English Heritage isn't responsible for designating Scheduled Monuments.
"Its clergy has a long tradition of singing or reciting from the Book of Psalms each day ..." "Clergy" is sometimes treated as a singular noun as here, but at other times as a plural, as in "The clergy were endowed with twenty two prebends".
"Wooden galleries that had been installed in the 16th-century ...". Why the hyphen? Similarly, "The 19th-century saw the restoration of the building and its fittings."
"Wells is not only the first cathedral in England to be commenced in the Gothic style ...". Very strange use of the word "commenced".
"From about 1192 to 1230, the first known architect, Adam Lock ...". So Adam Lock was the first architect known anywhere in the world?
"Its southwest tower was begun 100 years later ..." but "To the north-east is the large octagonal chapter house ...". Should be consistent. EricCorbett 21:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, how are things looking now as far as you're concerned? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
Comment cut'n'paste: We've had an edit conflict here. I'll get back to the later comments Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amandajm, the first paragraph of the lead is fairly crucial, and so I'd like to suggest some minor edits to make it read a bit more smoothly (underlines signify additions, and strike-throughs signify deletions):
Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle and it is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The present building dates from between 1175 and 1490, an earlier church having been built on the site in 705. It is moderately sized among the medieval cathedrals of England, falling between those of massive proportion, such as those at Lincoln and York, and the much smaller ones at Oxford and Carlisle. With its broad west front and large central tower, it is the dominant feature of itsthe small cathedral city of Wells and is a significant landmark in the Somerset countryside.[10] WellsThis church has been described as "the most poetic of the English cathedrals".[11]
"it is"- added the "is" but not the "it" as the noun subject is quite clear.
"those at"- this returns to a bit of a misunderstanding that was commented on previously. The name of the cathedral is its place-name. In any article about cathedrals (or bishops for that matter, or British nobility, in that context), one simply uses the place-name for the building or person. Once it is clear that the article is about cathedrals, then "Wells" = "Wells Cathedral".
The sentence "It is moderately sized among the medieval cathedrals of England, falling between those of massive proportion, such as Lincoln and York....." means" Lincoln Cathedral and York Cathedral". It doesn't mean "the cathedral at Lincoln and the cathedral at York". Nobody ever refers to them as "the cathedral at Lincoln". I believe that in the context of this sentence, it is perfectly clear that what is being referred to is "medieval cathedrals of England".
"its small cathedral city". This is correct. The city is a city for only one reason- it is the location of Wells Cathedral. If it were not for that cathedral, then the town of Wells would be just a market town. (A market town is a village or town that has a charter to hold a market, generally serving surrounding villages). The name of the cathedral city doesn't need stating, because it cannot be anything except "Wells".
"Wells has been described as......" This is "Wells" the cathedral, not Wells the town. To refer to Wells as a "church" in this context downplays its significance. From now on, within the context of the article, every time "Wells" is referred to, it means the cathedral. If the town is referred to, then it is called "the city of Wellls" or "the town".
Likewise, because the context is "cathedrals", if Wells is compared to Salisbury, Norwich or Exeter, it means "Salisbury Cathedral", "Norwich Cathedral" and "Exeter Cathedral". The use is consistent throughout the article. Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the words "cathedrals of" before Oxford and Carlisle. That should make it idiot proof. Amandajm (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Do you mind if I go through the rest of the article like this, to perhaps deprive Eric of further examples?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go for it. I have already done this "cathedral" thing over twice. At an earlier request, I inserted the word "cathedral" many times. J3Mrs removed them all. You can't keep everybody happy, so in the end, I just comply with what architectural historians usually do, and use "Wells" etc throughout.
I'll come back and look for your messages in a bit. I would rather you left messages than made changes. I am very happy to either fix or discuss. Amandajm (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are three items in the later paragraphs of the lead that caught my eye:
"The architecture of the cathedral presents a harmonious whole, in the sense that it is entirely Gothic and mostly in a single style, the Early English Gothic of the late 12th and early 13th centuries." This clarifies that it is a harmonious whole because of being entirely gothic; if there are other reasons for it being a harmonious whole then you can say something like "for instance because it is" or "for example because it is". If this doesn't suit you, then please consider replacing the first comma with the two words "that is" because the sentence seems kind of choppy to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: "in the sense that it is" is correct but clumsy. The correct form there is the participial phrase beginning with the continuous "being" i.e. "being entirely Gothic". The problem with this form is that I over-use it to such an extent that it is something of a joke. I have added "which is".
"The eastern end retains much originalancient stained glass, which is rare in England." It's not unusual to see original stained glass if it is of recent vintage, I presume.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
"Unlike the many English cathedrals of monastic foundation, Wells has an exceptional number of surviving secular buildings associated with its chapter of secular canonssecular clergy." I expect that many readers will understand the word "secular" to mean non-religious, and the article on secular clergy has a fairly clear explanation what that's all about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The present linked article at canons is the one that describes the situation more clearly, and also gives the later history of what happened at the English cathedrals under Henry VIII.
I am going to try to resist temptation to look at the cited sources during this process, except on this item:
"The earliest remains of a building on the site are of a late Roman mausoleum, identified during excavations in 1980.[15][16]" The first cited source mentions "an early 5th cent Chapel", is that correct? Maybe worth mentioning?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No: It mentions a 9th-10th century mortuary chapel. AJM
That source says: " Vicar's Hall which lies above the gatehouse for Vicar's Close - a terraced double range of early 14th cent. and later houses, closed on the north by an early 5th cent Chapel."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have obviously looked at a different source. But, anyway, if your source says "5th century chapel" then it is the rarest building in England. It's obviously a typo. The chapel at the end of Vicars Close is 15th century. AJM
Here's a link to the source, and then you click on "More Information & Sources". Anyway, if you say it's a typo, that's good enough for me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the rest of the "Early years" subsection:
“In 766 Cynewulf, King of Wessex, signed a charter endowing the church with eleven hides of land.” Per the Wikipedia article titled Virgate there were about 30 acres per hide, so maybe help the reader out here by converting units (at least in a footnote)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK A hide is about 120 acres. 30 acres is a quarter of a hide. AJM
“Two centuries later the seat of the diocese was moved from Sherborne to Wells.” This makes it sound like the seat of the diocese was already being discussed. Maybe better to say: “Two centuries later the seat of the diocese was established at Wells, having previously been located at Sherborne.”Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Diocese of Sherbourne has already been mentioned. I have added the date that the diocese moved to Wells, 909. AJM
It was already mentioned without being wikilinked, so I fixed that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Athelm and his nephew Saint Dunstan both became Archbishops of Canterbury.” Dunstan was not a Saint when he became Archbishop, right? So maybe leave out “Saint” or briefy clarify chronology?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed AJM
“At this time a choir of boys was established to sing the liturgy.” I’d say “around this time” or "during this time" instead of “at this time”, because Athelm and Dunstan were presumably not Archbishop at the same time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed AJM
Regarding the "Seat of the Bishop" subsection:
“It was designed in the new style with pointed arches, later known as Gothic, and introduced at about the same time at Canterbury Cathedral.” Instead of “and”, how about “a style”? Otherwise it sounds like you’re saying that Wells Cathedral was introduced at about the same time at Canterbury Cathedral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by the removal of a comma. AJM
“The church was largely complete at the time of its dedication in 1239.” If this sentence is out of chronological order, perhaps rewrite to “The church would not be completed until soon after its dedication in 1239?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The first paragraph in the section summarises the building of the cathedral. The rest of the section is about the to-ing and fro-ing. The beginning/end dates are now in the same sentence. AJM
“In 1197 Bishop Reginald's successor, Bishop Savaric FitzGeldewin, with the approval of Pope Celestine III, officially moved his seat to Glastonbury Abbey, but the monks there would not accept their new Bishop of Glastonbury and the title of Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury was used until the Glastonbury claim was abandoned in 1219.” This is a long sentence, and somewhat confusing. Maybe split up and clarify. Did Savaric stay in Glastonbury even though he was unwelcome? Why didn't they like him?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: The problem, as far as I can see, is that they objected to his title and he was forced to change it. I have dropped the "objection" bit as it is not really important to the Wells situation. AJM
“He saw the church dedicated in 1239….” The whole church complex, or just one building? Also, I would start that sentence with Jocelin (the previous sentence starts with “He”).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The church is the church. That's the bit that gets dedicated. Fixed the Jocelin matter. AJM
“The delay may have been a result of inaction by Pandulf Masca, a Roman ecclesiastical politician, papal legate to England and Bishop of Norwich, who was asked by the pope to investigate the situation but did not respond.” Because he was lazy, or received insufficient bribes, or hated Jocelin’s guts, or for unknown reasons?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Anythingyouwant, he was a Roman ecclesiastical politician and papal legate! Isn't that sufficient of itself. Amandajm (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“In 1245 the church became Wells Cathedral and the title ‘Bishop of Bath and Wells’ was granted to Jocelin's successors by a papal ruling of 3 January 1245.” Did the papal ruling make it a cathedral? If not, what did? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this forRod to word as per the source. Amandajm (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked back at Dunning who confirms the title becoming Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1245, but doesn't give the date of 3 January which is included in the article. Various sources (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) discuss the ongoing "conflict" between Wells and Glastonbury (and to a lesser extent Bath) but perhaps the clearest explanation is here. None of the sources give that exact date. Perhaps 3 January should be removed and the sentence replaced with "In 1245 the ongoing dispute over the title of the bishop was resolved by a ruling of Pope Innocent IV and thereafter known as the Bishop of Bath and Wells."— Rodtalk 10:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is that papal ruling also what designated Wells as a "cathedral"? I'm curious what designated Wells as a "cathedral".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Malden (1947) "Wells was raised to the dignity of a cathedral church in 909" (p28). The new building was "reconsecrated on Saint Romanus's day (probably 23 October) 1239. (p32) So it looks as if it had cathedral status since 909 even though the Bishops title featured Glastonbury or Bath in later years (see Bishop of Bath and Wells).— Rodtalk 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Wikipedia article cathedral: "The removal of a bishop's cathedra from a church deprives that church of its cathedral dignity, although often the name is retained in popular use, as for example former cathedrals acquired by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland (which lacks episcopal structure). Technically, such churches are proto-cathedrals." Accordingly, I think this confusion could all be cleared up by inserting a parenthetical into the lead sentence of this Wikipedia article: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and is the seat ("cathedra") of the Bishop of Bath and Wells." Then people will understand that it was a cathedral when and only when the bishop's seat was there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Colchester (1987) supports the original date with c.909 & then discusses the transference of the see from Wells to Bath being linked to the Council of London in 1075 but argues (based on the writing of Polydore Virgil in 1534) it was probably another Council of London, this time in 1078, which decided that the seat was "entirely a matter for the bishop". He talks about the rebuilding by Robert of Lewes which was "consecrated and dedicated jointly by him and the bishops of Salisbury, Worcester and Hereford in 1148. Saying he produced statutes (later the Statuta Antique) and had a full complement of dignitaries, canons, prebendaries, vicars choral and choristers (+ schools) at that point. After the Interdict of 1208 & the bishops leaving, work resumed in 1213. In 1219 Jocelyn surrendered his title to Glastonbury Abbey & applied to the pope for Wells to be given full cathedral status. The papal legate, Pandulf, was asked to investigate whether Wells had previously been a cathedral. He "did nothing" & it wasn't until 1245 that Innocent IV authorised bishop Roger to adopt the title of Bishop of Bath & Wells. Colchester doesn't say explicitly that cathedral status went with the title. I would have no objection to your parenthetical insertion but having the word cathedral twice in the same sentence may not be welcomed by others? — Rodtalk 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the word I would insert is "cathedra" rather than "cathedral".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of further comments I have revised the sentence re 1245 & added ("cathedra").— Rodtalk 17:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response: the "cathedral" isn't the "cathedra" even though it is referred to as "the seat of the bishop" . "The seat" is used in the same way in referring to the estate of a temporal lord. To get around the little problem, I have added a sentence of useful explanation, which doesn't muddy-up an otherwise reasonable lead sentence by repeating the word "cathedral" yet again (in the same sentence). Amandajm (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The first two sentences of the article are looking good, but I would like to suggest some minor tweaks. The first instance of "cathedral" is not wikilinked, and instead of doing so it might be best to instead use the word "building" like so: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedralbuilding in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As with other cathedralschurches, its titlestatus as a cathedral is dependent on itits role as the central church of a diocese and on the fact that it contains the throne (cathedra) of a bishop."Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-specialist, the second sentence now reads very oddly to me. I can't quite see what it is trying to tell the reader: that it contains a throne and is a central diocese church? (if so, why not just say so directly) That it is the same as all other cathedrals? (not an unusual fact) That sometimes it isn't, or hasn't been, a cathedral? I'm not at all sure that this detail really belongs in the lead (NB: my usual rule of thumb is to imagine you're talking to a mate at the pub. "Tell me something about Wells Cathedral," he says. Would we really start off by telling him about this aspect of it, rather than when it was first built or about its architecture etc.?) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might indeed be worthwhile to combine the first and second sentences, e.g. like this: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England building in Wells, Somerset dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and housing the seat ('cathedra') of the Bishop of Bath and Wells." This would avoid repetitive use of the word "cathedral", would educate readers immediately about the meaning of a cathedral, and would make them aware as they read the article that Wells was a cathedral when and only when the bishop was seated there. If the word "housing" is not preferred, then "including" or "containing" would work too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
Hchc2009, I can't understand why you are having trouble with the following sentence:
As with other cathedrals, its title is dependent on its role as the central church of a diocese and the fact that it contains the throne (cathedra) of a bishop.
Those people who are familiar with the correct meaning of "cathedral" know immediately by the name of the building that it is the central church of a diocese, and that it contains the throne of a bishop. They don't need to be told those two things.
The second sentence explains why rather than repeating the facts. It is called "Cathedral" because of these two facts that have already been indicated (but not stated) in the first sentence.
Anythingyouwant, sorry, but that all read rather badly, particularly "and is where the seat ("cathedra") of the Bishop of Bath and Wells is located."
As I have already explained, the "seat" of the bishop is his cathedral. His "throne" (the actual object) is a "cathedra". You cannot describe his throne as "cathedral" and you cannot describe his "seat" as "cathedra". Wells Cathedral is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
I have returned the sentence, slightly reduced: "As with other cathedrals, it has the role of central church of a diocese and contains the throne (cathedra) of a bishop."
I have maintained the link to cathedral in this sentence, so that the three definitions: cathedral, diocese and cathedra, are all together. some people might use all three all three, and others will need none. Having "cathedral" linked in the previous sentence simply looses itself alongside the more specific links.
As per my comments above, it isn't clear to me what the sentence is trying to emphasise. If the intent is to explain why it is called a cathedral, I'm not convinced that this is the right place for it. I simply don't think that most readers' immediate question on starting the article would be to ask "why is Wells Cathedral called a cathedral", particularly since the reason it is called a cathedral is no different from any other cathedral in England.
For comparison, you probably wouldn't, say, start off an article on, e.g. "St Mary Church, Littlevillage", by saying "St Mary's Church lies in Littlevillage, South England. As with other churches, it is a centre of worship for the local Christian community." I quite like Anythingyouwant's proposal, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're still drawing the reader away from the key information in the second sentence, which isn't great for the lead. I'd recommend: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England building in Wells, Somerset dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle. It is the central church of the Diocese of Bath and Wells, the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells and contains the bishop's throne (cathedra)." That would focus the reader on the article in hand, rather than cathedrals in general, and means that the second sentence starts off with a clear, positive statement rather than a comparative one. By moving the bishop bit to the second sentence, you would also be grouping the three related pieces of information into a single sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, though I'd insert the word "is" before the words "the seat".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"building" isn't adequate. A "cathedral" is far more than a building. The fact of it being a "cathedral" implies a specific function (which the reader either does or doesn't immediately comprehend from the word alone). "Cathedral" isn't just about "building" as in "structure". It is about what goes on there. You might as well say "The White House is a building in the US."
The fact that it is the "seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells" is first sentence material. This is made all the more important by the fact that the cathedral is called "Wells" but the Bishop is styled "Bath and Wells".
The repetition of "Bath and Wells" in the next sentence is clumsy.
The second sentence can be omitted altogether, except that it is useful for the many readers who really don't know what a cathedral is. There are a lot of people out there that think a cathedral is just a "big church" and will argue that fact, because it is a definition that is include in some dictionaries as a vernacular use of the word. We can leave out the words "As with other cathedrals" but this defeats the purpose. The only reason for the second sentence is to serve those people who don't fully comprehend what a constitutes a cathedral. All the people who do know what a cathedral is, know already that it is the central church of the Diocese of Bath and Wells and contains the bishop's throne. How do they know that? They know it because the first sentence says it is the seat of the bishop of Bath and Wells, and that is all the information that a person who already "in the know" requires.
I would prefer to leave the phrase "as with other cathedrals" because, in the span of four words, it conveys a great deal of information to the "unchurched". The notion of "cathedral" may seem simple but is not as straightforward as it appears. You could begin the second sentence with the words "By definition a cathedral is a church where blah blah blah..." but that seems to be overkill.
I will boldly change "as with other cathedrals" to "as with most other cathedrals". Per the Wikipedia article cathedral: "The removal of a bishop's cathedra from a church deprives that church of its cathedral dignity, although often the name is retained in popular use, as for example former cathedrals acquired by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland (which lacks episcopal structure)." By inserting the word "most", the sentence will become much more appropriate and useful, by distinguishing this cathedral from, e.g., cathedrals acquired by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That got reverted. Oh well. I still think the sentence is acceptable, especially because it includes a piped link to the Diocese of Bath and Wells.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response, the only reason why there exist a few non-cathedrals that are still known as "cathedral" is because they previously functioned as cathedrals and held the seats of bishops. It's an historical hang-over. Yes, the piped link is good there. AJM
“Since the 11th century the church has had a chapter of secular clergy….” I would wikilink secular clergy even if the term is also inserted into the lead (as I have suggested).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done; It's linked a little further up under "Early years". AJM
I will take a break now, and see what you think. All of the above are fairly small points, which is why I have already supported FA status for this article. But still they may possibly improve the article even more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, do you consider this to have been helpful and/or tolerable? If so, I can proceed with the rest of the article. Unless you prefer, I will not strike out resolved points.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, helpful! Go ahead, if you have the time. The matter that Rod needs to look at is tagged with his name, so he will find it. I don't think you need to strike out the rest, unless this is some rule. It doesn't do to break the rules. Do you really want Rod to get an answer on this "papal legate" thing, or is it sufficient to look at the current news and know that papal legates have not changed much in 1000 years? Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's against some rule then maybe someone will point it out. Anyway, the sentence is: "The delay may have been a result of inaction by Pandulf Masca, a Roman ecclesiastical politician, papal legate to England and Bishop of Norwich, who was asked by the pope to investigate the situation but did not respond." I would have thought that when the pope asks for something from an underling, he gets it, but maybe I'm missing something.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three comments about territory already covered, plus comments about the rest of the "History" section:
“In 1197 Bishop Reginald's successor, Bishop Savaric FitzGeldewin, with the approval of Pope Celestine III, officially moved his seat to Glastonbury Abbey, and the title of Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury was used until the Glastonbury claim was abandoned in 1219.” One-sentence paragraphs are suspect, and this one can easily be split in two.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
At the end of the subsection titled “Seat of the bishop”, perhaps say that the seat has remained at Wells continuously since 1219.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
“The building which was begun by Bishop Reginald Fitz Jocelin in the 12th century continued under Jocelin of Wells, who was a canon from 1200, then bishop from 1206.” This is somewhat redundant to the earlier sentence: “Bishop Jocelin continued the building campaign begun by Bishop Reginald….” I would move the dates into the earlier sentence and remove the rest, so that the “Construction” subsection starts with “Adam Locke….”Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Removed all but the first half-sentence to the second section.
I think "Diocese of Sherborne" ought to become "diocese of Sherborne" with both words wikilinked, and "diocese" not capitalized. This is the first occurrence of both terms, so I think it would be helpful for them both to be wikilinked. Also, the phrase is often spelled without a capital "D"'[75] which seems apt here if the two words are wikilinked separately.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. "diocese" is now linked in the lead. "Diocese of Sherborne" is correct. It is now linked to Bishop of Sherborne because that article contains info on the now-defunct diocese. (It is part of the Diocese of Salisbury, but has a bishop.)
“Adam Locke was master mason from about 1192, perhaps succeeded by Elias of Dereham in 1229.” I don’t see the date “1229” in the cited source, and perhaps it’s best to leave out stuff that is “perhaps” true (but keeping stuff that is probably true).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the date 1229 came from. My assessment is that it is "probably" true that Elias of Dereham had a hand in it somewhere, but I don't know what he did. Unless it was the vault. The vault is very very similar to that of Salisbury and is absolutely the only part of Wells Cathedral that isn't a little eccentric.
Fixed, I removed it. Amandajm (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“He built Vicars' Close and the Vicars' Hall, to give the men of the choir a secure place to live and dine, away from the town and its temptations.” I gather this refers to the vicars who chant services several times a day. Unlike in the previous sentence, the word “choir” is used here in the usual musical way. I would make this clearer, e.g. by saying “the vicars who chant in the choir” instead of “the men of the choir”.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed AJM
“he built the south-west tower of the west front and designed the north-west, which was completed later.” The north-west what?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed AJM
“By the reign of Henry VII the cathedral building was complete, appearing much as it does today.” Is there a difference between the “cathedral” and the “cathedral building”?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The building looks pretty much the same, but the fittings have changed considerably, including the insertion of a massive organ, the installation of an altar in the nave, the choir stalls greatly changed etc. AJM
“From 1508 to 1546, the eminent Italian humanist scholar Polydore Vergil was active as the chapter's representative in London.” This intrigues me. Was it a fulltime job? Did each cathedral in England have a representative in London? Why is the year 1534 glossed over? Isn’t that when the Church of England broke from Rome and the Pope? Why did this Italian guy keep serving even after 1534?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Polydore Vergil was an Italian who came to Britain as the emissary of the pope and was invited by the English court to write a history. According to this paper he may have been related to Adriano Castellesi and is sometimes described as his assistant as the popes representative & collectors of payments due (Peter's Pence). He is described as a proxy at the enthronement but exactly which of them acted as Bishop on a day to day basis is unclear. This source (p 77) suggests he lived most of his time in London and was the representative for Bath & Wells at the Convocations of Canterbury and York, possibly after 1518 when the bishopric was transfered to Thomas WolseyIn commendam.— Rodtalk 16:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“The Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1541 resulted in a reduction in the cathedral's income.” Why that result, given that Wells was not a monastic cathedral?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“no longer entitled to elect the dean.” So who then chose the dean?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions can be put forward by the bishop and his advisors but the appointment goes through a complex selection process and is ultimately by the Crown.
Presumably from Bridgwater which is about 20 miles from Wells. Having looked harder at the wording, it is possible that he was initially imprisoned elsewhere, then brought to Wells.
“David Barrett…. Barret….” Which way is Barret(t) spelled?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“was appointed dean and served as the bishop for two years before his death in 1672.” Insert “then” before “served”? Also, the ensuing sentences discuss things Creighton did before his death, so maybe the stuff about his death should be later in the paragraph, to keep things chronological.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"During his long tenure the fabric of the cathedral was restored.” I’d change “his” to “Bathurst’s” for clarity. Also, what does "fabric" mean?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Fix, "fabric" has gone. Bathurst in in. AJM
“Restoration began again under Bishop Thomas Ken who was appointed in 1685 and served until 1691.” Appointed by whom?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the Crown.
“He was one of seven bishops imprisoned for refusing to sign King James II's ‘Declaration of Indulgence’….” I like the word “King” here. Can this be done throughout the Wikipedia article (e.g. “King Charles I”, “King Charles II”)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Ken refused to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary because James II had not abdicated….” So let me get this straight; Bishop Ken was convicted for defying James II, but later was fired for his loyalty to the very same James II? Maybe that irony should be explicitly noted as such.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was on account of his oath, not on account of any personal loyalty. Amandajm (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE: King William and Queen Mary, they are usually corporately known as "William and Mary" and nobody bothers about the numbers, because they are distinct, as "William and Mary", but Wiiiliam on his own is referred to as William III, King Billy, and by a great number of other names that are not so polite, depending on where one is coming from.
Rod, should we indulge this person by adding "King" to Henry VIII and Chas I etc? AJM
“two chimney stacks on the palace fell on him….” The word “palace” is used twice in the Wikipedia article. Does it still exist, and does the Bishop live there?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to intrude on the good work going on, but, ... Bishop's Palace, Wells is already mentioned and wikilinked in the Seat of the bishop section. Yes it still exists and has been the house and office of the Bishop for hundreds of years. There is some current controversy about the next bishop (to be enthroned in 2014) who will have his office at the palace but will get another residence in the city.— Rodtalk 10:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, how could you possibly be intruding? Amandajm (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake. I think my "find" function is case sensitive, so it overlooked "Palace" with a capital"P".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“The late 20th century saw an extensive restoration programme on the fabric of the building….” Presumably “fabric” does not refer to cloth. What is the difference between “the fabric of the building” and “the building”? (Also see five comments up discussing "fabric".)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Ok! Fabric can go. It's conservation jargon. It means that the stone, mortar, lead and glass are being repaired. But what it meant in the Victorian era, and still too often today is that stuff is being extensively replaced. Amandajm (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“The cathedral is the venue for musical events including an annual concert by the Somerset Chamber Choir.” This could be moved into the section about “Music” or alternatively its tense can be changed to fit better in this “History” section (e.g. “The cathedral has been the venue…”).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would combine two very short subsections so there is just one for "Victorian era to present day".Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done But I think that more work is probably needed on these two sections. AJM.
User:Amandajm, would you prefer that I keep going to the end, or would you like to deal with the above comments first?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've got it covered, apart from some of the historic stuff which Rod needs to look at. Thank you! Please go on. Amandajm (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I plan to go on with more comments tomorrow. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am back at it again now, not sure how far I'll get.
"Wells has been described as 'the most poetic of the English cathedrals'.[11]" I request that the person quoted be named inline. Whether in passive or active voice, I think it's always preferable when offering a quote to say who said it. I know people can just go look at the footnote, but that really shouldn't be necessary, and anyway, the way it's written now, the reader could infer that Clifton-Taylor was quoting someone else rather than making his own statement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I don't want to go down the "according to architectural historian with the double-barrelled name" line at the end of that section, So I fixed it by adding an even more quote. The homesite says it's possibly the most beeyootiful. Only "possibly". But two quotes are better than one, and excuses me from saying who said either of them. Amandajm (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Its governing body is the chapter which is made up of five clerical canons….” How about: "Its governing body — the chapter — is made up of five clerical canons…." That seems like a preferable sentence structure given the previous mention of the chapter ("On acquiring cathedral status, in common with other such cathedrals, it had four chief clergy, the dean, precentor, chancellor and sacristan, who were responsible for the spiritual and material care of the cathedral").Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but with commas. Don't you dare go adding dashes where commas will serve the purpose! Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“The most recent Bishop of Bath and Wells was Peter Price, who was appointed in 2001 and retired on 30 June 2013.[72]” Could we also put a link to Note “a”?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, what is the current situation? Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to note "a" to this sentence as well. According to this page from the diocese he will be enthroned in June 2014.— Rodtalk 08:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“ The chapter is advised by specialist architects and archaeologists and committees focusing on the fabric and finance.[71]“ The series of two ands is confusing, and it's unclear who does the "focusing". How about: "The chapter is advised by specialist architects and archaeologists, and also receives advice from committees focusing on the fabric and finance"? (Also, this is now the only mention in the article about "fabric" and so you might want to briefly explain that term if it means something other than cloth.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Shortened both sentences and left out the fabric. It's obvious what an architect, an archaeologist or an accountant might do. Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“More than a thousand services are held each year, including daily services: Matins, Holy Communion and Choral Evensong[74] and major celebrations of Christian festivals.[75]” There needs to be a clearer separation between the daily services and the major celebrations. This can be done various ways (using parentheses, or dashes, or a semicolon, etc.) but the way it is now makes it look like “major celebrations” is included in a list of daily services.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
“The cathedral is also used for the baptisms, weddings and funerals of those with close connections to it.[76]“ Maybe clarify by adding: “especially those who live on the few streets surrounding the Cathedral”.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response neither necessary or strictly accurate. Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Three Sunday services are led (during term time)….” Is “term time” jargon?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (during school terms)
“The cathedral is also the venue for musical events such an annual concert by the Somerset Chamber Choir.[79]“ Insert “as” after “such”.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
“running costs which were around £2 million per year in 2010”. I must respectfully request a dollar equivalent, not because I am an American, but because a dollar equivalent would allow many more people to understand the running costs. This is not a request that some Wikipedians would want to grant, so feel free to ignore this comment if you'd like. If you don't ignore it, it would be sufficient to mention the exchange rate in a footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but it is at the current rate, and there may be argument about it. Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response on "place of worship" in the first sentence. I could probably live with that. Amandajm (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: To save time, I will make relatively small or uncontroversial edits directly, but put more substantial issues into comments below. Of course, if I mess up any edits, please feel free to revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Wells has been variously described as "perhaps the most beautiful",[11] and as "the most poetic" of the great English cathedrals.[12]" Footnote 11 is to the cathedral's own website! Much better to instead cite a neutral and reliable source: "Wells has been variously described as "unquestionably one of the most beautiful of English cathedrals"<ref>Oggins, Robin. ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=DtS2iD79NgEC&pg=PA42 Cathedrals]'', p. 42 (Sterling Publishing Company 1996).</ref> and as "the most poetic" of the great English cathedrals.{{sfn|Clifton-Taylor|1967|p=274}}Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent AJM
"Wells is the first cathedral in England to be, from its foundation, built in the Gothic style. According to art historian John Harvey, it is the first truly Gothic cathedral in the world, its architects having entirely dispensed with all the features that bound the contemporary east end of Canterbury Cathedral and the earlier buildings of France, such as the east end of the Abbey of Saint Denis, to the Romanesque.[12]" If it was the first Gothic cathedral in the world, then obviously it was the first Gothic cathedral in England. So, I'd delete the first sentence here ("Wells is the first cathedral...."). Also, I would put "such as the east end of the Abbey of Saint Denis" into a parenthetical or delete it, so that it does not interrupt the sentence so much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different points being made here. The first point is that it was actually begun during this period. At Canterbury, where the work is contemporary, they were rebuilding an existent building, starting at the east. At Lincoln they were rebuilding the cathedral after a recent fire in which the greater part was lost. Only two other English cathedrals were actually begun in the Gothic style, Lichfield Cathedral which is just a little later, and Salisbury Cathedral 1220, where the monks abandoned their church on the hill at Old Sarum and rebuilt on the plain.
The second statement, that it is the first truly Gothic cathedral in the world is a qualitative assessment. There was no clear-cut shift from Romanesque architecture to Gothic. Gothic features such as the ribbed vault, the pointed arch and the flying buttress had all been employed at Durham Cathedral (which was extremely innovative). Yet Durham remains beyond question Romanesque in character. Inside Durham one has the most overwhelming sense of the mass of the building and its various parts. As Gothic developed in France, many of the features were employed by Abbot Suger at the Basilica of Saint Denis, and are also seen at Noyon Cathedral. Noyon is often cited as the first Gothic cathedral. But the point that Harvey and Swaan make is that Wells has thrown off any hint of Romanesque character. It doesn't feel like a transition from Romanesque to Gothic (as St Denis, Noyon and Canterbury do). It feels like a new invention. Yet it was begun in the late 12th century, at a time when at Peterborough Cathedral the Norman nave was still under construction. It is almost impossible to look at the nave at Peterborough and think of it as contemporary with the western part of the choir at Wells. Peterbro has everything that a Norman nave should have, including stout cylindrical piers, paired openings set in arches, and zig-zaggy ornament at the borders. There are a lot of things about Wells Cathedral which show a mind-boggling originality. The naves of Lincoln and Salisbury, both renowned for the beauty of their proportions and the massing of parts, were begun 25-30 years after Wells, but neither is as original, or as free from Romanesque origins as is Wells. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In about 1310 work commenced on the Lady Chapel, to the design of Thomas Witney, who also built the central tower from 1315 to 1322 in the Decorated Gothic style.[38] It was later braced internally with arches by William Joy." Which was later braced, the Lady Chapel or the central tower?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed AJM
"The sculptures occupy nine architectural zones which stretch horizontally across the entire west front and around the sides and the eastern returns of the towers where they project beyond the aisles." What projects, the towers, the returns, the zones, or the sculptures?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed AJM
"The niches in the lowest zone of the gable contain nine angels, of which Cockerell identifies Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel.[104] In the next zone are the taller figures of the twelve apostles, some, such as John, Andrew and Bartholomew, clearly identifiable by the attributes that they carry.[105]" Maybe wikilink the named angels, and the named apostles? Also, is this a technical use of the word "attribute"? Usually (in the U.S. anyway), one speaks of having an attribute rather than carrying an attribute.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response: In the case of images of saints and the like, they literally carry their "attributes" which signify who they are. Bartholomew carries his flayed skin, Dennis carries his head, and Agatha carries her breasts on a platter.
"The north porch is described by art historian Nikolaus Pevsner as "sumptuously decorated", and intended to be the main entrance.[85] Externally it is a simple rectangular building with plain side walls." If the North Porch was intended to be the main entrance, has it ever been used as such? Also, calling the North Porch a "building" gives the impression that it is a separate structure, but is it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed The structure isn't separate. It adjoins the cathedral.
It was probably in frequent use as an entrance until Vicars Close was built and Chain Gate was constructed which has a bridge over the road and into the cathedral via the Chapter House steps. I believe that it now contains a noticeboard directing people to a different entrance.
The last time I visited (a few months ago) the porch was being used as an entrance by staff, but it did have a sign directed the public to the other entrance where a donation is suggested and guides etc are available.— Rodtalk 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"each opening having six main lights divided by a strong transom...." What kind of light is this? According to transom (architectural), "Transom or transom window is also the customary U.S. word used for a transom light, the window over this crosspiece". Is that what this sentence is referring to?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. The transom is a horizontal bar in the window. A "light" in this sense is similar to the way that it is used in the expression "transom light" in that it is a window opening. In a medieval window, the "lights" are the long vertical openings. A four-light window has four long vertical openings. In a window that is in the Perpendicular Gothic style, these are commonly divided by horizontal transoms. I know that this seems a totally confusing notion of horizontal and vertical, but the fact is that Lancet and Geometric windows do not have horizontals, only verticals, and Perpendicular windows are distinguished in part by their horizontals. OK! It won't surprise you to discover that only the English did "Perpendicular Gothic". The others just happied themselves with "Flamboyant Gothic".
Confused? "Lights" should be linked, but I don't know what to link it to. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Baker was employed as chief conservator until midway through the project." What happened then?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a clue, so I deleted it. AJM
"such as the narrative of the fruit stealers...." Is this a narrative in the Bible? If so, then mention. If not, then it seems somewhat obscure, and "the" ought to be changed to "a".Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a series of four scenes depicting the "Wages of Sin" in the narrative of fruit stealers who creep into an orchard and are subsequently beaten by the farmer". Same as previous comment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed removed the first inst. changed "the" to "a". It's not Biblical. The claim to fame is that this is by far the most famous sculptural group on the Wells capitals, easily the best known in England. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the carvings at Wells is atypical as it has wings and appears to be wearing clothes.[121]" In the whole cathedral, there's only one atypical carving? If so, then clarify that fact, plus say where it's located. But if not then rephrase.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. It is doubtful that it is a Sheela N Gig but people want to think that it is.
"In the 15th century Vicars' Close was built to house the men, and provided a chapel and communal facilities that isolated them from the "worldly temptations" of the town." Can this be shortened or removed? It seems redundant to earlier material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gone
According to Wells, Somerset, "The name Wells derives from the three wells dedicated to Saint Andrew, one in the market place and two within the grounds of the Bishop's Palace and cathedral." Should the latter two wells be mentioned here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want more info on them? Rod's your man! Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is to mention them, and more info about them is not necessary. The Cathedral gets its name from them, and they're located on cathedral grounds, so they really should be mentioned, if only briefly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wells are described on Bishop's Palace, Wells in the gardens section, as they are technically in the ground there rather than the cathedral. My belief is that the one in the market place was piped there from the grounds of the palace (since 1451). Now via the "market Cross" see Grade II* listed buildings in Mendip but doesn't have its own article yet.— Rodtalk 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now. I haven't scrutinized the image captions, the notes, or the footnotes, but have otherwise read and commented from top to bottom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your diligence and application! Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it was interesting. Never worked on an article like this one. Not bad work for a non-Christian, eh? :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, I knew you weren't going to get away with that Americanism; it's been spotted and reverted already. You might as well try letting a wombat loose at Lord's.
Some other on-the-ball editor picked up the fact that weddings are not "private". Of course they are not! Otherwise no-one could run in and halt the wedding by shouting "I object!" the way the brother-in-law did in Jane Eyre. Very good! Amandajm (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I supported this article for FA above, and then (paradoxically) made a boatload of comments. I am satisfied that those comments have been satisfactorily addressed (even though I'm too lazy to cross each of them out). And I still support FA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- has anyone performed a dedicated source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose (talk) I believe that it was done in part. I am sure that since then I have added references that have not been formatted in the same manner as the others. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we'd better have a formal check; will list request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
Ref 2 is not an online source, so retrieval date irrelevant
Removed.— Rodtalk 16:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 should be dated
Dated.— Rodtalk 16:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 21: Why is this source high quality/reliable? It is created by "Two people, whose hobby has evolved into something of a passion for recording the diverse heritage of Britain", which is commendable but not necessarily scholarly.
Replaced— Rodtalk 16:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 22: Is a 100-year-old encyclopedia entry the best source for this information?
Replaced— Rodtalk 16:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23: Paging should be 243–44
Done— Rodtalk 16:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 37: Source unclear – publisher? date?
Details added— Rodtalk 16:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 43: Origin of source unclear – it apppears to be publicity material for the City of Wells
I've found several sources saying the same thing but similar levels of reliability eg This I don't think these two sentences are vital for the article about the cathedral so could be removed if people think that is appropriate?— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done— Rodtalk 16:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 56 not properly formatted (see 32 for correct format of ODNB source)
Done— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 63: give full details of source; "Project Canterbury" is merely the facilitator
Full details (cite book) given— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 65: You give the publicaion location here, but not generally. Consistency necessary
Removed— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 67: Page range format (and ndash required, not hyphen)
Done— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 69: This is an advertisement: unnecessary as info alrady cited elsewhere
Removed— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 83: Publisher missing (Western Daily Press)
Done— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 84: Page range format
Done— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 89: Give publisher's full name rather than initiala JBAA
Done— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 91: Why is this source high quality/reliable?
(Now 90) self published by the quarry - do I need to look for another link for the distance (eg a map) or for the geology of Doulting Stone?— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in your text which is cited to the quarry history reads: "The west front is 100 feet (30 m) high and 150 feet (46 m) wide, and built of Inferior Oolite of the Middle Jurassic period, which came from the Doulting Stone Quarry, about 8 miles (13 km) to the east." Only some of this information (the bolded bits) is in the quarry history. It can be accepted as reliable for those details, and I don't think the 8-mile distance is important, but the measurements, which I can't immediately relate to what's in the infobox, need to be cited to somewhere else. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Colchester book as a citation for the dimensions (147ft wide not 150ft).— Rodtalk 10:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 93: add (subscription required) tag
Done— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 95: Irregularly formatted. Also, "Harvey" requires a year
User:Amandajm added these notes & may be able to help.— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now revised.— Rodtalk 07:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 114: archive link broken
Sorry I don't understand this one - link works for me.— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 122: looks like a private project rather than a quality source
(Now 121) The Sheela Na Gig Project is probably the most comprehensive source for these - but I can look for another source if needed?— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the source looks comprehensive, but it does not come from a learned institution. It may be the work of an enthusiastic amateur. The only information cited to this source concerns the atypical Sheel Na Gig at Wells – is this information verifiable by a more formal source? Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources for the likely presence of Sheelas however I can't find any better sources for the "atypical" claim and therefore have removed that sentence.— Rodtalk 10:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of these things that has been claimed to be a Sheela Na Gig almost certainly isn't. But people want to find them. They get dreadfully excited about the notion of a sculpture of a female exposing her genitals. If we leave them out altogether, you can be sure someone will come along and put them in. Amandajm (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise , when I commented here that the reference to it probably not being a Sheela was the one that had been removed. Let me emphasise that the the carving almost certainly is not a Sheela, and regardless of the quality of the reference, the writer has obviously looked at it considerably harder than the authors of the two sources that say there are two of them. I think that they question of uncertainty should be returned to the article. Amandajm (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 129: link unnecessary in short citations
Link moved to bibliography
Ref 137 returns "page not found"
(Now 136) Linkrot fixed— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 146: as with ref 2, retrieval date irrelevant
Done— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the bibliography:
the Cox book lacks publisher information
Done— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Athlone Press – either drop "The", or link the whole title
Done— Rodtalk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In referencing books with multiple authors, be consistent in citation formats e.g "Tatton-Brown & Crook" v. "Wade"
No spotchecks done. Other than as noted, the sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review: One of the most impressive uses of images I've seen on an article. I believe I counted around 55 in all, checked each one. Sourcing is a mix between nom's own work, clearly free use from other users, and the geograph project, all of which are fine. My only nitpick is that the last organ image seems rather out of place bunched in with the bibliography. Is there a better spot in the article to place it? Wizardman 04:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like that one way down there. It's kind of like...one more for the road. If there's a better spot then I wouldn't object to that either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman, you have to admit that the "Nom" did a brilliant job with those images, having been hounded from ten thousand miles away to go back there on some winter's morning that wasn't raining, stand on his car and take shots over the wall. (His collaborator had checked the best position on Google Earth.) He was then obliged to crawl around on the floor under the stalls to get the misericords (the seats don't tilt properly because of the cushions.) Then he came up with the idyllic shot taken over the pond in the Bishop's garden, with the reflection and two duckies... probably the most beautiful photo of Wells Cathedral taken for the last hundred years..... knocked on the head as a Fine Image by Wikimedia Commons because it was a slightly misty winter morning and the building wasn't quite "sharp"..... you can't win them all! Incidentally, I'm still not satisfied. I want Rod to photograph the boss on the right hand side of the door into the undercroft. I have a close personal connection with that piece of carving.
And I am glad that you like the use of the images. It is a lot of hard work putting them together in series that work well as groups. Sometimes it means a lot of cropping.
You guys have some duplicate links that may be justified by the length of the article but pls review in any case -- this script highlights them.
I've found a few more (which had escaped or been added since previous checks) and removed them.— Rodtalk 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding citations, I note that in some places you're citing every sentence, even when the source is identical for each statement and you could therefore get by with the one citation at the end. If this is deliberate, say to make things more precise in case further info is added subsequently, fair enough, but I'd like to know that's the case as IMO it does clutter things a bit.
There have been so many challenges on this article it is easiest to cite everything, particular as with multiple editors it does deal with the additions of extra information as you suggest.— Rodtalk 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, despite the density of sourcing in most areas, there are some uncited sentences. Now admittedly a basic physical description like "Buildings in Vicars' Close include the Vicars Hall and gateway at the south end, and the Vicars Chapel and Library at the north end" is unlikely to be challenged, but an earlier statement that "It was restored and extended by Benjamin Ferrey between 1846 and 1854" is historical info and does need sourcing. It's just simpler to ensure there's a citation at least at the end of every paragraph, which also goes for the second para under Clock and the solitary para under Bells.
I've added citations for those you've identified (and one or two others), but if you spot any others please let us know.— Rodtalk 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's up to the nominators to search for any further instances when a problem is pointed out but in this case I think I caught all of them; citations are one of the things I always double-check as a delegate/coordinator, prior to promotion -- thank you for responding promptly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments.— Rodtalk 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a 1928 poem by modernist poet T.S. Eliot. I started this article and brought it through DYK and GA, and after some additional edits to polish the article, I nominate it here. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Replaced with PD-ineligible and new description template.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think in the permission line you meant does not qualify for protection? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - added the very important "not" thanks for catching that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Thomas_Stearns_Eliot_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell_(1934).jpg needs US PD tag. Same with File:Sretenie.jpg, File:Pur_19_avari.jpg
Done - File:Sretenie.jpg added PD-art-100 tag; File:Pur_19_avari.jpg added PD-art-100 tag --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Nikkimaria: - RE: File:Thomas_Stearns_Eliot_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell_(1934).jpg - Since Morrell died in 1938, and it has been more than 70 years since her demise,[77] and I can't find any registration of copyright or publication of the photo in the US (Quick but intensive search of about 100 tomes on GoogleBooks for Eliot books I don't have, and quickly looking through the photo/illustration credits in the many volumes on Eliot that I have on my shelves didn't give any indication of publication). What would be the appropriate PD tag for a 70-years after the death what I think is an unpublished work? Would that be appropriate?--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not unpublished, as it's on a website. Was it displayed or exhibited at any point prior to digitization, do we know? Depending on that answer and the date of digitization, Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished might apply. However, I suspect if it hasn't been published in the US we'll find it's actually still copyrighted there per Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Four-point_test and so can't be included at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The description on the National Portrait Gallery (UK) website says "Purchased with help from the Friends of the National Libraries and the Dame Helen Gardner Bequest, 2003"[78] so the scanning and probable date of publication would be 2003 or later (anticipating it took time to catalogue and scan over 1600 photos from that collection).--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Launcelot_Andrews_(1555-1626),_English_School_circa_1660.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed image with File:Lancelot Andrewes by Simon de Passe 1618.jpg. Researching the 1660 portrait will take some time and there are alternative free, certain provenance images.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support:Leaning to support As always with Eliot, interesting and disconcerting. My points are chiefly minor prose quibbles, although one or two concerns emerge towards the end:
The citation following "The Right Reverend Thomas Banks Strong, Bishop of Oxford" is somewhat over-complex ([4]:pp.18[6]:pp.20,212,223). Does Eliot's baptism need this much verification? Also, in general I am not sure of the benefit for including the page refs in the inline citation; I can see the point, but it does make reading the text rather disjointed.
Reply - that's the problem when the sentence draws together facts from 4 different pages--and I have fallen into the habit of sourcing and citing under the "better safe than sorry" mentality. I don't see a problem with it other than aesthetics. As for readability, despite what the essays say, I haven't seen an interested reader stop reading because of a citation. As for the method, I'm not partial to the other citation methods--we chiefly have three different ways of doing citations, each has their drawbacks, none are absolutely perfect. I use the full reference citation with the rp template because it's worked the best for me--better and easier than the short footnote and other styles. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, each to his own – it's not a style I particularly like, but that's no reason to change it if you think it best serves its purpose. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writing and publication, 3rd para: I got a bit muddled – the pamphlets were to be sent to the firm's clients and business acquaintances as Christmas greetings, yet the "release" dates for the poems seem to bear no relation to Christmas. What does "release" actually mean in this context?
Reply - I actually do not know the answer that question. I don't know if anyone ever asked that question before or answered it. Will check, standby. might take a few days to get an answer back. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know the answer here, but it's not a sticking point, so don't spend too much time in search of an answer! Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed - The dates were the dates the pamphlets were printed. They were distributed at Christmas. I changed the text to reflect their production, since "release" implied available for sale and distribution.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Gospel narrative" section the quotation: "for the last years of a grandfather whose faith his grandson has at last taken up for himself" is attributed to "some scholars" and is cited to two sources. Is a more precise attribution possible?
Done I went the other way in revision...removing the phrase about scholars, because one of the sources is actually an Anglican cleric who is often called to comment on religious poetry, not a literary scholar in the formal sense.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the bullet-pointed list of biblical allusions, the words "That the..." in the fourth item are superfluous, and the fifth item is not formatted as part of the list (i.e. it does not run on from "...including:")
"Conversion": in the fourth line, you need to be clear that by "the poem" you are talking about "A Song for Simeon" again, as you have just mentioned several other poems.
I am not entirely clear how the sentence: "However, in these poems, Eliot continues the progression of his themes of alienation in a changing world, and fuses with this the tenets of his newfound faith." is relevant to this article, unless it is implied that "A Song for Simeon" is part of that progression which, if his is the case, needs to be clearer.
Done - It is part of the progression...I clarified it by saying However, in "A Song for Simeon" and these poems, Eliot continues... --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we know who Joseph Maddrey is?
Reply - would just "writer" be o.k? ...He's not a scholar in the conventional PhD/Ivory Tower sense--he's a freelance writer and documentary producer from LA. Aside from his well-reviewed book on Eliot, he authored a few books offering near-scholarly analysis on American horror films, comics, graphic novels, etc.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - "writer" added at first instance.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"But as he awaits and asks for his death Simeon's understanding, he sees the consequences of the turning of faith to this new child and his mission." Something wrong with the syntax here.
Done - revised to "But as he awaits the death for which he asks, Simeon sees..." --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got lost in the long sentence that begins "Eliot uses the image..." There should be a second mdash after "Ash Wednesday", and the sentence itself would benefit from being subdivided at some point.
This issue not addressed yet. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton - this one got lost in the shuffle, but it is now done - emdash added, I split it into two sentences with a minor clarification.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In Eliot, Simeon..." → "In Eliot's depiction...", maybe
"Julius accuses Eliot of animating "the topoi of the Jew acknowledging his obsolescence." I rather doubt that many of your readers will understand what Julius is driving at here. Can the point be paraphrased into comprehensible form?
Done - I rearranged the paragraph to better illuminate Julius' Topoi argument and added a link to an appropriate article that I wish were more informative...I added a clause explaining it that might need to be polished a bit--it's not an easy literary definition to encapsulate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm distinctly uneasy at the concept of anti-Semitism as "a creative force showing rare imaginative power and empowering his art", and the final sentence, quoting Ricks, is both disturbing and confusing. "Wit and commentary" seems an odd expression. Is it unavoidable that the article should end on a note which seems to imply that anti-Semitism is OK if done with wit and brilliance?
Reply I don't know if it's "unavoidable" but it is definitely a sticky wicket and one that I battled with expressing...perhaps if you knew how I approached this, it would be easier to figure out the best way to resolve the uncertainty over the passage. My intentions with this section are based on this (1) Anti-Semitism is a tough label, and saying someone is anti-Semitic is a very charged accusation. I'd rather not paint anyone with so broad a brush when the anti-Semitism is largely harmless or nuanced. (2) Eliot's mentions of Jews and Jewish themes in his poetry is a very nuanced "other", and I'd want to avoid accusing him of being an anti-Semite....as Eliot calls the accusation a "terrible slander", I agree. (3) We'll never know why Eliot thought the way he did or how he thought or what he was getting at in his Jewish references and in many of his references in his poem, many of them are vague, many personal, and when asked he tended to avoid explaining--so it's hard to judge it after the fact (what we do know is that Eliot suffered when others criticized him for the anti-Semitic references, and (4) some of these critics (including his harshest) saw some merit and creative genius in Eliot's seemingly anti-Semitic passages however incongruent the criticism and praise are in this context. I wouldn't want to make such an implication--that it would be okay with wit and brilliance--but I thought it would be better to end on a lighter note and try to at least mitigate the harsh critique of Julius. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you've achieved a "lighter note", but your rationale is persuasive. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: All sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. I have voiced a slight concern, above, about the formatting of some citations and the disruption to readability. A couple more small points:
Ref 9: paging not clear (36:330–37)
Done I assume you mean the 37 should be 337, which I corrected. Just to edify, the "36:" indicates that it is "Volume 36, page 330-337."--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed ref 10 which gives "186–93". Either paging style is correct, but one consistent style is required within an article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 43: requires a page ref.
Done - it's now fn.42 - but I added p.72.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments and suggestions, Brianboulton. Just to let you know, I'm planning to be away for most of today and early tomorrow on account of the holiday, so I will get a chance to attend to them most likely tomorrow (02JAN14) at the earliest, but definitely before the weekend. Happy New Year!--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: - I think I've resolved most of the concerns that you've raised and a few others I'd like your feedback on before I tie up the loose ends. One (regarding the publication and Christmas) I'm still checking into. Sorry for taking a few days, it's been a busy week.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked through, and subject to the few brief comments I've left, I'm happy with your responses. I have upgraded to full support, as I don't think the outstanding matters are of any great significance. On the whole the article is an excellent critique of this poem, and well worth its FA star. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cwmhiraeth
Generally looking good. A few points on the prose:
"Eliot's Ariel poems and "Ash Wednesday" all explore this new experience of conversion, and toward the progress of the soul. Scofield writes that Eliot's depiction of Simeon presents "a figure to whom revelation has been granted but to whom it has come too late for this life." But as he awaits and asks for his death Simeon's understanding, he sees the consequences of the turning of faith to this new child and his mission. Simeon wants nothing of this "time of sorrow", adding that the fate of persecution for the consequences of faith is not for him." - The structure of the first, third and fourth sentences of this paragraph seem a bit off to me.
Done - all four sentences have been revised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Virgil, in the Divine Comedy, leads Dante through Hell (Inferno) and Purgatory (Purgatorio), but cannot guide him into Paradise—as a symbol of non-Christian philosophy and humanities, can help him no further in his approach to God." Another off sentence.
Done - Revised and reshaped into two sentences.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... stating declaratively" - Tautology? What about just "declaring"?
"Julius' view is considered extreme by many critics, and is tempered by his own argument that Eliot's anti-Semitism does not detract from his poetry and assessment that his anti-Semitism is a creative force showing rare imaginative power and empowering his art."" Another off sentence with a single set of inverted commas at the end. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I revised it by splitting it into two sentences. Hope that clarifies the matter.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It now seems to haver a stray "by" in it and it still has an unwanted set of inverted commas after the word "art". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done and reply - Cwmhiraeth - I removed the stray "by" -- not sure about what you mean by inverted commas because I don't seem to see it (or I may have removed it while serving Curly Turkey's comments below at the same time you made the 18:22 edit).--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: - Many thanks for reviewing the article and for your comments. I apologize that it took a few days longer than expected to attend to them, but the four comments above have been addressed and are ready for your review. If you see anything else that needs to be fixed or addressed, do let me know.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have now been addressed and I am happy to Support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Curly Turkey
I read poetry here and there, but would not claim expertise. Some of my feedback is just my preferences or general suggestions—feel free to disagree with anything—I'll only rebut if I feel it's important.
General
Alt text for images would be nice, but apparently not required for FAC.
Done - alt texts added. Hope I did it right. I usually forget to do this and never really learned about alt text.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "Faber & Faber" or "Faber and Faber"? You use both.
Done - I went toward converting them all to "and" since that's what our article is named and I hear that ampersands aren't readily understood in certain countries.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of quotations with punctuation inside the quotes, where I think by the logic of the sentences they should be outside: even if there is a period at the end of the quote and it happens to be the end of the sentence, often the period logically should fall outside the quote. Compare these sentences: (a) He said, "I'll be there right away." (b) He said that he would "be there right away".
Standby - I'll have to take some time to do a close re-reading of the article to do this. I will get this done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully done - @Curly Turkey: - Since Americans generally aren't accustomed to logical quotation style and I find it aesthetically unnatural and baffling given that habit, I'm not sure at all if what I did to address this was correct. Please review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You use {{reflist|2}}. A hard number of columns results in a lot of whitespace on large monitors, and forces a column offscreen on small screens (such as on smartphones). If you used "|colwidth=??em" with an approriate width, browsers could choose an appropriate number of columns instead.
Done - I went with 33em. Is that acceptable?--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. I wouldn't split hairs over the actual width chosen unless it was causing actual problems. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"written in 1928 ... Published in September 1928": if it was written and published in 1928, I don't think both need to be in the lead.
"that Eliot contributed for a series of thirty-eight pamphlets by several authors collectively titled Ariel poems and released by British publishing house Faber and Gwyer (later, Faber and Faber).": this is awful wordy and detailed for the lead—how about: "that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series published by Faber and Gwyer"?
Done -- I revised it as "that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series of 38 pamphlets by several authors published by Faber and Gwyer." The 38 pamphlets and several authors I think is salient to mention--as the next sentence mentions A Song for Simeon was 16th.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I would withhold support over a detail like this—obviously the information should be in the article—but it does seem trivial to me at the lead level, and doesn't seem to contribute to helping the reader get their bearings before diving into the meat of the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: True, but I don't want the line to imply that Eliot wrote the entire series and I think it's important to mention (a) there were 38 in the seriesand (b) written by different authors...since the lack of that detail doesn't give me enough meat to know eliot didn't write all of them or what did being part of the series mean.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"was accompanied by illustrations drawn by": illustrations are normally presumed to be drawn by someone, and "accompanied" could imply the illustrations were somehow separate, as in a two-volume set, the second of which was of illustrations. How about just "illustrated by"?
Done - I simplified it to "and included an illustration by" since "illustrated by" implies to me that they're a functional part of the story, like a children's book, here is was little more than an accompanying image to fill a blank page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"American-born avant garde artist": personally I'd leave these details out of the lead unless you find them particularly pertinent.
Done - I removed "American-born" - I think avant garde is appropriate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When "A Song for Simeon" refers to the volume rather than the poem it should be in italics.
Reply - Is a one-poem pamphlet considered a volume? I don't think the italicization of book titles applies to this situation.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The italicization of the titles of printed objects applies to magazines, comic books, and newsletters. Sometimes newsletters are a single sheet of paper. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well, if I read WP:NCBOOKS correctly, every instance of the name of the poem should be italicized like a book. Yet of the articles of well-known poems I looked at to compare--most of which were published as pamphlets--only 1 of 30 used italics. Lot of work ahead of me then once I can decide which way is up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does say that, doesn't it? Googling around, quite a number of sites draw a distinction between "long poems" (italicized, e.g. Paradise Lost), and shorter ones, which are put in quotes. It might be worth bringing up on the MoS talk page to have it either changed or clarified. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyCurly Turkey - I started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Italicising small poem names and WP:NCBOOKS. One editor indicated that NCBOOKS is in conflict with MOS:QUOTEMARKS#Names and titles. It seems the major style guides--MLA, Chicago, APA, and AP--all say poem titles in quotations, and having gone through several dozen poem articles almost none comply with the MOS on this one, and looking through the reliable sources on this and other poem articles, none of them italicize. So, pending the MOS discussion's outcome, I propose we leave the status quo unchanged for the interim. If the MOS discussion makes a change to NCBOOKS because of this, it will likely endorse the status quo. If the discussion advises to italicise, I'll come back and fix this article (and many others) to comply. Is that ok with you?--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is the same (quotes for poems), but that's still tangential to the point of whether the title of the printed object, should be in italics. I wasn't suggesting the poem should be italicized or not throughout—I was only saying that the title of the pamphlet most likely should (regardless of whether the poem itself is or not). Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not Done - Well, the article is going to look odd if half the mentions are in quotations, the other half in italics...consistency should rule out. Further I'm not going to italicise the name of a two-page, one-poem pamphlet when (1) none of the sources cited in the article italicises, (2) no style guide including our MOS indicates it, and (3) comparable articles that were also short one-poem pamphlets on Wikipedia do not italicise. Quotations seem to be enough, and no MOS page says directly that a one-poem pamphlet (essentially just one short poem) should be. It seems the short poem rules apply and are those generally in practice, and the fact that it was first published as a two-page pamphlet is largely irrelevant (since later publications, read by most people who've come across the poem, are two pages of a "poem" in a long book). q.v. MOS:QUOTEMARKS#Names and titles and MOS:ITALICS#Italic type#Names and titles. The consensus that seems to have arisen from my question posited elsewhere (above) is that NCBOOKS is a weak guideline and often inconsistent with MOS, that it is not the MOS and that NCBOOKS needs to be changed. If pamphlets are to be italicised, nothing says so. The one-page newsletter analogue does not apply, IMHO. Since it's a short poem, many places including the MOS say quotations. So, I'll consider this unactionable lacking a direct MOS statement to the contrary. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in both editions of Eliot's collected poems in 1936 and 1963.": I might reword this "in both the 1936 and 1963.editions of Eliot's collected poems", though I'm not sure this belongs in the lead at all (especially since the refs are the books themselves—what makes this point so important? Do secondary sources draw attention to it?)
Done and Reply I revised it as suggested. It is important because the collected poems is where they really reached the wider audience, really became part of the Eliot oeuvre, whereas the pamphlets only went to the publisher's circle of clients and friends.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"on a decidedly religious character": I'd drop "decidedly"
Reply - I used the word "decidedly" because Eliot's poetry and life prior to 1927 was decidedly areligious and his poetry post-conversion was deliberately Anglo-Catholic in perspective and seeking a faith-based answer to the deep questions it addressed, and the definition "without question, means to a great extent and in a way that is very obvious" is apt given the stark divide between the pre- and post-1927 worldview and nature of his poetry.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If "in a way that is very obvious" is the given definition, then we have a problem—substituting the word "obviously", for example, would be unacceptable. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: "decidedly" I think is more precise and appropriate--especially since after conversion he wrote poems titled "Journey of the Magi", "Song for Simeon" and "Ash Wednesday"--all of which were obviously and deliberately religious. They didn't just happen to be religious by accident or luck. There was a deliberate, decisive decision on Eliot's part to write religious poetry. I don't see the problem with using a precise adjective to describe a decidedly precise, obvious, & deliberate action. To not indicate this would reduce clarity (i.e. along the vein as omitting information about the Ariel poems series could lead someone to believe Eliot wrote them all)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writing and publication
"In 1925 ... and "The Waste Land" (1922).": Generally, one-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, though long ones are sometimes excepted. I'd merge this with the next paragraph.
"The Right Reverend Thomas Banks Strong": I'm not religious and can't be bothered to look this up, but should "The" be capitalized? Also, I can't find the guideline, but I thought we were supposed to avoid using prenomials ("Doctor", "Sir", etc).
Done and reply -- lowercased "The" per WP:THE other uses. I think the prenominal prohibition is in article names, but if either you or I find the MOS provision, I'll remove it. I think it would be rather harmless to leave it in until we find out for sure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Removed per WP:HONORIFIC, NCCL seems to apply only to article titles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a classicist in literature, a royalist in politics, and an Anglo-Catholic in religion.": is this not a quote?
Reply -- It would be a quote if we were to mention Eliot's complete expression and context (which was described specifically the point of view he brought to his new collection of essays). When it's mentioned like this to place it in quotes would be misleading and effectively misquote the sentiment. The editors who contribute to the Eliot articles have typically agreed to leave out quotations in this limited context/syntax rather than to misquote.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original quote is: "The general point of view [of the essays] may be described as classicist in literature, royalist in politics, and anglo-catholic [sic] in religion." The above, I'm fairly certain, would qualify as close paraphrasing—the difference appears to be in the use or not of the indefinite article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The usage in this article is permissible per the policy since it (a) is attributed to both Eliot and his book, and (b) cited with three different sources at the end of the sentence, per WP:PARAPHRASE Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text...together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... I guess it conforms to the MoS, so I'll have to let it go, but I can't say I like it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"would inform and influence": or "informed and influenced"?
"with some critics asserting that the Christian themes": I always have trouble understanding the issue, but you may want to see WP:PLUSING
Reply (1) Not sure this applies since the "asserting" is the gerundive (verbal adjective) not a noun-derived adjective, and (2) Not sure what Tony1's grammatical hangup is since the essay seems more a complaint asserting his preferred idiom that functionally seeks to correct something that isn't wrong.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"with some critics": since it's one critic being quoted, is it really "some" who hold this opinion?
Addressed He's definitely not alone, added another view, of George Orwell. There are many others, but these two are among the prominent voices.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not so much whether "some" ciritics hold the opinion as whether "some" critics held the opinion in the concrete form of the quote. The specific quote needs attribution (not just citiation). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done and Reply: I think the best way of approaching this is to split the sentences--with minor revisions. I think the way I revised it should be sufficient.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"8½" × 5½" Demy": not all readers (especially international ones) will be familiar with the quote symbols used for "inch"—I'd spell it out (and a conversion couldn't hurt)
"(8vo)": again, is there something that could be linked to?
Reply - since 8vo would link to the same place as Octavo, wouldn't that be overlinking? Example: if I write "earned a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree" I wouldn't link up "M.A."--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"pamphlet "in blue paper wraps with title in black ink"": Is there some reason this is quoted and not paraphrased? If so, shouldn't quotes be attributed in-text?
Done removed quotations as superfluous. it was a fact of bibliographic information from the sources cited. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"accompanied by Kauffer's colour image,": "accompanied by a colour image by Kefauver"?
"text was "Walbaum" created": looking at pages on fonts (e.g. Times New Roman), I don't think fonts are normally put in quotes. Also, I'd put a comma after "Walbaum".
"traditional "Gospel Canticle" of Night Prayer": "Night Prayer" is capitalized—is there something that can be linked to?
Reply - Night Prayer leads to a disambiguation page where there was only one relevant article, the Roman Catholic office of Compline which is already linked in the same paragraph. I've since added Anglican Evening Prayer which is also in the same paragraph.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""A Song for Simeon" is seen by some scholars as a tacit tribute by Eliot to his grandfather, "for the last years of a grandfather whose faith his grandson has at last taken up for himself."": again, is it really "some"? and we need an attribution
""the topoi of the Jew": what's a "topoi"? We're not supposed to link from within quotes, but can this be expanded or paraphrased to make it clear?
Done - I addressed this in the process of serving the comments above. I linked it to Literary topos and did so despite that we're not supposed to generally since this is an exceptional case. Hopefully how I rearranged the section provides a better explanation. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"rare imaginative power and empowering his art."": There is an endquote here—where does the quote begin?
Reply I should probably remove the quotation mark since this is a synopsis of Julius' thesis. "rare imaginative power" is the only part verbatim from the source (p.28) --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also
"also known as "Candlemas"": why are we being told this?
Reply: Per WP:ALSO - "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known"...I would venture to say that most people in Western civilization/Christendom know the holiday as Candlemas--it's the name that appears on most mass cards, missals, the book of common prayer (esp. older editions), calendars, etc. The various Christian denominations have several different official names for the festal day on the liturgical calendar, and the name used here for the article is only one of several names employed (Candlemas, which should win as common name, is just a redirect). I added it the note because I think more would know Candlemas, whereas much smaller groups of readers would be knowing of the various official names for the feast, including Presentation of Jesus at the Temple or Presentation of the Lord, etc., most of which are recent (i.e. post 1960s renaming of the feast) and haven't usurped the place of "Candlemas". If I mention February 2nd is the "Feast of the Presentation" most people would scratch their heads...if I said Candlemas, a few more would know what I meant. Sadly, Americans only know it as Groundhog Day and are clueless on the theological significance of the day.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I didn't notice this, since my religious knowledge is pretty thin, but shouldn't Presentation of Jesus at the Temple be linked at "bring the infant Jesus to be presented in the temple" in the "Gospel narrative and the Nunc dimittis" section rahter than in the "See also" section? And if "Candlemas" really is the common name for the topic, you might want to propose a page move on the talk page there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about doing a page move, and it's in the back of my thoughts...just my priorities haven't fallen in that direction just yet. have to get my ducks in a row.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was appropriate to link that lengthy passage to the article about the liturgical observance. Either way works, I just thought it worked better as a "see also".--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get a chance to take care of these and the remainder of comments from Cwmhiraeth and Brianboulton this evening (06JAN14) or early tomorrow (07JAN14). I apologise for the delay, I had a busy weekend with some family matters.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: - I think I've addressed your comments--there are a few that I'd like have your feedback on my replies, and one will take me a few minutes to do but I will get done. If you see anything to add that I might have missed, do let me know. Thanks again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: - Thanks for keeping an eye on this over the last two weeks, I really appreciate your attention. If you get the chance, as you review my other responses, in particular let me know if I did the logical quotation stuff right. It's not something I'm entirely confident about and want to make sure I addressed it correctly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes look fine now. One thing I just noticed, though—given that it is disputed whether Eliot was anitsemitic or not, maybe the subsection title should be changed to "Alleged Anti-Semitism"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: Probably would be a good idea to mitigate the accusation given the circumstances..."Alleged" sounds like a crime has been committed. Would "Debate on possible Anti-Semitism" or some other phrase work better? Perhaps even taking the loaded term "Anti-Semitism" out and saying "Simeon as a Jewish figure"? (What are you thoughts on this @Brianboulton: since we discussed the Anti-Semitism issue above?)--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong preference. Maybe "Possible anti-Semitism"? "Arguments over anti-Semitism"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like "Arguments over anti-Semitism" (Done)--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I'd still like to see the italics issue sorted out (third opinion, please, somebody), but I can't see opposing over such a hairsplit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Johnbod
Comment No links to the image captions, some of which really need them (but all suitable links should be added). Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: -- do you mean linking terms in captions? like you did here--[79]?--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done@Johnbod: I added a few (I very rarely link a term in a caption). Most of the other terms in captions are already linked in the article body near the image, so I'd rather avoid an WP:OVERLINK issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Henry, you have a few duplicate links (I presume you have access to the checker, ping me if not); I won't hold up promotion but pls review and see if you really need them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I don't know how to use the checker or where to find it (I've never used it before, usually did it manually). Many thanks for the promotion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dup link script here (it displays the second and subsequent links, and treats the lead and the main body separately). Another useful one is the Harv error script here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a Supreme Court case dealing with the Indian Child Welfare Act, and is only the second case on the Act to reach SCOTUS. It had been previously submitted, but I withdrew it to get a peer review and a copy edit. I just closed the peer review, and Eric Corbett was kind enough to proofread and copy edit the article for me. Eric said that he didn't see too much wrong with the article (here), so I wanted to resubmit it for FA status. GregJackPBoomer! 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my say at the peer review. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am too involved with this article to be a neutral peer reviewer, but I do support this FAC. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hamiltonstone
Remains a good article. I really struggled with the tense shifts (and a missing word) in the first para of the lead, though i think i could see why it was constructed in the way that it is (that was a joke, sort of). It currently reads:
...was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American (Indian) biological fathers who were not custodians of an Indian child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child had never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Indian family also not apply, nor was the preferred placement of the child in another Indian family required when no other party had formally sought to adopt the child.
I think it perhaps should read:
...was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American (Indian) biological fathers who are not custodians of an Indian child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child has never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Indian family also do not apply, nor is the preferred placement of the child in another Indian family required when no other party has formally sought to adopt the child.
Other points:
"The stay was lifted in September 2013, and the child was turned over to her adoptive parents on the same day." If you are going to refer to a "same" day, then "September 2013" needs to be modified to include an actual date, otherwise it should read "same month".
"Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs", I suppose "in" is OK, but would have thought "to" was more conventional.
"...and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as that of the best interests of the child". If "interests" are plural, then "that" should be "those". Actually, probably better still would be "...and stated that tribal stability was as important as the best interests of the child".
In the Trial court section: It states "the "Existing Indian Family" exception was inapplicable in this case". However, the reader has not been told what this exception is, so this is rather confusing. Can the text tell us about this in an earlier section, to prepare the reader?
I think it is vital to somewhere introduce the reader to the concept of "continued custody" as it appears in the Act, before we get to the opinions.
I'll have to think about this one some more. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just let me know what you think. I'm not saying I won't change it, I just don't think it's a good idea to get into that area, any more than I felt that the blood quantum issue (see talk page) should be addressed. They are on opposite sides of the issue, but both are overly contentious without an up-side, IMO. GregJackPBoomer! 03:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and Brown has stated that he will fight the order in Oklahoma, with the aid of the Cherokee Nation." Surely, given what is stated in the para following, this should read "Brown stated that he would fight..."
"The stay was lifted in September 2013, and the child was turned over to her adoptive parents on the same day." If you are going to refer to a "same" day, then "September 2013" needs to be modified to include an actual date, otherwise it should read "same month".
"Testimony in the House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs", I suppose "in" is OK, but would have thought "to" was more conventional.
Not done. Standard language for testimony to a House Committee. GregJackPBoomer! 11:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as that of the best interests of the child". If "interests" are plural, then "that" should be "those". Actually, probably better still would be "...and stated that tribal stability was as important as the best interests of the child".
In the Trial court section: It states "the "Existing Indian Family" exception was inapplicable in this case". However, the reader has not been told what this exception is, so this is rather confusing. Can the text tell us about this in an earlier section, to prepare the reader?
I wikilinked it. It is not that critical to the case, and I think that this can address it for those that are curious. Let me know what you think. GregJackPBoomer! 12:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is vital to somewhere introduce the reader to the concept of "continued custody" as it appears in the Act, before we get to the opinions.
The entire subsection reads "No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child." There is not really a concept in the Act, this is more a case of Justice Alito finding a way to justify the removal of the child from the Indian home. Although not in the article (due to NPOV concerns), there were allegations that Chief Justice Roberts was biased as an adoptive father of two children adopted somewhat irregularly (seeAdoptive father John Roberts: Not impartial in the Baby Veronica case, Birth Mother First Mother Forum blog, Aug. 13, 2013); both Roberts and Justice Thomas were adoptive parents. Those three (Roberts, Thomas, & Alito) often vote together in a block. I really don't want to get into an in-depth review of "continued custody" due to the large can of worms that it would open up in discussing it. GregJackPBoomer! 12:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(TPSer weighing in) "Continued custody" isn't really a concept in the way I think you are thinking, Hamiltonstone; it's not "custody" as in people playing ping-pong with the child as happens in a divorce case, "Custody" has a different meaning in ICWA; read this and see if that clarifies matters. And yeah, getting into the whole "were the justices biased" thing is to open a huge can of worms. Also the fact that they clearly didn't even interpret the law correctly, in that tribal membership is a political,not a racial, determination to be made by the tribe. But it's the SCOTUS, so they are always right... sigh... Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and Brown has stated that he will fight the order in Oklahoma, with the aid of the Cherokee Nation." Surely, given what is stated in the para following, this should read "Brown stated that he would fight..."
Just one quick suggestion: I think it would be a good idea to establish the time frame (a range of dates) at the beginning of the Indian Child Welfare Act subsection, rather than just saying 'Historically'. delldot∇. 06:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Fixed. FYI, the lead editor is out of commission for a few days, so I am taking over the FAC fixes here, let me know what's still outstanding here and I will work on it; I babysat the article the last time the other editor was not available to work on it too. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you, that was all I had. delldot∇. 23:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning oppose: not to rain on anyone's parade, but the use of the legal profession's Bluebook style violates provisions of the MOS.
Small caps as a case style is to be "avoided" per MOS:SMALLCAPS.
Italics are supposed to be used "Works of art and artifice: Books ... Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)" as well as court case titles per MOS:ITALIC.
Bluebook style reverses the use of roman and italic text between the components of larger publications and those larger publications. Yet this reversal is not supported by our Manual of Style. In addition, there are a number of inconsistencies in how citations are formatted.
Some authors are in small caps (FN 2–5) but others are not (17, 18, 23).
At least one article from a TV station is cited using the station's call letters (FN 78) while others are using station "branding" (FN 77).
I'm neutral on the conflict on Bluebook vs. the MOS issue, but my preference would be to have the citations conform to the MOS. However, there needs to be consistency in the application of formatting in the citations, something which is currently lacking. The article cannot be promoted until that inconsistency is repaired at a minimum, and preferably until the citation style is harmonized with the MOS. Imzadi 1979→ 09:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Imzadi, is your "leaning oppose" SOLELY due to the citation issue, or do you have other concerns? If you have other concerns, can you list? In the meantime, I am going to research the question of Bluebook citation style for legal citations mixed with more standardized style for other, non-legal citations and get an outside opinion on your concerns, I know that within some of the legal wikiproject talk, Bluebook citation is quite strongly advocated, and I would hate to go through this and change everything only to have someone else come back and blast the article for NOT using Bluebook. I also don't know if there is a policy on mixed citation format, but I shall ask. I wasn't lead on this, so I'm going to seek a consensus on the issue and try not to take any position on it one way or the other (other than to grumble if I have to fix several zillion citations, but hey, I volunteered to see this FAC through, so I'll do what I gotta do...). Stay tuned and if anyone else here has advice or comments, please weigh in. I will wait to make the changes until there is a consensus from those who have taken more legal articles to FAC than I. Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In short, our MOS says that articles are supposed to in roman (aka plain) text surrounded by quotation marks and that the full publication (book, magazine, etc) is what is put in italics. However, Bluebook style says that articles are in italics and the full publication is in roman or roman small caps. Small caps are to be "avoided" per our MOS. FAs must comply with the MOS, per the criteria, but WP:Citing sources lists Bluebook as a style that "exists" but it doesn't endorse its usage, per se. We have a conflict that must be resolved before any article using Bluebook can be promoted, period. Imzadi 1979→ 04:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that statement does not appear to be accurate. On a cursory glance, here is what I have so far. All reviewers please advise:
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(legal) : "Cite to legal materials (constitutions, statutes, legislative history, administrative regulations, and cases) according to the generally accepted citation style for the relevant jurisdictions." For the USA, that's Bluebook or AWLD, which is similar. Doesn't say that (for example) news sources also have to go to Bluebook. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no clear consensus. With this data, can additional reviewers contrast to this article and suggest changes, if any?? (Preferably the solution that is the least amount of revision, if possible?) I do not agree that the conflict has to be resolved on a meta-level, as both styles have already been promoted. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to recognize the issue in past FACS does not resolve the issue. The small caps point is minor. Bluebook style puts newspaper/magazine/journal articles and book chapters into italics, which our MOS says are to be put into roman text enclosed by quotation marks. Bluebook style says to put the title of the newspaper/magazine/journal/book into roman, which our MOS say is supposed to be in italics. FAs have to comply with the MOS, period.
Now, I've been taking some college classes last semester and this one. On my bookshelf are the current editions of the APA and MLA style guides plus the current edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. For a class that specifies Chicago, I used Chicago citations for all of my papers, period. When I cited the Michigan Bar Journal in a class that used Chicago style, the title of the article on John Voelker went into roman text surrounded by quotation marks and the journal title was in italics, as Chicago says. For another class, I used MLA, and now I have a class that requires APA. In all cases, the citations conform(ed) to the style requirements of the class, not the citation style of the subject matter.
To be an FA, an article must comply with our MOS, and the provisions of our MOS on the usage of italics and quotation marks conflict with the proper usage of Bluebook style. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a legal journal. We have an MOS here that gives specific requirements, and FAS have to comply with them. So yes, I'm leaning oppose on the basis of citation formatting issues that conflict with our MOS. Imzadi 1979→ 05:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That's BS. You need to recheck the citation standards. WP:CITEVAR states "[A]ny consistent style may be used. . . ." In addition, your statement that no article using Bluebook can be promoted is BS, as a number of legal featured articles use the Bluebook citation style. Your objections have been previously addressed in discussions on the promotion of those articles. All three of my featured articles use Bluebook referencing, and two have been featured on the main page. In addition, Wehwalt (who has more FAs than any other editor) did not find it to be a problem, nor did Eric Corbett (one of the best at copy-editing FAs) find it to be a problem.
Our MOS does not require the use of a "house" style, does not require roman text for articles, nor italics for publications. All of the so-called standards you are speaking of are not in the MOS, nor are they in WP:Citing sources. Instead, it states "typically" when addressing how to "cite", which means that there are other ways to appropriately cite for articles.
Consensus also does not support your position. The issues you address were recently brought up and failed at WT:Citing sources and at several other locations. Smallcaps are to be "avoided" but are not prohibited, and are required by the citation style being used. This is not a valid objection to promotion. GregJackPBoomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing:
Small caps as a case style is to be "avoided" per MOS:SMALLCAPS.
Not fixed. Invalid objection, this has been repeatedly addressed in FAC discussions. GregJackPBoomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Italics are supposed to be used "Works of art and artifice: Books ... Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)" as well as court case titles per MOS:ITALIC.
Not fixed. Incorrect application of standard, which is directed at the body of text, not the footnotes. GregJackPBoomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed. Conflict with citation style used. GregJackPBoomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bluebook style reverses the use of roman and italic text between the components of larger publications and those larger publications. Yet this reversal is not supported by our Manual of Style. In addition, there are a number of inconsistencies in how citations are formatted.
Some authors are in small caps (FN 2–5) but others are not (17, 18, 23).
Correct. The authors are correctly formatted according to the Bluebook citation style. For example, in FN 4 & 5, the authors wrote a book, therefore they are in smallcaps. Authors of a webpage (FN 17), a newspaper article (FN 18), and a law journal article (FN 23) are properly formatted in normal text. GregJackPBoomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least one article from a TV station is cited using the station's call letters (FN 78) while others are using station "branding" (FN 77).
Fixed. I left off the "5" from the station's branding ("KOCO 5"), see KOCO-TV. GregJackPBoomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on the conflict on Bluebook vs. the MOS issue, but my preference would be to have the citations conform to the MOS. However, there needs to be consistency in the application of formatting in the citations, something which is currently lacking. The article cannot be promoted until that inconsistency is repaired at a minimum, and preferably until the citation style is harmonized with the MOS.
This is not going to be fixed, per my above comments. GregJackPBoomer! 05:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: I don't like Bluebook, and I wish we had a house style for referencing all WP articles. But we don't have one: MOS provides guidance, but I'm with GregJack that it does not mandate certain styles to the exclusion of others. The most important things are that referencing is comprehensive, and internally consistent. It appears to me that the referencing here meets those key requirements. I do have a concern that the MOSSMALLCAPS advice appears to conflict with the advice elsewhere that Bluebook is a referencing style people might choose to use; I think the problem arises not because Bluebook should be avoided, but because that advice was aimed at other issues, and Bluebook superficially is caught up by its injunction. In this case, I think it might help if the text at SMALLCAPS was tweaked for clarification. I would not let the referencing of this article be a factor in its FAC consideration. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that consistent style matters, and given Wehwalt did sign off on this, I tend to respect his views on the matter. But because it IS hard to find the original citation, we may want to also try to add more links to the citations that are pinpoint cites, so that non-attorneys can more easily find the material. I also have some concerns about the periodical citations also benefitting from wikilinking to URLs more than they do. I do think Imzadi's insistence that adherence to the purest form of the MOS is mandated is an exaggeration (as even the MOS has multiple acceptable citation formats, harv, sfn, etc...) and that there is room for some variation. Personally, I hate smallcaps, but it's not something I'd derail the FAC over, but I do think WP Law should address this issue, as ALWD manual and others have some variations. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts (and COI): Greg, maybe we could avoid simply saying "that's BS"? It doesn't exactly put the reader in a happy and accepting frame of mind when approaching the rest of the comment ;p. COI: I believe I provided a GA review for this article a few months ago.
So, on referencing: as Greg notes (however he chooses to note it), we don't have a single consistent style; much like the AmEng v BrEng v CaEng v InEng v...so on, debate, the standard is pretty much "as long as it's consistent within the article, leave it be". This is, of course, a rule designed to avoid precisely the situation we're now in, where people are spending hours of their time on an argument over italics in reference tags. My personal preference is away from Blue Book, which I find to be of limited readability (I much prefer OSCOLA), but my personal preference is irrelevant, as are those of Imzadi or Hamiltonstone or Montana, insofar as we didn't write the article. Blue Book is acceptable under the MOS, and the criteria for FA are "follow the MOS". This article meets that standard. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bluebook doesn't follow the MOS. The MOS specifies roman text surrounded by quotation marks for article titles and italics for the encompassing work. I will not retract my oppose unless the article meets the requirements of the MOS. The delegates are free to weigh it accordingly. Imzadi 1979→ 20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out to the delegates that "typically" (which is the language used in the MOS) does not convey a requirement, much less "specifies" as Imzadi1979 claims. This boils down to a case of Imzadi doesn't like it, which is not a ground for denying promotion. GregJackPBoomer! 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: this seems to be going over old ground yet again. Let's just make this simple: if you cannot show that the MOS requires these elements - not suggests, not considers it used by 51 percent of Wikipedia, or even 80 percent of wikipedia, requires - can you please withdraw your objection? Otherwise you're holding the article to the standard of "it must meet every potentially-contradictory requirement of every potential commenter", which, last time I checked, was not in the reviewing guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check
File:010 alito.jpg: The {{Usc}} template is missing a parameter and misdisplaying
All other files look properly tagged & sourced—most are from US government sources and thus in the public domain
Replaced Alito photo with another from Commons (File:Justice Alito official.jpg: since I don't have a clue how to fix the {{Usc}} template. The new file is tagged and sourced as US Government photo. GregJackPBoomer! 17:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Regardless of the merits of the concern raised over citation formatting (and I lean towards Ironholds' position of consistency within a given article being more important than a particular style), there isn't sufficient commentary here to establish a clear consensus to promote, nor has there been any activity since the beginning of the month, so I'll be archiving the nom shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Eb.hoop (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the eminent US scientist J. Willard Gibbs. I originally nominated this for FA more than a year ago, after successfully promoting it to GA and putting it through a peer review. During that previous nomination, some copyediting issues were raised, which I think have largely been resolved. I think that the article achieves a good balance between readability and thoroughness in dealing with fairly technical subject. Eb.hoop (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:JWgibbs-signature.jpg: the two tags here are contradictory - either it's eligible for copyright or it isn't, it can't be both (as source and host country are both US)
I took out the tag claiming non-eligibility, which in any case wasn't needed. Eb.hoop (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Maxwell's_letters_plate_IV.jpg: source link isn't working
I'm not sure what to do about that. Eb.hoop (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a paywalled version of the letters and papers at [82]. Another out of copyright collection of Maxwells letters and papers can be found at archive.org [83] the same illustration might be there?--Salix alba (talk): 00:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a link? The image is a scan of a plate in the edition of Maxwell's letters and papers linked to above. The Wikicommons description gives this reference. For now I've just taken out the dead link. Eb.hoop (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:SloaneLab.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died more than 70 years ago?
The page does give a publication, without copyright notice, before 1977. I took out the PD-old tag. Eb.hoop (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:JWGibbs-bronze.jpg: source link is dead, and as this is a 3D work we need to include licensing for both the original work and the photograph. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, unsure what to do about the dead link. I think that the two tags are meant to refer, respectively, to the photograph and the underlying bronze tablet, but I don't know how to spell this out. Eb.hoop (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found a live link to the same image file, which I've now substituted for the dead one. Eb.hoop (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I continue to support this nomination. This is a biographical article on an important scientist, which is both readable and comprehensive. When the article was first nominated in late 2012, a few minor defects were raised but these have now been addressed. I think it is time to feature the article and help to make J. Willard Gibbs better known among the general public. Dirac66 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work and sorry to be so slow to the table. A few comments, and these are mostly suggestions
Early years
"(In later years, he used glasses only for reading or other close work.[11])" I think this is far enough afield that it should probably be a footnote. Alternatively, you could add it to the next sentence, preceded by "though".
Done (I took your second suggestion). - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This was also the fifth Ph.D." I'd toss an "only" after "also".
"at the age of 48, precluded further collaboration between him and Gibbs." this seems rather obvious. Perhaps "at the age of 48, ended the budding collaboration between him and Gibbs."
Done (I rewrote the sentence slightly). - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"to systems composed of more than one kind of matter" Maybe "to systems containing matter in multiple states"? (if accurate and the source will justify)
I think it's fine as it is. The heterogeneous systems he considers can be composed of different substances, each possibly in different states (for instance, salt plus water as both liquid and ice). - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any dispute over credit between him and Heaviside?
No. Gibbs was not one to fight for credit, while Heaviside was an academic outsider. They were in friendly terms. Gibbs's only public controversy was with Tait and others who thought it sacrilegious to question Hamilton's quaternions. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later etc
Gibbs died in New Haven, aged 64," I think you need to toss in the date of death. Were any tributes paid to him that are worth mentioning, either from those within or without New Haven? Or the funeral/burial site? The death just seems abrupt and I think a bit more could be said.
Done. I added the date, plus details of the funeral and the memorial at Yale. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pretending to critique the science, I am not a physicist, although I can follow it a bit as a math major (in my time, somewhat before Leibniz)
Statistical etc.
" than what Maxwell and Boltzmann had achieved before him." I'd strike the word "what"
"Shortly afterwards, the electromagnetic nature of light was conclusively demonstrated by the experiments of Heinrich Hertz in Germany." Presumably this can be easily sourced.
"members of the university" I've encountered that term most often with reference to British universities. It may need explanation. And is it accurate? Was Yale deemed a university at that moment? (picky, picky)
Done. You're right that at the time Yale was still only a "college". I changed it to "Yale faculty members". - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" Gibbs's graphical formulation of the laws of thermodynamics only came into widespread use in the mid 20th century, thanks to the work of László Tisza and Herbert Callen" this is slightly ambiguous, it could be read to say that Tisza and Callen were responsible for the use, or that they were responsible for the delay.
Done. (They were responsible for the use, not the delay.) - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific etc.
"granted honorary doctorates" awarded honorary doctorates, I think
I suppose I cannot object to it taking second billing to Einstein, but I think that the fact that Gibbs's work survived quantum mechanics virtually unscathed should be more prominently featured in this section.
Done. I moved the Wightman quote up, before Einstein's assessment. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Gibbs was also the mentor of Lee De Forest, who went on to invent to the triode amplifier " There goes the perfect game! A surplus "to" prior to "the". I would delete "also", but that's purely stylistic.
The material about Wheeler should be sourced. If an entire FA (as this will no doubt be once the formalities are completed) is sourced, it's easy to object when unsourced crap is added.
"In 1910, the American Chemical Society established the Willard Gibbs Medal, through the initiative of William A. Converse, a former chairman and secretary of the Chicago Section." Rather than devote that space to the obscure Mr. Converse, perhaps use the same space to say what the medal is for. Yes, you have a link, but the reader can use the same link to find out about Mr. Converse, and I think it more likely that the reader, seeing the name of the medal, would want to know what it is for, rather than about Mr. Converse.
" the Josiah Willard Gibbs Lectureship in 1923 to increase public awareness of mathematics and its applications." Similar objection. Presumably that society is trying to increase public awareness in many ways, perhaps be a little more down to earth about what it is/does.
" (Onsager, like Gibbs, worked primarily on the application of new mathematical ideas to problems in physical chemistry.)" I don't think the parentheses are needed, the sentence can stand on its own.
Done. I also reorganized this slightly. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"has a J. Willard Gibbs Professorship of Thermomechanics, presently held by Bernard D. Coleman" I think you should say "held as of 2014" and update the "retrieved on" date of the source. This is not prominent enough to have the electronic masses rush to change it when the incumbent leaves the post.
"located near the eastern limb of the Moon," I've never heard a location on the Moon described in this way. Please double-check use of terminology (limb?)
It's fine, I think, and consistent with the usage in Gibbs (crater). Because of tidal locking, we see essentially the same moon face at all times. The limb is the edge of that face and "eastern" tells you which way to go (with respect to the moon). I added a link for the use of the term "limb". - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"E.A. Guggenheim" presumably the Edward A. Guggenheim previously referred to? I'd call him "Edward Guggenheim" to avoid stirring dark doubts about identity in the reader's mind.
" William Giauque et al. suggested using" to avoid the Latin, suggest "William Giauque and others suggested in a paper that the term "gibbs" should be adopted …" or similar
The image of the Gibbs Labs is pushing the next section heading to the right on my browser. Suggest the image be moved up one paragraph.
Done. I also reduced the sizes of the images in that section slightly. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, on the Gibbs stamp, there may have been a first day of issue ceremony, either in New Haven or elsewhere, and New Haven may have been one of the designated first day of issue. You might find something useful in that direction.
Done. I added some details on the first day ceremony. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No action required, as there is on none of this (other than the sourcing and the typo), I'm very impressed with the quality of this article. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your input and support! - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I supported this article at the previous FAC. The small changes made since have strengthened an already excellent article. Aa77zz (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: I checked sources #1 (aps.org), #7 (st. andrew's), #46 (yale alumni), and #115 (iowa state) for copyright issues. All came back clean, and the quotes noted are in the reference (7) provided. Reliability appears okay as well. As for formatting, I found two minor issues. Refs 105 and 110 are simply Rukeyser 1988 and Wheeler 1998, respectively, without page numbers. Since you do use page numbers for those sources elsewhere, this should be rectified. Wizardman 14:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. The reason why Refs. 105 and 110 had no page numbers is that they were only intended to document that the respective biographies had been written by the author and on the date indicated in the article. This same issue was raised in the previous FA review, but then dropped after I explained why no page numbers were given. Nonetheless, I have now edited both references to try to improve things a bit. For Rukeyser, I have instead given a reference to a chapter in a recent academic study that discusses her biographical work, including the poem and book on Gibbs. For Wheeler, I have indicated the page numbers corresponding to the preface, where he explains the circumstances in which his bio. of Gibbs was written. - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I wrote this article back in 2009 and it passed GA and a MILHIST A-class review around then - it sat for a few years until the past couple of weeks, when I knocked dust off and expanded it significantly. This was the first modern, ocean-going battleship completed by the German Navy; she served as the fleet flagship from 1894 to 1900, participated in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in China, and was sold to the Ottoman Empire in 1910, where it gained a new lease on life (sort of). The ship saw action during the Balkan Wars and was sunk in early 1915 by a British submarine. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the FAC criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced in the article - for example, the May 1890 date - while others differ slightly, particularly in converting back and forth from metric
I think I've got everything sorted out in the infobox.
Check alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good eye - I had missed Hall/Halpern being out of order earlier. Thanks for checking these Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
Move ihp and boilers to ship power entry.
I'd really like to see some links in the infobox for triple-expansion engines, knots, nautical miles, ihp, etc.
The convert template defaults to BritEng, but you're writing in AmEng. And why are you inconsistent in abbreviating measurements?
Should all be fixed - as for why some are abbreviated and some not, I prefer to spell out a unit the first time it's used.
Fair enough.
I've taken the liberty of changing your MT conversion to |t|LT to avoid the pointless conversion into standard tons. I've also added ftin to the size conversions to avoid the round feet and |1 to the armor thickness to get the three significant digits.
Thanks.
Shouldn't Greek Navy be capitalized as a proper noun?
In the main body, triple-expansion engines, quick-firing gun, and torpedo tube needs to be linked.
ihp needs to be converted
She was the first ship of the class to be launched, which she was on 30 June 1891 Awkward.
Link mark, ironclad, Kiel Bay, the naval review for Vicky's Bday, center-battery ironclad, condenser
It's on wrecksite.eu but I don't know that it's a good enough source for FA (especially since the history section was copied directly from an old version of this article).
What's second command flagship? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
German squadrons were organized in two four-ship divisions, with the squadron flagship (which led the first division) at the head and the second command flagship (which led the second) at the rear of the line.
OK, now move what you just wrote into the article as a note or something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After quite a bit of fiddling with the maddening template, I have it worked out. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Sturm. Everything not specifically addressed should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up the Dardanelles map - thanks for checking these Curly Turkey. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comments
Was the ship ordered under a specific letter A, B, C or as an Ersatz? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She was Panzerschiff D - it's in the first paragraph of the construction to 1895 section. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I must be blind. I quit for the day MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
Can notes [a] and [c] be combined?
I think [c] can actually go since MrB added the translation bit for the name - I moved the link to Prince elector there from the note though.
Partially disarmed on the Ottoman's entrance into the war? Might be a good thing to explain in the lead. ("Being in severe disrepair, the ship was partially disarmed ...")
Sounds good.
So some of the Ottoman ships "had been on a summer training cruise since July, and so were prepared for the conflict" ... yet most of the fleet remained in port because they were in "very poor condition"?
I think you're reading it wrong - the ships were in poor condition by the end of the war (which is to say they were not maintained during the war), not at the start.
"The rest of the crew were picked up by a pair of torpedo boats" -- from where? I thought she was being escorted by only one torpedo boat.Ed[talk][majestic titan] 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second TB was on patrol in the area - tweaked to reflect this. Thanks for your review Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan - on this edit, I'm not so sure, since the ship was named Barbaros Hayreddin, not Hayreddin Barbarossa - might it lead to some confusion? Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the ship appears 4 sentences after this, but it wouldn't hurt to put it somewhere closer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Where their names are mentioned again 3 sentences later, you might want to change that to "the two battleships". - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line here is that I don't have any fixed opinion on how the "Barbaros Hayreddin" problem should be handled, but I know that reviewers object to something along the lines of "Turgut Reis was named after Turgut Reis" on the grounds of repetition; I couldn't let that stand. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks again Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2014 (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 Typhoon Maemi was the most powerful typhoon to strike South Korea since record-keeping began in the country in 1904. Nationwide, the high winds destroyed about 5,000 houses and damaged 13,000 homes and businesses, leaving 25,000 people homeless. About 1.47 million lost power, and widespread crop damage occurred, resulting in the worst rice crop in 23 years. Apart from that, its Wikipedia article is currently a good article, sitting A-class, and ready to be awarded the FA star. — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 05:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that co-nom mode has been activated and ready for go! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image and source review
All images are public domain with appropriate captions.
Sources:
The footnotes should be audited because some publication names aren't in italics that should be, like Korea Times in footnote 13.
Footnote 15 lists Pravda.ru as the publisher, where it probably should list Pravda as the publication name.
Footnote 52 uses USAToday.com where it should probably just use USA Today.
ReliefWeb probably should be in italics as the name of the website.
Otherwise the sources look good to me, all from high-quality, reliable sources. Imzadi 1979→ 00:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all, I suppose :) — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 02:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the fix. |agency= is for a wire service, where |work= or |newspaper= is for the publication name. You shouldn't have to override the output of a parameter to make it appear in italics. (Plus, the metadata would be wrong if the wrong parameter is used.) Anyway, I fixed up some more, so the citations look good now. I'll pop back in a couple of days to look at prose and stuff. Imzadi 1979→ 02:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't usually use the agency parameter. It was hink :) — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support comments addressed, and the prose is good. It seems comprehensive, but then of course I'm not a subject expert. --Rschen7754 04:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as GA reviewer. Hink did a fine job with this as always. YEPacificHurricane 03:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It slowly intensified into a tropical storm while moving northwestward, and Maemi became a typhoon on September 8." If it was designated as a typhoon at that point, then the naming should be noted after the intensification. (I can't put this into words very well; ping me on IRC if clarification's needed.)
"The eyewall soon after passed over the Japanese island of Miyako-jima on September 10" doesn't flow very well. Perhaps it could be reworded to something along the lines of "Soon thereafter, the eyewall passed over the Japanese island of Miyako-jima..."
"damaged 104 buildings, and 95% of residents lost power" – for the sake of consistency, could the latter part be reworded to, say, "and caused power outages for 95% of residents"?
Records are mentioned multiple times in the lede, but it isn't state what records they broke.
I didn't really want to bloat the lead too much, and the records broke those set by a variety of storms. I did add the one for strongest in South Korea since 1959, since that was the longest lasting one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Nationwide, the high winds destroyed about 5,000 houses and damaged 13,000 homes and businesses" – "homes" is often synonymous with "houses," so you might want to consider inserting an "other" somewhere in that sentence.
Why? The 13,000 is homes and businesses. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"resulting in the worst rice crop in 23 years" – I think "harvest" is a more fitting word here.
"...winds of over..." – maybe write "a tropical cyclone with winds of over..." instead? Just an opinion.
Ehh, I don't want to bloat it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The JTWC had upgraded" – I'd think that "also upgraded" would be a better wording given the context, since it was on the same date.
It wasn't though. The JMA upgraded to typhoon status on the 8th, but JTWC was on the 7th. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"1 minute sustained winds" ... "10 minute winds" ... "1 minute winds" ... "10 minute winds" – Hink, we talked about this over IRC and on the GA review for Podul. You said it yourself. Use a hyphen. :<
The preps section is short. Perhaps it could be merged with the rest of the impact section?
Then I feel the impact would be too long. It's just a nice little paragraph to highlight what happened before the storm struck. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"due to dams opening floodgates" – wait... the floodgates were deliberately opened?
That often happens during storms to prevent the dams from collapsing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On the island, Maemi damaged 104 buildings, including two severely damaged houses." Perhaps you could say "of which two were severely damaged"?
Ehh, but right now it says that they're houses, but your way doesn't. I think that's important. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"One person on Miyako-jima..." – shouldn't this little tidbit be placed in the previous paragraph?
K, wasn't sure when I wrote this, but that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a station in Hirado" – I'll assume this is a weather observation station, but I think it could be clarified in the article.
"which injured five people and killed two in one incident" → "injuring five and killing two others" flows better, especially with the presence of a previous "-ing".
Actually, I disagree specifically because of the previous "-ing". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"with initial estimates of the Busan port requiring a year to fully reopen" – er, mind rewording this phrase a bit? They're not estimating the port.
"Widespread areas also lost mobile and cell phone service due to damage." – Err, just saying, I think this would be better worded as "Widespread damage interrupted mobile and cell phone service", or something along those lines.
"About 150 businesses in Gangwon Province were destroyed by Typhoon Rusa in 2002, rebuilt, and destroyed again by Maemi" could be reworded to "About 150 businesses in Gangwon Province rebuilt after being destroyed by Typhoon Rusa in 2002 were destroyed again by Maemi"; it just flows slightly better, IMHO. :P
Ehh, I don't like yours, so I came up with plan C. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Insured damages from Maemi were estimated at ₩650 billion won ($565 million), mostly due to property damage." This doesn't entirely make sense. I get what you're saying, but the claims were for property damage, and the insurers didn't cause the property damage. Just a nitpick.
On a side note, are you sure that you want to translate all that stuff for 1846 Havana hurricane? There's 122 pages total and one of the book PDFs isn't copy/paste-able. (I'd also prefer it if you worked on it after TAWX is done with the GA review, since I'm eager to get my first significant Cup points. ;)
Anyway, I'll be glad to support this once these issues are addressed. :) Great work as usual, Hink! I had a lot of fun reviewing this, and look forward to supporting it! :D Cloudchased (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Hopefully I got everything you mentioned. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, so I'll support this. Yay! Cloudchased (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- As I have a FAC open myself at the moment, I'm recusing myself from delegate duties in a few cases to review. I'm no expert on storms so this will primarily be for prose, organisation and readability. A quick glance at the lead suggested it could use a copyedit, so I've done that as I reviewed -- pls let me know if I've misunderstood or broken anything. Outstanding points:
"In early September 2003, the monsoon trough spawned a tropical disturbance near Guam" -- it wasn't quite clear to me from a brief scan of the linked article whether there's only one monsoon trough in the world or not but in any case it seemed to me that some further detail was needed in your article to say just where this trough extends.
Good point, I changed it to "a monsoon trough". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Preparations section is very slight compared to the rest of the article -- if there's nothing more to add, I'd suggest merging the information into the relevant subsections of the Impact section.
I didn't really want to merge the section, as the info is quite distinct from the impact. I will if you insist, but I feel it's helpful having the preparations as a separate section to show what happened before the storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't insist, particularly if it doesn't faze other reviewers -- there's nothing you can usefully add to flesh it out though? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that was all I could find from newspapers and other reliable sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout Japan, Maemi killed three people and injured 107, two severely" -- are these three fatalities the ones you've already described or another three? If the latter, should probably reword to "In total, Maemi killed three people in Japan and injured 107, two severely".
"Although the typhoon prompted the PAGASA to hoist warnings—and in spite of initial concerns that the cyclone would enhance monsoonal rainfall—Maemi did not cause any damage in the country" -- erm, which country?
I had in my mind that PAGASA would imply the Philippines, since the abbreviation was indicated earlier, I added the country to make it easier to understand. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I didn't check the abbreviation but I think best distinguish the agency from the country in this case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the South Korean government did not request international aid" -- aside from care being needed when employing "however", I question why this sentence is placed where it is. I'd have thought it should be at the start of the paragraph, e.g. "Although the South Korean government did not request international aid, several countries despatched financial assistance", then go into the details you have.
Good point! I switched it to the front of the paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were generally good. I changed how you said "surpassed" in context of the barometric pressure, which isn't quite true. Surpass implies greater, but the record was for a lower pressure, so I changed it back to "breaking". In addition, you changed "dropped" to "caused rainfall", which IMO doesn't flow quite as well (so I changed it back), as well as you shortening "heavy rainfall" to "heavy rains", which IMO implies Heavy water, hehe. Hopefully this all works better now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get your point about "surpassed" but "breaking" a pressure reading also sounds odd to me; I can't think of anything better at the moment but perhaps something will come to me. My concern re. rainfall is that when something is dropped, it obviously falls, so "dropping rainfall" sounds tautological. I do think "causing heavy rainfall" or "resulting in heavy rainfall" is much better than "dropping heavy rainfall". In AusEng, BTW, "heavy rain" means "heavy rainfall", not big droplets, but perhaps it's different elsewhere... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's "breaking" a pressure record, not breaking a pressure. For what it's worth, I regularly use "dropping rainfall" in many featured articles, and while I respect your concerns and will change if you insist, but it's even used by the experts - [87] ("dropping heavy rainfall on the Piney Woods"), [88] ("Tropical Storm Bud is dropping heavy rainfall"), [89] ("dropping heavy rainfall"). And that was just a general Google search for ["dropping heavy rainfall" NOAA]. It's a fairly common phrase, and it describes the event accurately IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything else needed? It's been five days now, wasn't sure if I did something wrong... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, particularly given your note on my talk page, it was just hard to find sufficient time to concentrate on this again till now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine User:Ian Rose. DO you have any more comments? And did I address your concerns? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't blame you for mimicking expert usage or going with what's been permitted before at FAC, so I won't oppose over this point, but neither can I in all conscience support. "Dropping heavy rainfall" still sounds tautological to these untrained ears and I still can't see how "causing heavy rainfall" or "resulting in heavy rainfall", which eliminate the "dropping"/"fall" redundancy, imply something incorrect. If you're still wed to the expression I'm happy to just let Graham, who will have to close this anyway since I've recused, adjudicate on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for making a bit of a fuss over it, but it's already in featured articles (such as Hurricane Mitch or List of Arizona hurricanes). I'm not wed to the expression, though, and since the FA has been up for nearly two months now with plenty of support, I'll do anything to get it passed! :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm sorry for making a fuss too but OTOH I'd feel a bit guilty if I didn't... ;-) Anyway, tks for that, I see no reason to withhold support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an article about one of the most notorious football rivalries in world football, Millwall and West Ham United. It was quite a mess and suffered neutrality problems, from a lot of recentism and missing results. It has just received good article status, and spans over 100 years of history between the clubs. It's stable. It contains information that exists nowhere else online, that I and another user have sourced ourselves from reputable books. BillyBatty (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments' - will take a look and jot down queries below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was first contested in an FA Cup game in 1899 between Millwall Athletic and Thames Ironworks (the club reformed as West Ham United in 1900.) - 2nd sentence of lead - I'd say the two teams first met but did the rivalry commence from the same date?
::I think the In popular culture section is a bit listy as is - any other comments on all depictions as a whole or on any particular one would be good to beef up section a bit.
Removed the list completely, think it flows and looks better as a paragraph. Added a couple of refs to a police mistake, which relates to the article and the subsection. BillyBatty (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better but still a bit listy to read. If you could sprinkle a couple of sentences with some info - I dunno, most widely praised for realism/popular/unpopular etc. and anything to increase the size of the literature bit....
What do you think of the quote I added? I would have liked to put it in history of the rivalry section, but it's quite cluttered with photos. BillyBatty (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
between 1916–2014 - err, "between 1916 and 2014" or something else with a dash...
Alot of the history is about fixtures but doesn't really convey to the reader the depth of the rivalry. Any more colourful anecdotes that could be inserted into the History of the rivalry section would help.
A lot of the more colourful hooligan section was in history of the rivalry, but I separated out the football from the violence. Should I mix a little? BillyBatty (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might read a little better if you do actually. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added to three different eras in the history section, the 1906 fighting quote is especially good for establishing the rivalry between fans early on. Added the 1972 murder after the testimonial game. Also added a playful element, the 2011 plane flyover of Millwall fans celebrating West Ham's relegation. BillyBatty (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
between 1915–19, between 1919–30 & Between 1939–46 in wars section need rejigging.
A record attendance for the fixture. - has no verb - maybe attach to previous sentence.
Think those read a little better.BillyBatty (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I meant I wouldn't say between 1915–19 - I'd say between 1915 and 1919 or over/during 1915–19....but the prose does look better otherwise. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Fixed that. So used to writing it the shorthand, footbally way. BillyBatty (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Upton Park riot: 2009–present section - the end of para 1 says, "....but concluded that the allegations against Millwall had not been proved" - however the bginning of the section does not mention what indeed the allegations were...
I do think the article is within striking distance overall, having read thru the prose once. I think the prose can be tightened a little (though I need to read again to see fixes) and will alert some other reviewers as this one has been slow in getting attention. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I can't see any other prose deal-breakers as such so am leaning support, though suspect some more bits and pieces to fix will turn up. It is engaging to read. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning oppose: This is generally a really good article, and quite well done for a tricky topic. And I think it will eventually make a good, rather different, FA. But I'm not quite sure it's there yet. There are fussy little prose points which could be sorted, and I think it needs tightening generally, as Casliber suggests above. I wonder was this rushed a little? It had a PR with no comments, then a GAN which it passed after quite a lot of work, and then it was nominated here four days later. That does not quite suggest FA-ready to me. I've read the first few sections, and while it is enjoyable I've found quite a few points which we probably shouldn't have at this stage. I'm leaning oppose, but that isn't set in stone. However, if these points are addressed and there are similar ones in the rest of the article, I think I would have to regretfully oppose. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”They were rivals for the same business…”: Having read in the main body about the formation of the teams, I’m not sure that this sentence really captures the idea that the players and supporters were competing for work. Maybe rephrase?
”and despite no longer being East London rivals, the derbies retained their passion and both sets of supporters still consider the other club as their main rival”: Redundancy in the prose. Maybe “and although no longer East London rivals, the derbies retained their passion; both sets of supporters still consider the other club their main rival”
”They were rivals for the same business which intensified games between the teams. In 1910 Millwall moved south of the River Thames and despite no longer being East London rivals, the derbies retained their passion and both sets of supporters still consider the other club as their main rival”: Three “rivals” in two sentences.
Founding section: three consecutive sentences begin with “the”, which is not ideal.
”Goals from Hugh Goldie and Bert Banks saw Millwall Athletic beat their rivals away 2–1 at the Memorial Grounds”: I’m afraid I really hate the use of “saw” like this, and particularly in sports articles, as it reads to me like journalese. Any chance of a slight rephrase?
”The second competitive meeting was a Southern League match that spanned two centuries.”: While this may make a cute DYK fact, I’m not sure that it is necessary to note this.
Tackled those first five, the sixth about spanning two centuries was unusual. Abandoned games are usually wiped from the records, as per five other contests between the teams. This one wasn't and the rest of the game being played the next century is quite an anomaly. BillyBatty (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the two centuries point. Incidentally, you changed one of the words to "derby". Watch out for North American readers who have no idea what this is. Maybe link it to Local derby? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we using singular or plural for the clubs? We have “Millwall Rovers Football Club was formed…” but “Thames Ironworks were disbanded…”. Some consistency is needed, and I’d be inclined to go for UK usage here.
”disbanded in June 1900 due to disputes over the running of the club”: The pedant in me thinks this should be “owing to”.
”The following month the club was renamed West Ham United.”: How can it be renamed if it’s just been disbanded?
Reformed, relaunched or resurrected? Went with the middle one. BillyBatty (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”The two sides met a record seven times in each of these seasons”: I don’t like sporting short-hand like “a record seven times”. What record? For a season? For these clubs? For all clubs?
”Millwall and West Ham were competing in the Southern League”: Why do we need “were competing”? I think “competed” is less clunky.
”During this period, Millwall went 12 games unbeaten”: More sports speak. Why not the plain “were unbeaten in 12 consecutive games”?
”including a record 7–1 win in a Southern Professional Charity Cup”: Record again. What record? Highest scoring game? Most goals by one team? Biggest victory? Record for all matches or just these ones?
”with four goals being scored by B. Hulse at the Memorial Grounds.”: A bit convoluted. Why not “and B Hulse scored four goals at the Memorial Ground”?
”They ran out 3–0 winners”: Straight out of a sports-report and not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia.
”a particularly ferocious encounter saw one Millwall player”: And I think this is sports journalese too.
General point: lots of sentences seem to begin with “the” or “they”. A little more variety would be good. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a time limit between when to do PR, GA and FA nominations? This is my first try for a FA. This wasn't rushed at all. I've been slowly working on this wiki since 2010. It just needs a thorough copyedit of somebody with more expertise in encyclopaedic prose than me. All the content and stats is well-sourced, reliable. This is the most complete online source for this topic. I was hoping the fine toothcomb of a FA nom would bring somebody forward who would help out with this, but alas, not. I appreciate your input. BillyBatty (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BillyBatty, was planning to have more of a look soon. I can copyedit and so can the other two editors I alerted to this page. Have a go at fixing the above and I will take another read-through. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no time limit, and don't give up quite yet. It's not far off, and I'm sure that we can polish the prose between us. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed other issues you pointed out and tried to pre-empt a few! BillyBatty (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've struck everything that has been addressed, and I think we are getting there now, so I've struck the "leaning oppose". I won't comment any more right now as I see there is some copy-editing going on. I'll look back in a day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More comments:
The section title "During the wars: 1915–45" is a little misleading, as it does not only talk about the wartime games. Maybe a different title is needed; I'd suggest "Between the wars" but I don't think that would work either.
I agree the new title isn't perfect. Let me think. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After the First World War, the Football League was reintroduced": Reintroduced where? I think this needs a better wording.
"Millwall joined the season after in the Football League expansion of the Third Division in 1920–21": And this is rather confusing. They joined what? The last sentence talks of the second division, which makes this ambiguous. And do we mean "when the Football League expanded the Third Division"?
"They met for the first time in the Football League in the 1932–33 season": What happened that season which made them meet? I'm assuming promotion or relegation, but for who? This should be made explicit; don't make the reader do the work.
Record attendance: Do we need an "as of 2014" here, per WP:DATED?
"West Ham remained a Second Division club, being promoted into the First Division": These two statements can't both be true.
"The two sides went a period of nineteen years without playing each other": Journalese. Maybe better as "For nineteen years, the two sides did not play each other".
"During the foundation of the Premier League in 1992, the two teams competed the tier below in the First Division": When were Millwall relegated?
"into the first purpose built all-seater stadium": In the country? The world?
"Millwall had plans to move the following season into the first purpose built all-seater stadium": Perhaps we should clarify. Did they succeed in doing this? Perhaps we need to be more clear than "planned". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It was twelve years until West Ham played at Millwall's new ground, The New Den.": Again, can we explain why? It is briefly worth giving the trajectory of the two clubs rather than bland statements like this.
"It was a highly eventful game, Millwall missed one penalty": That comma should be a semi-colon or a full stop.
"who was subsequently sent off; Violence also broke out between the two sets of fans": And if that is a semi-colon, why is Violence capitalised?
"The match became known as The Mothers' Day Massacre": Known by who?
"A disciplinary tribunal fined West Ham £115,000 for failing to ensure that their fans did not enter the field of play and refrained from violent, threatening, obscene and provocative behaviour": Are we quoting a regulation here? The language seems a bit odd otherwise, so would some quotation marks be appropriate?
I think we need to say that Grant was the manager before we mention the banner, or it is a bit odd until you read on.
I've read to the end of the history section now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The title for the wartime section is the most tricky. Still not happy with that, but it encapsulates the section better. Also, the supporters/hooligan section could be included in the main history of section. It was bigger, but since a lot of the juiciest bits was moved to the history section already to establish the rivalry, it reads as rather disjointed. What do you think? BillyBatty (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, it might be better in the history section given that a lot is there already. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it. I think it has improved the history section significantly. BillyBatty (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last comments:
Did we lose the part about the General Strike in moving the Supporters section? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to move that. It's in there now. BillyBatty (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the "By competition" table, the alignment of numbers looks slightly off to me; not sure whether it's a browser issue, or if it was intentional. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer of the GA Lemonade51 changed the wikitable to comply with MOS:DTT. I think all the inputted data would look better left aligned or centered, not both. Not sure how to do this tho or if the table is wikiperfect as is. BillyBatty (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're almost there. I don't think there are any major issues remaining. However, I think the prose could stand a little tightening in places still. I'll have a look in the next couple of days and see if there is anything that can be tweaked, and then I think I'll be happy to support. But I think I'd like some more "non-sports" eyes on this, to check for sports-speak. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query: "The first meetings between the clubs were friendlies and reserve games: their first meeting ended in a 6–0 home win for Millwall Athletic Reserves (Rovers had been renamed Millwall Athletic in 1889)[4] on 14 December 1895 over a newly formed Thames Ironworks side.[5]": Does ref 4 support the "first meetings" part as well as the name change? If not, the refs need shuffling. Perhaps the name change could be relegated to a note? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4 is name change, 5 first meeting. Put both at end of sentence and added footnote. BillyBatty (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another couple:
Ref 38 currently does not point to the article in question, but to the main page of the Times Archive site. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a BBC Sport reference for the game which adequately replaces the subscription ref.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"has completed a Football League double over the other": Do we have a link for double? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article for double in the sense used here. It is explained here though.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of covered in this article, which contains as much explanation as the glossary article. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support with copy-editing disclaimer: I've been through the article again and tried to prune the prose a little more. I think we are there, but I'd be happier if someone else could have a look at this too. There may be places we could still tighten, and it's more than likely I have missed something, particularly sports-jargon. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting topic. I'm not so active these days, but I'm trying to take a look at the copy. --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: Were you still planning to look over the text? That would be much appreciated to help wrap this up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the source from the reference for the programme and fixed the sandwich, both right aligned now. BillyBatty (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, the bold section of the lead shouldn't contain any wikilinks. I'd suggest just removing either the links or the bolding, whichever you prefer.
Done - have removed links but don't mind either way.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding alt text to the images to aid screenreaders; it doesn't have to be detailed or overly descriptive.
"Sixty meetings in 16 years". Any reason to be mixing words and numerals here?
It was Sixty meetings in sixteen years, then 60 meetings in 16 years. Somebody else's copy edit has changed it to that. It should be all words, right? BillyBatty (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think so; the MoS doesn't like titles beginning with numerals. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This run was finally broken on 1 September 1904, West Ham's first ever game at Upton Park, which they won 3–0, with two goals from Billy Bridgeman and one by Jack Flynn." I think this one reads as having too many asides. I'd rephrase the middle as "1 September 1904, in a 3–0 victory at West Ham's first ever game at Upton Park, with two goals..." so as to remove one of those pauses.
The images under the "Upton Park riot" heading are sandwiching the text between them for a bit, which is undesirable. Perhaps moving the World Cup Sculpture image up to just before the heading would alleviate this; it would still float within the same section but a little bit higher up.
Think I finally fixed this, at the tenth attempt! BillyBatty (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Little higher than I had thought but it works just as well, completely removes the issue. GRAPPLEX 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"West Ham won the game 3–1 on 25 August 2009, their first win over Millwall in 18 years, at the seventh attempt." I'm assuming this is to say it's the seventh game in eighteen years, but to me it reads like the game itself took seven attempts.
Done - changed to show number of years and number of games during span.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first table of statistics by competition has sorting issues; the "sub-total" row is essentially useless when the table is sorted in any way.
Should sub-total be removed? Unsure how to sort table without breaking it. BillyBatty (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either the sub-total line or the sort function; it's not a long table so sorting isn't vital if you'd rather keep the sub-total line. GRAPPLEX 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The absent cells in the list of results are a bit unseemly; closing each row to give empty cells instead would look more uniform
In the infobox you give the notation "Home team 1–0 Away Team", but in the "Statistics" section it's "Home team 1 Away team 0". Be uniform, though I think the former looks better.
"Sailor Brown, Peter Buchanan, Johnny Burke, Louis Cardwell, Jimmy Jinks, Harold Pearson also played for both sides as wartime guest players." Consider an "and" between Jinks and Pearson here.
"Millwall's Bushwackers firm are called The Buccaneers in it." Given that the film is a fictional version of events rather than an historical one, I would consider "Millwall's Bushwackers firm are dramatised/fictionalised/depicted as The Buccaneers", to indicate that it's a "based on" kind of relationship.
That 2009 stabbing has been mentioned twice. I assume it wasn't life-threatening since there no details given, but maybe this could be clarified at the first mention? This one's particularly optional.
Saw him on the ground but not sure what happened to the guy stabbed - will leave this to a Millwall expert.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, it's optional. But if there's any way to reliably add "non-fatal" or the like, it'd help. GRAPPLEX 12:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added detail about his punctured lung and recovery. BillyBatty (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy days (well, not for him). GRAPPLEX 18:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider rearranging the "see also" links; logically London derbies should be listed before any specific London derbies.
I'm happy with the amendments made, and am willing to support this one. However, I'm not much of a copyeditor so it's likely I may have overlooked needed tweaks in the prose; in all other elements I'm perfectly satisfied. GRAPPLEX 04:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is three in support. Happy to address anymore improvement suggestions. Any sharp eyed copyeditors out there? BillyBatty (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cloudz679: Here are some copyedit suggestions and one referencing matter:
some possible copyedits:
lead: rephrase the title? Perhaps a little surprising, but I think it would read better "The rivalry between Millwall and West Ham United…" The current first line is already different from the article title due to the absence of F.C.. Also "first opposed each other" doesn't have a good feel to it, could the verb be changed?
instead of using as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}, I think you should use {{as of|2014}}, which prompts users to manually update. Otherwise the year updates automatically.
Changed to manual update. BillyBatty (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the South final" - or "South Final" as it is in the linked page?
"Over four decades the sides only met six times in the Football League, playing in the same league together three times in the 1946–47, 1947–48 and 1978–79 seasons." seems to be awkwardly worded
Over four decades the sides were only in the same tier of the Football League together for three seasons, in 1946–47, 1947–48 and 1978–79. BillyBatty (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Lions 2–1 home league victory" needs an apostrophe
"The 1988–89 season is the only meeting of the two teams" - but they met twice, could this be reworded along the lines of "the only season both teams have been in the top division"
"the two teams competed the tier below in the First Division" - may be worthwhile to note here that it is not the same first division mentioned in the line above, a modifier like "newly formed" "replacement" or similar may be of use
Went with newly formed. BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Marlon Harewood replied for West Ham. The result is the largest winning-margin between the sides in the Football League" I read this twice before I understood the sentences are not connected! I first thought the second sentence is a quote. Perhaps you could change the verb. There is already "Mark Robson replied for West Ham" above.
Changed to "scored the West Ham goal". BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The police were forced to unplug the match screen with ten minutes of the game remaining." I don't like this wording, who forced the police, or is it a metaphor? I looked at the source and it's not a particularly good one, perhaps this could be reworded simply "the police unplugged/disconnected the match screen…"
"Pat Holland, an FA Cup winner in 1975 with West Ham, served as both assistant manager to Willie Donachie, and was chief scout at Millwall from 2006–09." was Donachie the WHU manager? did these things happen at the same time?
Reworded to "Pat Holland, an FA Cup winner in 1975 with West Ham, served as Millwall assistant manager to Willie Donachie in 2006. After Donachie was fired in 2007, he continued on as chief scout until 2009." BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Lomas joined ex-West Ham defender Tim Breacker, who was first-team coach of Millwall." was was Millwall's first-team coach.
"As a former West Ham player, his appointment was unpopular with many Millwall fans." not clear if this refers to Lomas or Breacker
Added clarification to Lomas. BillyBatty (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Brotherly rivalry" section is not particularly well-worded and the reference seems to be unavailable
Some of the section names are a little misleading to me, in particular
"First top flight meeting: 1988–2008", which sounds like a 20-year long meeting, and
"Upton Park riot: 2009–present", which sounds like an ongoing riot
Any alternate suggestions for these? We didn't like the clunky wording of "Wartime and joining the Football League: 1915–45" either. It's quite difficult to summarise often sporadic meetings throughout the years. BillyBatty (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I could find. C679 23:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add it is very unorthodox to list "Tarrant, Eddie; Richard Lindsay (2010). Millwall: The Complete Record. DB Publishing. ISBN1-85983-833-2." with surname, firstname and then firstname surname for dual authors. I only noticed it because I saw Tarrant alone had been credited in the short citations. Suggest changing to Tarrant and Lindsay. Suggest changing to Lindsay and Tarrant per the front cover, listing Lindsay first C679 23:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the bibliography name order and added Lindsay to all Tarrant refs, making it Lindsay and Tarrant. BillyBatty (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No ideas for better section names, I'm afraid. Do you have a response for my comments on the "brotherly rivalry" section? C679 08:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just working on that. Moved some things around and added more detail and facts. Removed dodgy reference, added reputable refs from whufc.com, Millwall: The Complete Record, West Ham: The Complete Record and Millwall History Archives. BillyBatty (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better, but I have a burning question from the text as it is, where is the rivalry?! It seems like for the tenure of Ted, Benny was neither playing nor managing (either of which would support this "rivalry". For me, managing or playing for rival teams at different times is not really so significant. But I have a feeling there is something you're not telling me! Thanks, C679 09:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. I can't find any direct rivalry in the sources I have. It's more of a DYK fact of two brothers who were at the helm during very successful periods for both clubs, one who played for both. Rename title to Fenton brothers, taking out the 'rivalry' aspect or remove section as superfluous? BillyBatty (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably say keep it but without a separate sub-section, which adds undue weight. C679 10:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved into main section of Managers. BillyBatty (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for my support. Thanks, C679 10:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -- per earlier discussion of further prose checking, doesn't look like anyone else is going to copyedit so I've decided to recuse myself from delegate duties and do it myself, but pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything; some other points:
I requested a source review at WT:FAC a while back so I'm hoping that will occur soon.
You have a few duplicate links you should review -- use this script to highlight them.
Ran script, only left wartime players that are mentioned in History of rivalry wartime section and again in Players who have played for both teams section. Also author Mike Calvin, as one link is his quote. BillyBatty (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that FN84/85 are sources for the "By competition" table but it's not clear to me where/how the "Full list of results" table is sourced.
Ref 84 sources every first-team game ever played between the sides between 1899 to 2009 in table form, sorted by competition. I can add another ref from page 262 to page 482 in Millwall: The Complete History, which covers every season between 1899 and 2009 and references every game, date, score, competition and attendance covered in the Full list of results. I already added two further refs for the two games that were played after the book was published. Alternatively, it would mean adding 99 individual references for each game. Which is preferable? BillyBatty (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps I can see where the confusion lay. Don't worry about individual citations. If the (now three) refs are for both tables, then I'd suggest a note above the "By competition" subheader stating "The following statistics are as of 4 February 2012." and put the footnotes there, so we know the citations refer to both tables (and, incidentally, that both tables are correct up to Feb 2012). Obviously also remove the current "As of 4 February 2012.[75][79][84]" Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved the note above the subheader to avoid confusion. Added one more ref just for total security that every game and stat is covered. To Confirm, [75] is for the game played in 2011, [79] is for the 2012 game, [84] covers every season individually from 1899 to 2009 and [85] is a table at the back of the book with a summary of 97 first-team games and goals (played up to 2009). BillyBatty (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up, I'm happy with your changes re. my comments but I'd like to see if Brian's satisfied with the sources review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
I have gone through the first of the three columns of citations. There are numerous issues, the most important being the frequent use of non-reliable sources. I have highlighted at least ten of these in the following list. Until these are points resolved I am deferring the review of the remaining columns; I don't think the article can be promoted to FA meantime.
Ref 3: Source is "Mail Online", not The Daily Mail
Ref 7: Apart from its popularity among students, what are the credentials of "Spartacus Educational" that make it a high-quality, reliable source?
Egghead06 found an alternative ref for this, Powles, page 79. Removed. BillyBatty (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 10: Publisher is not BBC, it is "h2g2: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition". What makes this a high quality, reliable source for a football club history?
Changed to one from West Ham United's website.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 11: What makes this illiterately written source of any quality or reliability?
Changed to one from The Premier League.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 20: Who are the publishers, and what makes the source reliable?
Removed. Already has supporting reference from Lindsay for this game. BillyBatty (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23: Inappropriate source
Replaced with one from thestadiumguide.com. BillyBatty (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 27: Another dubious source
Removed ref and sentence it supported. No other source can be found for this statement. BillyBatty (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 33: Lacks publisher details. Tony Hogg is co-author – see here
Added Independent UK Sports Publications and Tony McDonald. BillyBatty (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 38: The publisher is actually "The Chris Whiting Show". What makes this a high-quality, reliable source?
Unlike 39, this one wasn't conducted by an official survey body. Removed. BillyBatty (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 39: This seems to be the source of information used in ref. 38. It presents data which, it says, are the results of an online survey. Why should this be considered as reliable?
Refs 47 and 56: Who publishes this? the text in 47 is by Eamonn Dunphy who is a recognised writer on football and other subjects, but the number of uncorrected typos suggests that editorial control is not rigorous.
Removed 47, two other refs still support statement. Replaced 56 with a Lindsay and Tarrant ref. BillyBatty (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 48: Definitely does not qualify as a reliable source.
Not sure why Cass Pennant's work is not acceptable. He may be a former hooligan but he is a published author. However, have removed it and replaced it with another book source.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, he's a hooliologist! I hope that doesn't mean Ref 139 is dodgy too. That's a great quote. BillyBatty (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few other general sources-related issues:
Why have you not used short citations for references that are listed in the bibliography? Repeating book titles time and time again overcomplicates the citations list, especially with two books that have very similar titles and authorship.
I believe that looks better... BillyBatty (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography needs to be rearranged into alphabetical order
Closing comment - This candidate has been here since before Christmas but I still see issues with the prose and will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. Here, for example "In 2013 a member of West Ham's hooligan Inter City Firm was jailed for organising violence between West Ham and Millwall fans. It had been planned at an FA Cup match...", the antecedent is "a member" not "violence". The prose would benefit from a fresh a pair of eyes - there are lots of clumsy phrases. Graham Colm (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Wizardman 14:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I wrote anything related to American football, but after working on the Stub Contest and seeing how poor some of those articles can be, I'm jumping back into it. This article is on one of those players. I wrote the article years ago and forgot about it (perhaps for the best since I could not find an image until now), but after a top to bottom cleanup I believe it's ready for FAC.
Billy Joe Tolliver is a quarterback who hung around for quite some time in football. Despite an outstanding high school and college career, he never really got it going in the NFL, and he was not more than a solid backup. Playing for poor teams throughout his career did not help that either. Any of you into the celebrity golf circuit know who he is, as he is a regular in that venue. Wizardman 14:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see some paragraph-ending sentences that end without citations:
"After the season ended, Tolliver was again a free agent. He was not signed by the Falcons, and as the season began, he was looking for a team."
"Tolliver made his first start in a game against the Raiders, but played inconsistently over seven starts and was replaced by Richardson in the season finale against the New York Jets. After finishing the season, Tolliver became a free agent and left the NFL."
Fixed. Tweaked the first one since it didn't provide much of anything, added ref for the second; not sure how I missed that. Wizardman 23:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During Tolliver's junior year, he looked to fix his erratic passing, which he had concentrated on improving over the previous months reference?
If Google news wasn't being evil in getting rid of everything I could probably find one no problem. Instead this might take me a little while. Wizardman 20:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Year ranges should have ndashes in the infobox
The Chargers wanted traded third, fourth ... grammar
Can you link "training camp"?
After a loss against Dallas, Tolliver regained his starting job back in game two against the Cincinnati Bengals. "back" seems repetitious here.
With one second left, he lobbed "lobbed" seems unprofessional to me
The Falcons lost Tolliver's first start in a 56–17 blowout loss. two "lost"s relatively close here. A reference would be appreciated as well.
Tolliver finished the season ... Tolliver finished the season a rewrite here would avoid two "Tolliver finished the season"s in a row.
Can you link "achilles tendon" and "pinched nerve"?
Reference 10 needs an ndash for the score of the game. Seattle (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is now fixed; the first issue I just removed since I couldn't find anything. Wizardman 15:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the dashes should be fixed now; were more than noted here that weren't ndashes so that took me a while. Wizardman 20:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comprehensive article. Seattle (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Only one image, confirmed by the FlickreviewR bot to be under an appropriate Creative Commons license. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
High school and college: Do we now use an en dash for items like "85–yard". I always thought we used hyphens for feet and yards, but maybe this has changed without my knowledge.
San Diego Chargers: In the section's second paragraph, Jim McMahon's first name doesn't need to be repeated.
Falcons and Oilers: Isn't "after wards" normally one word?
Later career: Achilles is normally capitalized, I believe.
The Atlanta Falcons were already linked in the last section.
Maybe it's just me, but I found the last sentence of the Personal life section irrelevant to Tolliver's career. His record at the tournament is what is important to include, not where it is held and broadcast.
Ref 1 needs a publisher.Giants2008 (Talk) 20:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Issues fixed. Never noticed that Achilles tendon was always supposed to be capitalized before, learned something new. Wizardman 23:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Not the longest article ever seen at FAC, but it's hard to expect much more than what is offered given that Tolliver was not a major name in the NFL. I was actually surprised this much content could be found on him. The writing, sourcing, and other aspects all appear to be up to snuff. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
We should have a source review for reliability and consistent formatting, will post a request at WT:FAC unless someone who's already commented can do the honours.
Just spotchecking the prose, I think you need to review for repetition. You have "player"/"played" four times in the first three sentences. Does he have to be "a former American football player who played...", or could he be either "a former American footballer who played..." or "a former American football player who competed...", or something along those lines? Also in the last sentence of the first paragraph you have "Over the course of his career ... finished his career" -- can you replace "finished his career" with "retired"? Instead of "As the final cuts were made to reduce the Saints' roster to 53 players, Tolliver was among those cut" (2 x "cut/s"), how about "The Saints' roster was reduced to 53 players, and Tolliver was among those cut". In Personal life, the first three sentences all being "Tolliver". How about tweak and trim the second to "He and his wife Sheila have five children, Charles, Austin, Mackenzie, Bryce, and Brody."? These are just examples, mind, I expect the whole article needs a light copyedit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask around for a source review and a copyedit. In the meantime I fixed the noted issues; just added his position instead of having player, since somehow i forgot to have the important part of his job in that first sentence. Wizardman 14:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note for the source reviewer. Most of the refs used are behind paywalls, but copypasting the title into a search engine might be enough in some of the cases to get you some of the article to view. Wizardman 14:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brian has reviewed the sources in the manner I was looking for (tks). Skimming the article again, however, it doesn't look as though you've cited his birthdate/place. I'd expect you to state/cite this info in the first para of the main body. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ref for a birthdate and place seems unnecessary since it's basic enough knowledge, but I went ahead and added it nonetheless. Wizardman 03:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best to cite major facts, as well as the more esoteric ones. Anyway, skimming the prose again, I think I must've caught pretty well everything before, and you've dealt with those, so we'll wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
Ref 2: p. no missing, as is the case with all the Dallas Morning News cites (4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 39 and 62)
Ref 12 lacks publisher info
Refs 16 and 17 (LA Times: p. nos missing; other LAT refs have pages
Ref 20: p. no missing (Long Beach Press-Telegram)
Ref 46: p. no missing (Rocky Mountain News)
Ref 51: p. no missing ( Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Ref 65: what information is being cited to this source, which looks like an advert for the golf course?
Other than these issues, sources look appropriate, reliable and consistently formatted. No spotchecks – I don't have time to follow Wizardman's suggestion, above, but maybe another reviewer will. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Dallas Morning News archives, for whatever reason, so not provide page numbers. Was the case at the time, and unfortunately remains so now after I tried again. The other ones I'll look through and should be able to find. Wizardman 15:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else now fixed. For the last ref, clicking the celebrity section to get details redirects to the first ref I was already using, so I just removed it. Wizardman 15:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a junior branch of what later became known as the House of Plantagenet, as the most powerful nobles in England bar the monarch they played a significant part in the medieval history of England but apart the Wars of the Roses this is largely forgotten, as is much on the background apart from the three Lancastrian monarchs. Hence it is a bit of a backwater on Wikipedia that perhaps deserves a greater prominence. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor note: Right off the bat, I see several large paragraphs that could be broken up for easier readability (in particular the lead and the section entitled "Duchy and Palatinate of Lancaster"). Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extra paragraph spacing added to both, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The map indicates the extent of the earl's lands, but does not indicate that it is shaded in grey, and what "Maddicott" is supposed to mean is unclear (a book that is not in the bibliography it seems). Caption improved and reference added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC). Various issues with this image seem intractible so I have removed it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
Suggest outdenting Henry VI so he has his own section. Better yet, combine with the following section. Combined with following section - Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]
any magnate with sufficient power and Plantagenet blood could consider the throne I don't think "consider" is quite the right word here. Changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
Isn't the picture of Agincourt in the wrong section? - moved - Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Y[reply]
Could you elaborate on Henry IV's elevation to the throne, and on Henry VII's claim? Done - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
The article says that the last of the Beauforts (who?) were killed. But Lady margaret Beaufort was still very much alive. Edmund + added last "male" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
I remember something similar when Ted Kennedy died. His sister Jean apparently didn't count. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (in addition to the issues raised by Hawkeye7)
Agincourt caption needs editing for grammar Y
Why does only one table image include a caption? Caption removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:Thomas_of_Lancaster_posessions.png: what base map was used to create this image? Contentious map removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:Schlacht_von_Azincourt.jpg needs US PD tag Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:Siege_orleans.jpg needs US PD tag and source info Image removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:Edmond1.jpg: the PD-Art tag refers to a 2D work, which this is not Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:JindrichLancaster.jpg needs US PD tag and should include a separate licensing tag for seal vs photo of seal Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
You should have a source that can be verified - is it possible to retrieve this through an archiving service like archive.org? Nikkimaria(talk) 16:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:King_Henry_IV_from_NPG_(2).jpg: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Same with File:King_Henry_V_from_NPG.jpg Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
File:HenryVIofEngland.JPG: first source link is dead. Image changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC) YNikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we using an image of Crouchback for both he and his son? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always great to see a general medieval article at FAC. At this stage, I think there is a fair amount of work to be done on it it though, and would recommend taking it through an ACR or similar before FAC. Part of this is copyediting issues.
Examples from the lead and the first section include:
Wikilinking. Why aren't Earl of Leicester etc. linked in the lead? Or Thomas? etc. Later, Count of Champagne and Brie etc. Y
"Founded by Edmund Crouchback the second son of Henry III of England." - doesn't feel like a complete sentence. Also, was it founded by Edmund? Or is he just declared to be the first in the dynasty? Y
"to wealthy heiresses of his subjects. " - can you have an heiress of a subject? It felt like an odd phrase. And aren't the heiresses subjects as well? Y
Grammar on apostrophes. " the three Lancastrian monarch’s legitimatised their reigns" Y
" and Henry VI of England and (II of) France" - the "(II of)" felt rather ugly here. Y
"The House became extinct on the execution of the son of the last Lancastrian King" - the son was...? Y
"The counties containing Thomas of Lancaster's main possessions..." - the map seems to be using the county boundaries from before the 1970 reforms. South Yorkshire is now a county in its own right, which probably doesn't help the clarity here.
"After Henry III of England’s royalist forces" - I don't think he had any other forces than royalist ones. Y
"Earl Ferrers (Derby)" is this the full name of the title? It read a bit oddly - I've heard of Earl Ferrers, and the Earl of Derby, but not Earl Ferrers (Derby). The titles are synonomous Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
It feels like there are commas missing - e.g. " Her daughter, Edmund's step daughter Joan I of Navarre was queen regent of Navarre " - shouldn't this have a matching comma after Navarre? (this is a pattern elsewhere) Y
"Thomas and Henry served in the coronation of his cousin, King Edward II of England" - repetitive linking of Henry. Also unclear who "his" is in this context. Y
"Thomas became was one of the Lords Ordainers" - "was" seems a mistake here. Y
"this was seen by Thomas as an end it itself" - "in itself"
"Edward' s Queen Isabella of France" - capitalisation of Queen. Spare space after the apostrophe. Y
" pursuing and capturing the king " - "King" should have a capital here
"Following Edward’s deposition and murder" - there's a LOT of literature around Edward's death. I certainly wouldn't mention any murder without a lot of qualification. Y
"Parliament" - capitalisation changes later. Also worth linking on first use.Y
"However faced with Mortimer’s increasingly dictatorial rule in 1328 and 1329 Henry led the opposition before Edward was able to assume control." - I'm not convinced that Mortimer's dictatorial rule was precisely the problem, or that Henry was leading the opposition on behalf of Edward - worth having a look at the literature around this in more detail (Dan Jones isn't the right source here for a FA, in my opinion). Y
More generally, I'd be querying why there isn't more in legacy section on the impact on the arts (e.g. Shakespeare's plays). It would also be good to know when the term "House of Lancaster" is first used historically Hchc2009 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see you've put a lot of work into this important article, for which you should be commended, but I'm afraid it has a ways to go. Suggest having someone at WP:GOCE give its prose a good copyedit (didn't see Hchc's comments when I posted this, so there may be some duplication).
Founded by Edmund Crouchback the second son of Henry III of England. -- fragmented sentence, and this is only the second sentence of the lead Y
Edward III married all his sons to wealthy heiresses of his subjects. -- (not sure what "of his subjects" is supposed to mean here)Y
Some take as the founding of the Royal House. -- another fragmented sentence Y
The House became extinct on the execution of the son of the last Lancastrian King and the murder of the King himself by supporters of the House of York in 1471. -- it isn't really clear which king you are referring to (many will know you mean Henry VI, but for those who don't, suggest naming him again) Y
The first See also link should go near the bottom per WP:LAYOUT, the other should be deleted WP:ALSOY
Edmund was created Earl of Leicester on 26 October 1265, Lancaster on 30 June 1267 from which the House has been named, Count of Champagne and Brie in 1276 by right of his wife and Earl Ferrers (Derby) in 1301. -- should be split up for easier readability Y
Why the links to specific individuals at the beginning of each section if they're already linked below? Y
Edmund's second marriage to Blanche of Artois placed him at the centre of the European aristocracy. She was the widow of the King of Navarre. -- seems fragmented, you could probably combine them Y
Her daughter, Edmund's step daughter Joan I of Navarre was queen regent of Navarre and on her marriage to Philip IV of France also queen consort of France -- needs a rewrite (try to avoid repetition of daughter and queen; also, consider adding punctuation) Y
When Edmund's son Thomas married the heiress of Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln he inherited the further Earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury becoming the most powerful nobleman in England -- needs a comma or something Y
Thomas and Henry served in the coronation of his cousin, King Edward II of England on 25 February 1308 with Thomas carrying a great sword and Henry the royal sceptre -- don't you mean "their" cousin? Y
Why is a book about 1330 England being used to cite something for during the reign of Henry IV of England? I have the Mortimer book in front of me and don't see anything that supports their corresponding sentences, unless I'm missing something? YRuby2010/2013 06:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for the kind words - I think I have been through and covered most of the points. Will have another look at this next week Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- As far as FAC's concerned, I think it's a bit late in the day for a copyedit to be made to this article, and I'm inclined to archive this and recommend, as Hchc2009 does, that you take it through MilHist ACR or Peer Review before renominating here. However, I'll give Hchc2009 and Ruby2010 a chance to revisit their comments/opposition before going that route. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough Ian. Both feel that a ce is in order and it is late in the day for this review. I was hoping that this process would enable improvement to the article on an interactive basis if it was required for FA but this doesn't seem to be case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, FAC isn't really supposed to be about major improvements, although it does admittedly seem that way a lot of the time. Anyway, as there seems to have been no further activity since I last stopped by, I think we'd best call it a day here. My suggestion would be to pursue the ce and work on any outstanding issues from the FAC reviewers, then go for PR or MilHist ACR before revisiting FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm resubmitting this article following its first unsuccessful nomination, here, and here.
Since that time I've attempted to address all the issues raised by previous reviewers. These had to do with the use of lists; reliance on List of metalloid lists (another Wikipedia article); the structure of the article; use of notes; citation formatting consistencies; and citations to multiple editions of the same work.
Lists have been converted to prose. The List of metalloid lists is now referenced in a peer-reviewed academic journal (as is also the case with the metalloid article itself). The article structure has been overhauled so that the focus is on the metalloid category as a whole, rather than the commonly recognised metalloids. I've checked and adjusted the notes to make sure the article can be read and understood without necessarily needing to refer to the notes. I've checked and adjusted the formatting of citations for consistency. Multiple editions of the same work have been removed where redundant. Other minor improvements were made along the way.
I thank the earlier reviewers, Squeamish Ossifrage and John for their comments in response to my initial nomination. Despite my (unhelpful) initial misgivings the article is significantly better now. Sandbh (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just having a look at the mind-numbing "References" section, I am reluctantly leaning towards oppose. The citations are not properly and consistenly formatted -- for example, title case is not used, and ISSNs and ISBNs are missing for some of the print publications (ISSN 0040-1692 for Technology Review, ISSN 1536-3686 for American Journal of Therapeutics, ISSN 0165-0513 for Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas, etc). This makes them difficult to digest and verify. I would like to know of Nikkimaria's views of the references first before I go any further.
Done. Have switched to title case for all references. Have added ISSNs per WP:ISSN (and learnt how to format them, proper-like). Sentence case was in use the last time I was at university several yrs ago and I'd gotten used to that. Appreciate the feedback. RL will get in the way of me being an FAC regular; I do have a look and make comments/edits now and again though. I hope the referencing looks better now. Tx again, Sandbh (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Removed dead link; replaced with Pyykkö 2012 citation and ref.
I took a quick look over the article... referencing the article to the article itself (i.e "The generic definition set out at the start of this article") to me is not good writing, but I think I've seen this at FAC before (brain comes to mind). I've also seen this on other broad topics, but I haven't seen an actual FA containing such phrases...
Fixed. Good call; I've had a go at rewording the start of the Generic section.
"In 2003, arsenic trioxide (Trisenox®)..." I don't think the trademark symbol is needed, and can you link "essential element"? Seattle (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (x2). Thank you for the comments. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've had this article in my Watchlist for a long time, since its first FAC, but wasn't really looking at edits and how it was changing. During the first FAC, I felt it was far from FA standards for a number of reasons; now, however, the article looks a lot better. I gave it a quick read and now it is a decent work. Specifics will follow, but knowing the main author cares about the article, I feel positive about it.--R8R (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes:
Lead is very good. One thing I have to ask is, why show aluminum and carbon in the main diagram. I mean, selenium as a metalloid can be found easily in literature (esp. environmental and such), but Al and C are a lot rarer hits.
Tx for the kind words re the lede. I've shown Al and C for three reasons. The first is the almost iconic status of the dividing line between metals and nonmetals. The second (related) reason is that metalloids, as a whole, are most often thought of as being adjacent to the dividing line. However, there is no agreement as to just which of the elements next to the line warrant being classified as metalloids. So, I've simply shown how often the elements next to the dividing line are classified as metalloids, based on 194 metalloid lists. The third reason is in acknowledgement of the fact that—even though, taking myself as example, I would never not consider aluminium to be a metalloid—aluminium and carbon were the elements next most frequently recognised as metalloids after B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po, At and Se. Sandbh (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got it.--R8R (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Germanium was also thought... -- I can't find this in the main text of the article, where it would be benefitial (for example, in the Origin and usage subsection, or elsewhere)
Done: Copied text to end of germanium mini-bio; copy edited and added some extra content. Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Generic subsection, you first mention the common metalloids, then you mention Se, Po, and At; next, I would expect Al and C. At least in the list of elements "ocassionally classified as metalloids."
Fixed: The paragraph that talks about the common metalloids is limited to talking about that topic. It starts with a citation to the common metalloids and follows this with citations that vary the membership of the common metalloid club. Al and C are left out because there are no citations saying they should have the same status as the common metalloids. Have copy edited this para a tiny bit to try and make it clearer that the topic is the elements commonly recognised as metalloids. The next paragraph talks about the other elements that are still less frequently classified as metalloids, including C and Al. Sandbh (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(for example, nitrogen; carbon) -- why a semicolon here?
Oh, a semicolon is normally used to separate items in a list. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, "for example, nitrogen or carbon" would be more like natural (and still neutral) language.
Done
Why use "same" in the table when you can just copy the word in the cell above?
(see the mini-example, right) -- "right" is little use when, for example, you use a mobile version of Wiki
Fixed: Changed to 'see the mini-example, in this section.' Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could be cool if you managed to find someone to turn the dark gray color square into a line of the same color (since you use a line of that line, with the color of the line having a different function than other colors. Don't know if this is a requirement, but this could be a good idea.
Could you explain that some more as I don't understand what you mean? As well, I just noticed the dividing line isn't access friendly per WP:ACCESS so perhaps I also need to add some descriptive text. That could remove the need to have a legend box for the line. Sandbh (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have colored squares for element categories and a colored square for the line color in the legend. Instead, you should have colored squares for element categories and a line segmant for the line. Is this description clearer? I can attach a picture.
That's fine too.
Fixed template streamlined and text expanded a bit for accessibility purposes Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First you say two of the six are toxic, then you say all six are. I've removed the first phrase, but if you want it back, you can do that (but please explain why).
Fixed: Have rearranged this paragraph. Reads better now. Tx. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding -- this word is too fancy for me. Fancy is not maybe the word, but there is a MOS rule you should use less complex words when it's possible (for example, always "on" and never "upon," except for quotes and proper names). This might be an issue here. (If it's not, please let me know.)
Fixed. Changed to 'Even so'. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike metallic antimony -- made me think for a second I'd missed somrthing. Maybe better use "While metallic animony is relatively non-toxic" or smth like that?
Done Good idea. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm somehow glad there's no polonium radioactivity mention here :) (no action required)
type III-V semiconductors (such as ...) -- I think a small parentesized explanation would not hurt, for example "type III-V semiconductors (a semiconductor composed of one or more group III elements and one or more group V elements, such as ...)" Don't insist, though.
Fixed. Have added wikilink. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, let's say it's okay now.
Cadmium telluride (CdTe) -- previosuly, you refer to a compound either by a name or a formula, and two lines later you have just "bismuth telluride" (don't know if such consistency is a good idea, just noting)
Fixed: I believe the approach I tried to follow was to use just prose, with the following exceptions: (a) when saying something like, 'the oxides…readily form glasses', where the ellipsis = the formulae of the oxides in question; (b) when there is no easy prose equivalent for a compound; (c) when the formula is not obvious, in which case the formula is added after the prose; (d) when industry usage is to refer to a compound by its formula moreso than its prose name (e.g. CdTe) in which case the formula is included, even if it is simple. I had a look at WP:MOSCHEM but it doesn't address this. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Reasonable enough. For future editors, I'd suggest you leave this guideline on the talkpage, so others can understand it too.
Done
When I find time, I'll continue from the section Elements commonly recognised as metalloids--R8R (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break, intended for easier editing via mobile devices
It is about 10% less dense than aluminium but, unlike the latter,[219] is hard and brittle. -- a somewhat questionable antithesis. 10% isn't that much. I think the point was about as dense as Al, but a lot harder, then I suggest you remove the mention of percents. same for Si.
figures in the end of the same para, and almost all figures in this section --- mmm. not so great. I do realize what these figures are for and find them useful, but only because I know what they mean. Many, many people won't. Note that later on, you have the following: "with an electrical conductivity of 1.0–1.3 × 104 S•cm−1, a value similar to that of liquid mercury." (a very good note). This is a serious question. Luckily enough, it's not too difficult to solve. I suggest you do the following: you explain the difference between metals, nonmetals, and metalloids in the corresponding section, so you can explain the typical values for the parameters in that section as well. You should also explain what those parameters even are (by the way, it gives you possibilities for some awesome notes, like (hence metallic bonding) when explaining the band gap). Readers' love will be all yours ;)
Fixed.Clarification request to follow. I removed the content about superconducting transition points to lighten the dataload. For the boron entry, the first of the "big-six" biographical sketches, I added an electrical conductivity comparison (to tap water), and I added a note about the relative width of boron's band gap compared to the other semiconducting metalloids, and Se and white P. 'Band gap' also currently has a wlink and there is also more info about electrical conductivity values for metals, metalloids, and nonmetals in the existing 'Compared to those of metals and nonmetals subsection', including notes with numerical ranges. All the names of the parameters in the 'Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals' table in that section currently have wlinks, too. I hope this looks OK now; if not yet just let me know. Sandbh (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
band gap yet to be explained. Unlike electrical conductivity, which is a intuitively clear term, band gap will not be understood by those who have little understanding in the topic. So it could be cool if you squeezed in a short definition if the term. This is doable.
the energy required -- makes sense, but raises question about P (no action required, just noting)
aluminum: electron potential: It's very cool that you have that external link here. seriously. (no action required)
Thank you good catch Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Up to polonium's profile, the only thing I have concerns about is the understandability of figures. Astatine's profile, though, reads as if it were written by another person in a different writing style (encyclopedia vs journal). My personal feeling is, that is because here, there are many authors names. I suggest you drop them because the text is always easier to read when it has fewer names unless we're discussing a story. There are a lot of reasons. Some are psychologic (for unprepared readers, names are attractions and deviate them from the point, etc.). My concern is that 99% of readers won't ever need these names, but , again, for an unprepared reader, these names are a ballast. This is different for journal articles. Even the 1% that needs them, will find them in ref descriptions. A de-personified text is easier to read, when it comes to an overview article. In a journal article, this is not relevant. Moreover, in journal articles, a reader may need those names. This is rarely the case for Wikipedia.
The next section is hard to write without names, though. Actually, it can go w/o names as well, but this would require rewriting. Besides, I don't see a point in having the 1954 and 2007 classifications when discussing near-metalloids (the text has only metalloids). Actually, are these authors crucial to the near-metalloid definition? Can't you go with something like "In 1935, a new concept of near-metalloids, elements that behaved like metalloids, but also like metals or nonmetals, emerged. This concept has occured in many works since then, and the elements classified as such were ..., ..., more rarely also ..." Authors are really secondary detail. They could be fine in a close-up spinoff article, but not in the overview article.
Done Trimmed and rewritten to tighten the focus; also changed the section title from special cases to honorable mentions (to better reflect the fact that the elements involved are ordinarily classified as metals and nonmetals). Superfluous refs still to be removed from References section.Sandbh (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On aurophilicity, see also.[23] -- shouldn't this very sentence be "see also [23]," as [23] isn't just a ref, but also a part of the sentence
Fixed
IE -- better spell out
Done
A more technical thing -- wikilinking is not always done at first occurrence. (Maybe there's a script that checks this. If you don't have it, tell me, and I'll fix it. errr, I only have the duplicate links script, sorry) An outsourceable thing. (I only noticed band gap inconsistency.)
Fixed, I believe. band gap wikilink. I have the script that checks for duplicate links but wasn't able to find a script for checking the first occurrence of wikilinks. Am checking this manually :( Done manually. I followed the WP guidance that said, 'Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.' and 'But note below that as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article.' Sandbh (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a very good article.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your considered comments. A few items for me still to attend to. Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four items to go, in total Sandbh (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two to go; one about changing the legend box for the dividing line into a line segment; the other about figure overload in the biographical sketches of the commonly recognised metalloids. Sandbh (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One left (the legend box). Sandbh (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- This has been open six weeks now without approaching consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly. It does appear that the article has improved since its first FAC so I'd encourage you to return here after the usual two-week break between FAC nominations. I'd also recommend, if you haven't already done so at some stage, inviting Squeamish Ossifrage and John to look over the article prior to that (sort of an informal peer review) to get their take on its readiness for another go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This dinosaur article was originally written for the German Wikipedia and than rewritten for the English Wikipedia. It has benefited a lot from an exhaustive GAN review by Zad68 and a "prepare for FAC" review by FunkMonk. We are looking forward to suggestions for further improvement. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query by ϢereSpielChequers Nicely written, I've made a couple of tweaks hope you like them, if not tis a wiki.
Did you mean conversative? If so you might want to add another meaning to wiktionary.
Are you sure about the twice as strong as the strongest living animal re the American alligator? I thought the Great White was twice as strong. Did you mean strongest bite of a land animal? ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I hope I was able to resolved these issues. For the American Alligator; a 2003 study indeed stated that it has the greatest measured bite force of any living animal. Well, the study calculating the bite force for the Great White Shark is from 2008, so the information just was outdated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support to get this moving. I did the GA review and checked the sourcing fairly well. I believe the sourcing meets FA standard, where I had questions I checked other dino FAs and they checked out. Zad68 14:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Dontreadalone (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC) This is a very nicely done article that I'm just about ready to support. But a couple of comments first.[reply]
As I noted in one of the edit summaries, references to scholarly results should generally take the present tense: "studies suggest" not "studies suggested." I believe I've changed all instances of this.
Are you sure? In the scientific literature as well as in other recent featured articles (e.g. Nigersaurus, Plateosaurus), the references always take past tense.
I've looked at some of your references and there is no consistent use of past tense although admittedly they don't use the present simple either. Rather, it's generally the present perfect (e.g. "...theropods from the Northern Hemisphere, have been interpreted by Bonaparte to be the result...") One ref I could find on this comes from the American Journal Experts and supports present perfect. Would you have a problem if I flipped it to that tense? Dontreadalone (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking that paper, that's interesting. The paper says that present perfect should only be used when the result of the cited study is still valid. However, we are Wikipedia, and in most cases cannot declare a study to be still valid without commiting POV. It also says that, when the study result is no longer considered valid, the past tense should be used. And there is this: "When referring specifically to the methods used in a previous paper, the past tense is best […] it is correct to say "Smith and Anderson sampled …". When searching for the string "suggested" in the featured article Edmontosaurus, most occurences are past tense. So I think it depends: A "suggestion" is a thought that someone has written down some time ago, it should be past tense. But "a comprehensive, much cited analysis" could be cited present perfect because it influences our current research. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"However, we are Wikipedia, and in most cases cannot declare a study to be still valid without commiting POV." I can't say I agree with that statement. If we say that one study is right and the other wrong we're committing POV, but simply putting forward results as currently pertinent is not POV. If there were no present validity to the papers we cite then we wouldn't be able to write anything at all. And consider the opposite implication. If we write "some studies suggested the animal was able to hunt down very large prey" then we're situating that research in the past and implying the results may no longer be applicable.
Anyway, we're spending a lot of time on something that's not a deal breaker either way. Would you like me to revert, leave as is, or audit this further with your definitions in mind? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not express myself well, I meant that we cannot use past tense and present perfect tense exactly as suggested by that paper because that would require declaring studies valid or invalid. I would be unhappy with switching to "present perfect only" without good reason. So lets leave it as it is now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your en dashes in favour of em dashes and then checked the MoS and found that spaced en dashes are still allowable. Apologies. Please feel free to revert that change if you like.
thanks!
You see in "Jaw function and diet" where we now have "flexibility (kinesis)" and "back of skull (occiput)"? There's no need to over-do it but I think you might audit this article for other instances where the reader would be similarly well served by having both the lay description and the technical term. There's an awful lot of vocabulary to absorb. I'm unfamiliar with dino articles so perhaps some understanding on this has been arrived at elsewhere.
I have removed one and linked several other technical terms, I hope it is a little bit better now. Most technical terms that still are in the article I'm not aware of an easy lay description though, so it may be better to rely on wikilinks alone. If you could name those sentences that troubled you most, I will try my best getting them more reader friendly, perhaps by adding additional sentences explaining the vocabulary.
I think the blue linking is good and I agree there's no simple way to unpack all the technical terms without making it clunky. So I am satisfied on this point. Isn't "keratinous integument" a wonderful phrase :)? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now just have used "skin" instead of "integument". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me how this notes and references sections are working. I don't think I've seen anything like it before. Sometimes you're referencing an entire article in the reference section and sometimes you're referencing specific page ranges within the article in the notes section?
I followed the featured article Plateosaurus here. This system was proposed during the Plateosaurus FAC or review. For most sources, precise page numbers are not necessary (so they only appear in the references section). Those sources that are in need for page numbers (whole books, lengthy papers) appear both in the references section and the extra section.
Hmm. Well, I don't think I'll make it an oppose basis but I can't say I like it. As one example you have "...and an unknown number of caudal vertebrae" linked directly to Bonaparte in the reference section but "...were sculptured with numerous small holes and spikes" linked to a page number in the notes. How did you decide what warranted what? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a better solution. When I started working on the article, I used the rp template to give precise page numbers (see Help:References and page numbers), but people were grumbling about that, so I switched to this style. This style was chosen during the Plateosaurus FAC preparation after lengthy discussions, so I thought it to be the best compromise. Its an advantage that you only have to give precise page numbers when you really need them: In your example, I cited Bonaparte directly without precise page numbers, because the info is spread over half the source (Bonaparte described each vertebra separately). I myself would have no problem with switching back to the rp template, but my WikiProject colleagues have some reservations about it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't insist you go back to it if you've already been pushed in this direction. Dontreadalone (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is extremely well-balanced with good sized sections. Without committing OR of course, could a couple of extra sentences be added, probably to paleoecology, describing the possible distribution of the genus? To what extent was its territory South America as we now know it versus Gondwana?
We can not say anything about distribution of this dinosaur because there is only one single find. I think it would, most probably, not have been present outside South America because South America was already separated from Africa during the late Cretaceous.
How about we at least say that? Or would you consider it OR? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reading, improving and commenting! I have placed my answers under each of your points. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to add another comment after supporting, but I noticed a comment on the Bonaparte back links on the talk that still hasn't been addressed. A number of the links are not working. Click on q, r, w or x, for instance, and they don't take you anywhere in the article. No idea why. Dontreadalone (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have fixed it now! The "name" tags simply were not working at all … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check
WP:IMAGELOCATION recommends against left-aligned images at the start of a section
Alt text would be nice, but apparently is not required for FA
Not necessary for FA, but this graphic could easily be cleaned up, removing artifacts and flattening the colours, which would also produce a smaller file.
I'll answer three of those, since the others seem to be taken care of. As I mentioned in another place, the image alignment issue is not widely agreed upon[94], and as for now has been pretty much dealt with on a case by case basis/left optional. I'm vehemently against the"guideline", but progress is slow on the talk page discussion. As for who created the image listed below, it was a well nown Russian WP user who doesn't edit anymore, but the image was transferred to Commons by someone else. Since it is PD, I and others have since edited the image. The one that links to itself is likely because both versions were merged, and a bot would then replace the "duplicate link with the kept name. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a well nown Russian WP user who doesn't edit anymore": I think the "Source" information needs to state the source explicitly
Selfmade or what? The source is Dimitry Bogdanov, the original uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"both versions were merged, and a bot would ...": Doesn't that leave us with a file with no source? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the author is listed, so the source is him. Could be replaced with "selfmade". FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source check
I looked through two major sources. LittleJerry (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mention Carnotaurus length or it being "one of the one of the largest abelisaurids".
The length estimate is stated in the second cite (p. 162 in Juárez Valieri et al. 2010). This paper cites the skeletal diagram in Bonaparte (1990) as the source for this estimation. So I have cited both sources. Now I have removed the Bonaparte (1990) source, to avoid confusion. I have added another source that explicitly states that Carnotaurus is one of the largest abelisaurids.
It mentions the bones being destroyed by weathering, not erosion. Wiki article states they are not to be confused.
Yes, you are right, I have corrected that, thank you.
There were a couple times (e. g: K, AD) were the source only partially supported a statement but in these cases it was one of two or more cites being used, so I'm assuming the other cites support the rest.
Yes, I usually don't cite more than one source for the same info. If there are two or more cites, the information probably is scattered over these sources (I have checked K and AD).
Citiation 6, Mazzetta et al. (1998); All good expect:
No comparison with humans/ostriches.
That information is from the second cite (Mazzetta and Farina 1999).
Support Comments -- As I have a FAC open myself at the moment, I'm recusing myself from delegate duties in a few cases to review. Although I like dinosaurs as much as anyone, I'm no expert, so this was mainly for prose and accessibility. I copyedited as I went, so pls let me know if I've misunderstood or broken anything. Generally I found the piece well-written and easy to comprehend. Outstanding points:
I don't think linking modern-day countries like Argentina is really necessary, probably not continents either...
You use the term "best-known" in the lead and several times in the main body. I gather this means "best-understood" (by experts), but "best-known" also sounds like "famous", which I assume is not the sense you're after...
Describing the forelimbs as "robust" in the main body sounds odd to me when they're characterised as "possibly functionless" in the lead, but perhaps I've missed something...
In Function of the horns you briefly mention and cite all the theories in the first para, then go on to expand upon those theories and cite them again. Although in FAs one is generally expected to cite absolutely everything, certainly at the end of a paragraph, I for one wouldn't object to you leaving the first para uncluttered by all those citations if all the information there is cited in the following exposition, as appears to be the case.
No dablinks but you have a few duplinks -- use this script to detect them and see if you really need them.
Hi Ian! Thank you very much for reviewing. I hope I have fixed all issues. I have removed the word "functionless" and used "vestigial" instead, because "functionless" is a over-simplification (the arm will never be entirely functionless). "Robust" and "functionless" sound contradictory, but the arms are functionless in every member of the abelisauridae, and in comparison with other abelisaurids, the arms of Carnotaurus are more robust, or more chunky (despite being even shorter than in other abelisaurids). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that works for me -- happy to support, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One caveat on my support, I just realised -- is this your first FAC, Jens? Someone should conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (fairly standard for first-time nominators) if that's the case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you did -- I was just on my way out when I made the last comment and only took in the heading title, which suggested a source review for formatting and reliability only. No issue then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about one of the most important sites of architectural, social and organisational history in Australia. The church has made a significant contribution to the city of Sydney since the earliest days of the colony of New South Wales and remains an important player in the city's religious, musical and official life. The article tries to capture the extent of that engagement over two hundred years and communicate the range of notable aspects (architectural, artistic, theological, musical, historical).
I have been working on it for a number of years trying to achieve a concise balance of these aspects. This is the first article I have nominated for FA. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment: One thing immediately noticeable is the lack of citations in certain areas. Nothing is cited in the "Location" section, and there are numerous instances in the rest of the article where citations are absent from paragraph endings. I also think you need to modify your opening line: "St James' Church, Sydney, commonly known as St James', King Street, is an Australian Anglican parish church situated in King Street in central Sydney." This clunks rather heavily, with "St James", "Sydney" and "King Street" all repeated – the final seven words seem entirely unnecessary. I have not read the article, merely glanced at it; the illustrations struck me as particularly impressive. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have modified the opening line and cited the Location section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Jim
Support Comments from Jim Having written a church FA myself, the least I can do is show solidarity! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current practice at FAC is to avoid refs in the lead, since it is a summary, and everything should be referenced later in the text.
- I have moved all the references in the lead to appropriate places in the body of the article and also refined the text of some of the relevant sections. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some text is unreferenced. There has been for a long time a completely OTT attitude to referencing here, you will need to reference or remove, however uncontroversial the claim. "Interior" is unsourced, and not purely descriptive —of the cool and restrained character... sympathetic addition...
- I have rewritten this part of the text to be more concise and more simply descriptive."Cool", "restrained" and "sympathetic" are gone. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will need references for everything, however obvious. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have referenced it to within a inch of its life, but will continue to scrutinise for missing ones. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fair amount of overlinking, suggest running the duplicate link tool
- It took a long time to develop this article in the course of which, some links were repeated. I have de-linked what I can find. Not sure whether things in the captions of images ought to be linked in addition to their links in the text. Caption links would help the reader but is that overlinking? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cleared the rest. The overlinking tool treats the lead and main text separately and ignores captions. Links in the latter are encouraged. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A location map within Sydney and a ground plan might help readers
Jackson's theological ideas did not make him popular with everyone, some conservatives regarding him as a heretic—We are given no indication of what heresy he may have been practicing.
- Apparently he was more intellectual and more favourable to the results of the German theologians than conservatives would have liked. I have revised the text and added refs. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
shell—more usual to have "scallop" or "scallop shell"
- I have consolidated the text from the "Windows" section with the "Interior" section and added refs to "Music". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NSW Environment & Heritage (2013). "St. James' Anglican Church". State Heritage researcher.—I see no indication that the publisher is State Heritage researcher. In fact the words appear nowhere in the text. NSWE&H is the publisher, AFAIK
- "Researcher" must have been a typo. I have changed it to "Register".
Official website. Rector and Churchwardens, St. James Church, King St., Sydney. 2013. Retrieved 17 November 2013. —again, where does it give the rector and churchwardens as the publishers on the linked page?
'' Dan Cruickshank in the BBC television series Around the World in 80 Treasures (2005). —I think you can give at least the episode (3) and preferably the timings
- I have added "Episode 3" to the ref. As for timings, is that relevant, given that the broadcasts would have been done at different times around the world? The date of production/release is given. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of timing within the broadcast, but I'll let that go unless other reviewers are unhappy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture And Design (20 October 2010). "Sydney's oldest church spire saved" architectureanddesign.com.au—I wouldn't give the author when there isn't one, and I'd give the publisher as Architecture and Design. Similarly for bellringers ref. Also Design 5 ref (although there is a name associated with the page at the bottom). In general, I don't think publishers should normally be shown as a web site.
- In changing author for publisher, I think I have fixed this but I am not sure if I have understood correctly what is required. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's good practice to not have the article title in captions unless it's unavoidable. I think there are still some images where you could safely lose the name of the church, since it's assumed to be what is shown unless otherwise stated. As far as I can see, there is only the Jennings comment that is unresolved now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this was pretty good in terms of content right from the start, and you have made every effort to follow our arcane policies and fashions at FAC. I've changed to support above now, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Hamiltonstone
Welcome, Whiteghost. There is much excellent work here, and as Brian mentioned, the illustration of the piece is extraordinary. Agree with Brian that there is an unusual absence of references in many places, that will have to be rectified. Other comments:
repetition in two different sections of the information that the Bacon brothers were responsible for windows installed in the early twentieth century.
"St James' continues to maintain a formal and sacramental liturgy and has weathered the storm of criticism from a diocese with increasingly "Low Church" practices". This sentence appears out of place, isolated amongst material that is about more clearly historical aspects of architecture, heritage, use of the building etc. At the very least it belongs in the 21st century subsection, as it refers to "continuing" to do something.
Done Yes. I moved this to the Liturgy section where it seems to support a point rather than being out of place. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"St James' is one of the few Sydney Anglican churches that has maintained the norms of mainstream Anglican tradition...These practices distinguish St James' from most Anglican churches in the Sydney diocese" The effect of this para seems to me to be of having a bit of a dig at the Sydney diocese. But it relies on a single source, who is an author who stands very much on one side of that particular debate. It might be better to begin the para to read that "Writer Muriel Porter has argued that..."
Done I deleted the part about the diocese's difference in style as it is mentioned elsewhere and left the other part to describe the liturgy after resequencing the points being made. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May look at more later, once the referencing is sorted. Ping my talk page if you have any questions. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why most of the text under "Location" is about the context of surrounding buildings and streets, some with no substantive connection to the church (eg. court, philip street). Some could be deleted, but I also think the material about the surrounding notable colonial buildings (barracks, mint building etc) might be better in the later section on architecture, establishing its heritage / architectural significance. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have rewritten and relocated much of the text in this section. Some has been moved to "architecture" and some has been deleted as suggested. I hope the relevance is now much clearer. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general those changes are good, but the text "The church's ministry to Sydney's legal fraternity is facilitated by its proximity to buildings used by the profession..." is not supported by the cites - i see no evidence of some particular ministry to the legal fraternity. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have moved some content from the "Location" section to the "Community Service" section to support this claim better in the same way that some of the "Location" material was moved to the "Architecture" section. I also added an image. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is sometimes excessive information about the rectors in the text, which I would have thought should remain focussed on the church itself. You might want to write a related list article, List of rectors of St James' Church, Sydney, if you want to aggregate that information. It should mainly be kept where the text about the person ties in to what happened to the church (eg. commissioning alterations to reflect religious views, or major public controversy about the church). There is also duplication: there is all this detail about the rectors, yet there is also a list of them near the end. Suggest delete the list. Material about rectors that could go:
"Robert Cartwright, appointed as Hill's successor, had served at Windsor and Liverpool. In 1838, after a short tenure at St James', he resigned to take up an itinerant ministry in the Riverina and Southern Tablelands[22] where he built his own church and from his base at Collector, "travelled upwards of 25,000 miles" in the course of his work.[25] Cartwright was followed by the clever but eccentric George Napoleon Woodd whom Broughton shortly transferred to Bungonia (a rural parish).[26][22]"
Details regarding Allwood: "...educated at Eton College and the University of Cambridge, arrived in Sydney.[14][27] Although in very poor health upon his arrival, Bishop Broughton appointed him to St James',[14] in which parish, having recovered his health, ..." and "He served on the senate and as vice-chancellor of Sydney University."
Details regarding Jackson: "...described as having "an alert and somewhat impetuous brain, at work in an atmosphere conservative and conventional".[31] "His sermons were not so much opposed, as simply not understood."[32] A young and comparatively inexperienced cleric from Cambridge,..." and "...lectured at Sydney University, addressed conferences, spoke at synod, was secretary to the newly established Sydney Church of England Boys' Grammar School[33] and introduced a magazine called The Kalendar - one of Australia's first parish papers..."
Regarding Carr Smith, "Carr Smith worked with the Sisters of the Church and became the Chaplain of the Sydney Hospital."
Done I have tightened up the information on the rectors that was in the history sections as you and User:M.O.X both wanted. I moved the detail about Carr Smith to his article that I wrote earlier and have saved the detail about Jackson for when his article is written. The detail about Allwood was already in his article (a pre-existing one that needs work). I retained the information about Allwood's education for the reasons given earlier in this discussion. I think the list of rectors should stay because that is what a reader would refer to and it also gives their dates of service. It is true though, that detail about them in the general text is perhaps not on-topic. I thought about creating a list article for the rectors but I think their having individual bio articles would be more useful.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no substantive referencing for the para that begins "The patterns of worship and community service established by the first rector continue to the present..." The only two cites are to hundred-year old newspaper articles used to substantiate the claim about what used to happen at St James. We need an independent reliable source for the claims about current practice.
Done I have added two website refs - one to a tourist site which gives the service times and one to the church's official website which keeps special service times updated. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I looked at both sources. The St James source provided no text to support the contention for the claim of continuity in patterns of worship and community service; the second website did at least list the current pattern of services but it was a pretty poor-looking source that for all we know is aggregating data from places like wikipedia and organisation websites. Current practice is adequately dealt with in later sections in any case. I have removed the first two sentences.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the continuity comes across in the rest of the article and we don't need the sentences, then good. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the section on the choir should be deleted, unless there is historically significant information verifiable from reliable sources. (eg. the role of George Faunce Allman perhaps?) hamiltonstone (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done This section has been tightened. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - the overwhelming majority of this text remains uncited - for FA it will need to be removed if reliable source citations cannot be found.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-done I have rewritten the section to show the continuity of the choir from 1827 till now and added citations. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sort of. The following elements still have no cite:
"The current choir is composed of about a dozen semi-professional adults. They sing on Sundays at the 11.00 am Choral Eucharist, Wednesdays at the 6:15 pm Choral Evensong, monthly at the 3.00 pm Choral Evensong held on the last Sunday of the month, as well as at a number of midweek feast days held during the year."
"...performed with international touring groups such as with the Tallis Scholars' Summer School; broadcast on ABC Radio, both in their own right as well as with leading ensembles such as Australian Baroque Brass; given a recital at the Art Gallery of New South Wales; and toured the Southern Highlands. "
"In January, during the summer holiday period, St James' presents three full orchestral Masses during which liturgical music composers such as Mozart, Haydn and Schubert is used for its original purpose and incorporated into the service. On these occasions, the choir is joined by a small orchestra."
The list of choirmasters (bar one)
In addition, the way that historical material has been added represents a kind of synthesis of news sources being used as primary sources, rather than as secondaries, as WP requires. What I mean by that is: you are quoting a number of reports as proof the choir existed, but I feel that 4 of the 5 actual reports themselves are of unencyclopedic content - material that itself isn't relevant to or enhancing the article ("and a few months' later a singer is being publicly criticised: "If her pronunciation were as pleasing as her notes, she would be entitled to unqualified praise."[146] In 1829, there is a call for people "of either sex" to join the choir[147] and by 1897, the setting for the choral communion is specified in reports as Marbeck's.[148] By 1901, the choir's annual picnic is being reported"). I would suggest just "St James' first had a choir in early colonial times, when Mr Pearson in 1827 accepted the office of choir leader.[145]" and delete the rest of that para.
Fixed? I have rewritten the choir section again and found more references for it. Is it better now? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is significantly better. However, I can see three problems. First, I don't think the quote is very interesting or of encyclopedic significance in this context, and I would omit it. Second, i think your revisions have introduced inconsistency in the footnote / referencing style. Should not Pleskun be cited Harvard style and listed in the bibliography? Someone should have a run through to check this (but see next point). The biggest problem, though, is that I don't think Pleskun meets our criteria for being a reliable source. It is a self-published work by someone who does not appear to hold a significant post (not an established music academic, for example), and does not appear to have published other works on the subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am painfully aware that I was unable to match lovely consistent reference style. After engaging in some battles with it I was defeated. I could not yet the new book refs into the Bibliography without creating further problems. Need help with this coding!!! The books are good sources. (I have their physical copies before me.) It is a pity to have to remove Pleskun as the list of Australian composers whose work was premiered at the church is impressive. I rather like the quote as it is what the a contemporary choirmaster would say and since Pearson was the first I thought it showed the continuity and gave the tone but perhaps it should be shortened. Will think on it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new Pleskun reference looks beautiful now. Thanks. I think if it has an ISBN number it must be good enough as a a source. I have removed most of the premiered composers from the list in the text. As I commented below, in response to User:99of9, there were too many and if that Pleskun reference stays, readers can easily look up the others, since the page numbers are there. I have also de-emphasised the Pearson quote, which is, as you say, not so interesting to justify a blockquote but I think good enough to run in the text. Do you agree?
Anyone can get an ISBN - it doesn't mean squat, I'm afraid. I would normally take a hard line against such a source, but let's see what others say - it certainly isn't a contentious subject area, so that at least counts in its favour. I'm afraid I find the quote boring and off-topic, so I am unmoved. But I'm just one opinion, and I'm not going to oppose FA on that ground! hamiltonstone (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay, I have reduced it substantially because it is a bit boring and because I am grateful for your ref fix. I have a citation about an unknown woman dropping dead during a wedding. I could add that for a bit of excitement? :) Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added this odd report to the "Congregation" section because it seemed to support the point. Then I removed it because was unhelpful. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is all fixed, but I left this unstruck so people could see that I left open the issue of whether we accept the Pleskun source. It won't affect my support for the article.hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also put the other new book source (John Whiteoak and Aline Scott-Maxwell, footnote #121) in the bibliography please?Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the para that begins "The church was constructed between 1820 and 1824..." there are two instances where a sentence contains a direct quote, followed by two citations. You need to separate the citations, placing immediately after the quoted words the cite from which those words come. At present, the reader cannot tell which of two works used those words. This can be particularly important in cases - such as this one - where one of those citations is not independent. The article relies at times significantly on church publications. This is OK for facts such as when a rector served or when a service takes place, but it is not OK for contested information or statements as to the significance of merit of the church or its buildings. We cannot rely on the church itself to assess its own merit, whether architectural or otherwise! Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed "Fine Georgian" are the words of the historians Judd and Cable; the other reference is to the 1963 history of the church which on p12 explains in detail the changes that were made by Carr Smith's plan. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noted two instances above, but you appear only to have fixed the first.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Relying on the "virtues of simplicity and proportion to achieve his end",[81][82]..." hamiltonstone (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2014 (e nUTC)
Fixed "virtues of simplicity and proportion" is quoted from Freeland. Apperly & Lind are supporting the points about design. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References (particularly references to websites recently added I think) need to be improved and brought into line with others. Best to use the {{citeweb}} template. They are missing things like the publisher and retrieval date.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Started. Fixed I fixed one of them and am looking for the others. I was tired and lost the ref plot. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MOSREF. There just aren't enough details here. And I'm not sure why this is being done as a harvard-style footnote using the {{sfn}} template, given that it isn't a reference ton item in the bibliography. The better approach is along the lines of footnotes 5 or 6 (though that is the bare minimum of bibliographic info). Here's a switch I did with one of them, using the citeweb template. Have a go at the others, and get back to me. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed? I believe these are now all swapped out from the sfn style to the cite web style. It took a while but here's the diff of all the edits. There are now no more of this type left as far as I can see. Hopefully this is what you've been looking for. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is much better. One further thing: Footnote 178 you have the retrieval date but not the date of publication. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 178 isn't a web reference so I think you don't mean that one. Nevertheless I checked through all cite-web references and ensured there is a year or date parameter in all of them (diff). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake for not making my point as a separate bullet: I did mean the Peter McCallum article (now note 184) lacks a publication date. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ref #84 (McCallum) now has a publication date. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 103 states that a window was the gift of certain people. I'm not sure why their identities is important but if it is, we need a citation for the fact.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean footnote #106? It appears the Lloyd family were generous benefactors and they donated the altar in memory of their son who was appointed as the first server at St James'. There is a reference to this fact in the "Interior" section. I added the name in response to a reviewer request for it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote states "Gift of Mr & Mrs L.T. Lloyd". My question is: what is the reliable source for the information that the window was the gift of the Lloyds?hamiltonstone (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I added the source. I was previously daunted by adding a ref within a ref but when pushed, it seems to have worked all right. Yes? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 24 (Dr Micklem) has this "The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney: Fairfax Media)" but others have "The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney)" and others eg 167 "The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, NSW)" and others again eg 29 "The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW: 1842 - 1954) (NSW)." There needs to be consistent treatment of these newspaper sources (sorry to keep raising this!). In this case the last of those four formats is one generated automatically by the Trove database of the National Library. For all articles that are linked to a trove copy (and i think that is most if not all -re-1955 news items), I would adopt that format. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done I have gone through now and made consistent not just SMH references but all references to newspapers. Here is the diff. When it is a newspaper article in Trove I have used the style that they recommend (e.g. [[The Newcastle Herald|Newcastle Morning Herald & Miners' Advocate (NSW : 1876 - 1954)]] ) and I have removed the "location" field in these instances since the town and/or state is always mentioned in the Trove title (see also for example "Illustrated Sydney News (NSW: 1853 - 1872)" or "Queanbeyan Age (NSW: 1867 - 1904)"). It would be redundant to repeat that information. By contrast, in the much smaller number of cases where it is a reference to a contemporary newspaper article online (e.g. smh.com.au) I have left the "location" field in place and used the simple, un-piped, link to the newpaper's own article (e.g. newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]|location=Sydney, NSW| etc.). The only exception to this is the Trove link to the Australian Womens Weekly which uses the formal trove title and a location field since the Trove title does not include any location information in it. I hope this is satisfactory. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous. (you gave the wrong diff, so I hope you don't mind but I inserted what I think is the correct one). hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The final image of a bell appears to have lost its caption.
There is no cited source for the entire last section of names of the bells and the final sentence re the Mears Bell. I realise it is self-evident that a bell called Lachlan Macquarie is named for the governor - what is not self-evident is that that bell has a name in the first place.
Ref added One news source gives the names of some of the bells. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be difficult, but you a need a ref for all the facts, not just a selection of them. It can be a St James page in this case (and do keep that news item, it is an excellent source), but there has to be something.hamiltonstone (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref The two sentences about the bells (dedication and names) have been merged to show the reference to the pdf that gives their names better. The weights are also in the ref.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent and very diligent work by Whiteghost and colleagues. Incidentally, this is one of the best illustrated articles I've seen in a long while. Well done, support, assuming the bell names get a citation.hamiltonstone (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, people. I will work through these problems. If you find any more, please advise. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are new here, but please note that you should not strike comments yourself, it's for the reviewer to decide whether the response is adequate. Just write on the next line an indented "Done" (don't use a template) or a longer explanation if necessary, and sign each response. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Ok. I thought I was supposed to do it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
"Changes" image caption should end in period, 2006 image caption shouldn't
All the image captions now have consistent punctuation. Wittylama 00:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:St_James_church,_Sydney.jpg: the museum isn't the author
Er, no it doesn't? Here, author is listed as "Powerhouse Museum". Even if it listed Sardaka, that's not correct either...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was looking at a different image. I've now updated the metadata for that picture - taken by Henry King - including the category for the photographer, database record in the Powerhouse as well as Flickr Commons. (diff). Wittylama 04:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does Australia have freedom of panorama for stained glass? It definitely doesn't for engravings or murals, so you'll need to provide additional licensing info for those. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#Australia "'works of artistic craftsmanship' such as...crafted glass" is ok so that should be fine. The contemporary stained glass in the 'holy spirit' chapel is in copyright, but is most certainly permanently installed in a public place. I've added a FoP license tag to the image. Wittylama 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since its early ministry to the convict population of Sydney, St James' has maintained a continuity in its service of the city's poor and needy. - not fond of the wording here - sounds weird....
Fixed I rephrased it. Is it better? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Across the square the Hyde Park Barracks building, Greenway's "masterpiece" designed to align with the church. - needs a verb?
Fixed Yes, you are right. It does. I added one. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the late 1820s, the St James' suffered from a major scandal. - "the" before St James? Also, it flows better if you flip the clauses and place the bit before the comma at the end.
and in 1827, on visiting St James', entered into a conflict with a parishioner - "entered into a conflict" is a bit wordy and flows oddly. Could be reworded more succinctly. Better yet, do we know the nature of the conflict...
Fixed Rephrased to be tighter and give a better explanation as well as a better idea of the nature of the conflict. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Missed "entered into conflict" before. Yes, odd. Now reads "came into conflict". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and was in danger of being resumed as the site of a railway station - "resumed" is a funny verb here to my ears...
- "Resumed" is the correct technical term for this. It is the term used in the sources and also the term still used in similar circumstances when the government wants to acquire land for the purposes of public infrastructure. If the land on which St James' stood had been resumed for a railway, the church would have been demolished. Similarly, extending the railway terminus into the Park, according to Cable & Annable (1999), would have "render[ed] the position of St James' impossible". (p.26) I have used a more direct quote to clarify. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
St James' continued to be a participant in the life of the city throughout the 20th century and the locus of many notable events - people participate, not inanimate objects. In fact I'd let the facts speak for themselves and trim to, "St James' was the locus of many notable events throughout the 20th century"
I removed the "As in previous centuries," as it adds nothing. Reads the same without it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to write "as in the previous century" (since there was only one before the 20th). The idea was to convey that notable events were not new to the 20th century - they had been happening since the beginning. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
where he built his own church and from his base at Collector, "travelled upwards of 25,000 miles". - the last segment needs some sort of preposition I think...?
There were a number of threats in the 20th century to the church's historic environment - not happy with this segment either as I think it can be written better but concede nothing comes to mind straightaway....
Reworded I had another go at this to give it a better flow and make more sense. Hoping to have succeeded in showing that it kept on going in the 20th century, in spite of colonial architecture being unfashionable and the land being valuable. Oh, and the small matter of World War II. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One expression of St James' long-standing concern with social justice is the Sister Freda Mission,... - this comes across as laboured. I'd trim and just write what Sister Freda Mission does
Fixed Yes. Added a fact about its date of commencement and re-phrased. Hopefully it is more direct and clearer. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
has been celebrated as an "architectural gem" - "celebrated" comes across as effusive; why not just "called"?
Fixed Was trying to emphasise the notability but perhaps waxed too lyrical. Changed to "called". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While Sydney prospered, St James' had an acute shortage of money.. - I don't think "While" is a strong enough contrastive here...I think I might say "Although Sydney was prospering, St James' had an acute shortage of money..." or something similar.
The stained glass fanlight depicting James and John, the sons of Zebedee - link the biblical figures and unlink further down.
Done Relocated link and added one to Zebedee. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just an encouraging note, I don't think there are a huge number of tweaks needed to tighten prose and I think this is doable over the course of this FAC. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, leaning support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending supports by others. The prose has tightened up considerably, which is a Very Good Thing - but have read it a few times now so may have missed some (so I can't rule out others finding prose issues) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from M.O.X
"In 1839 the Reverend Robert Allwood arrived in Sydney. He had been educated at Eton and Cambridge and had ministered in Bristol. Although he was in very poor health upon his arrival, Bishop Broughton appointed him to St James'. His health recovered and he served the parish for 44 years until his retirement in 1884. Allwood was an important patron of education in Victorian Sydney. Under him, the parish school expanded to 400 pupils and a training college was established for secular and theological students. He served on the senate and as vice-chancellor of Sydney University."
That is just one of many paragraphs which have little relevance to the Church itself. How is Allwood's background at all relevant to his ministry and service?
Response His education is significant as a reason for choosing him, as well as in light of the level of education of most people in the period and for St James' reputation for scholarly leaders. I have tightened the sentence to try to make it more concise and in doing so, have removed where he served earlier. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response Allwood's education. This is the Colonies, 10,000 miles from England. Allwood's education was highly significant in a place with no university. Allwood's ministry framed the ethos of St James.
Then there is the matter of lofty writing:
One of Greenway's finest works...
- There is a discussion on the Talk page about this - it is generally agreed and the consensus seemed to be just to accept that and say so. There is also the "fine Georgian" quote as a second source. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response: There is no question whatsoever about this being "one of Greenway's finest works". If it wasn't for the existence of St Matthew's, Windsor, we would simply be writing "Greenway's finest work". There are about ten (10) buildings or part thereof that can with reasonable certainty be attributed to Greenway, so "one of the finest is certainly not making too strong a claim.
Apart from these vestries, which retain the established style and the proportions, the church externally remains "fine Georgian" much as Greenway conceived it. Relying on the "virtues of simplicity and proportion to achieve his end", Greenway maintained the Classical tradition, unaffected by the Revivalist styles
- This may be controversial in terms of language in WP, but the "simplicity and proportion" part is quoted as a fairly standard piece of architectural criticism in order to highlight how the effect of the building is achieved and in particular, how it differed from what was going on at the time. Georgian style is rare here and this section is an attempt to explain what it is and how other architectural approaches, such as adding more decoration or copying other styles (known as "Revivalism") are different as well as more common in Sydney. Revivalism is also linked to help make this distinction. However, if there is consensus that this attempt to describe Georgian should be excised, we will have to do so. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response. It's Sydney. New South Wales has thousands of Victorian buildings, but only a tiny number of Georgian/Early Colonial buildings, of which three are churches of a refined Georgian style, and several more are vernacular Georgian or early attempts at Gothick (St Thomas's, Mulgoa, 1838) For someone outside Australia it is hard to conceive how a church less than 200 years old, and of an architectural form very common in England, and even reasonably common in the eastern states of the US, can be so rare that it is regarded as a national treasure of the utmost importance. The little precinct of buildings dating from 1811, 1819 and 1824 represents the material core of Australia's history. In the history of this country, the buildings are the equivalent of Westminster Abbey and Westminster Hall. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, however, that still doesn't change the fact that there are still present in the article, trivial facts like such as this one:
"In 1900, the Governor, Earl Beauchamp, presented to the church a number of embroidered stoles made by the Warham Guild of London, along with copes and chasubles."
These are not encyclopedic and are tangentially relevant at best. James(T • C) • 12:30am • 13:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response it' not trivial. Believe me, in Sydney, the possession of embroidered stoles, copes and chasubles is highly unusual. These are among the "treasures of the church". Describing a church's vestments (if they are rare) is common, execpt that in England one might be describing vestments that were from the 17th century, and possibly even medieval. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response There are two reasons for the Beauchamp and vestments sentence. The first is that Beauchamp was one of the many Governors who had specific dealings with St James' (in this case, he gave gifts). The article tries to show that such connections with the Governors are part of the church's relationship with "official Sydney" - a point which is made in the lead. The first Governor obviously was Macquarie who wanted the church built. Davidson is another mentioned, as is the current one, Bashir, who, nearing the end of her term, attended the church for this year's Festival of Nine lessons and Carols, as recently as last week. The second reason is that the matter of vestments has been an issue of some dispute in the Diocese for more than a hundred years and St James' takes a different view from the rest of the Diocese. So this sentence helps build up the picture with a succinct, citable fact. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Please do not remove maintenance tags, I applied those to the sections because the matter of weasel words was not isolated to one or two sentences:
Response: Obviously, the article is currently under close scrutiny and specific concerns are being addressed via this discussion. Adding tags is unnecessary, unhelpful and distracting. Please stop adding tags and instead consider the responses and amendments being made so the article can reach an acceptable standard. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The porticos are of Sydney sandstone; the roof, originally shingled, is of slate and the spire is wooden construction sheathed in copper.
The original interior differed greatly in layout from that of the present. There was no structural chancel, the focus of the church being a large pulpit.
At various periods, the crypt was neglected.
Response
The first sentence seems clear. I do not know what you are referring to as a problem.
This section is about to describe the church as it currently stands. Previously, in the section History there has been a detailed description of the previous state of the church, the triple-decker pulpit, and the aisles on three side. But all this is history. The reader, who gets to this sentence, has been informed of that stuff, and is now simply reminded that this is not the original layout.
At various periods, the crypt was neglected. The sentence can probably be omitted, and just state that the crypt was restored. Amandajm (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, per the quotes and the matter of lofty writing, I have applied {{peacock}} templates to the relevant sections. Until the writing style is inline with the stipulations of the Manual of Style, I'd ask that you refrain from removing these tags. Thank you. James(T • C) • 12:36am • 13:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response As we are all working on fixing it, we don't need tags right now. The article is not abandoned or unnoticed. It's under review, which is precisely what tags are hoping to achieve. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its original ministry was to the convict population of Sydney, and it has continued to serve the city's poor and needy in succeeding centuries.
That statement is itself trivial as, on its own, no significance is lended to that sentence immediately after. I'd suggest revisions based on what is available in the given references. James(T • C) • 12:43am • 13:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response This sentence in the lead is an attempt to do two things: the first is to inform readers who do not know right at the beginning that a large proportion of the congregation were convicts (which is rather unusual); the second is to summarise the fact (subsequently developed in the body of the article) that the church continued to serve other marginalized groups as the centuries went on. If the sentence is failing in these purposes, it will need to be improved. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I question the relevance of various statements located throughout the article, one of which is located in the lead. These issues need to be addressed and I feel this FAC is being rushed. I do not support the article's promotion at this time vis-à-vis these issues. James(T • C) • 3:15pm • 04:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree (regarding writing style) - I've found some examples to trim, and suggest "most highly-regarded" for "finest" (more neutral-sounding). I will try to find more to list and/or fix. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to trim and make more concise - as I said, it's been a long time researching and writing and there has been a lot of things to check and work out how/whether to include them. However, the reviewers have specifically asked that references be removed from the lead which I did systematically and rewrote parts of the text at the same time. The citations and explanations for the claims made in the lead are in the body of the article. The lead tries to summarise the contents of the article which aims to cover the range of notable aspects of the topic. These aspects include architectural notability (things about the building) and organisational notability (things about the activities of the leaders and the congregation); notable events (things that happened at the church), as well as some historical/ biographical/ social aspects that are notable insofar as they are connected with it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss as to why this sentence is necessary:
St James' provides a comprehensive record of Sydney history in both physical and documentary form.
There isn't exactly a shortage of Sydney history, why is the St. James collection at all significant or important? James(T • C) • 5:34pm • 06:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response a comprehensive list of births, baptisms, marriages and deaths from earliest colonial times constitutes an extremely rare and highly valued primary source for historians. There is hardly another such record available. The fact that even though it is no longer the only record of these events, it is still a part of the record right up to the present day, makes this a truly remarkable document. The citation points out that at the beginning, these were hand written. The "physical " record is the architecture, whose rarity and value is discussed above. Perhaps it needs to be better expressed but it is very notable and important fact. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An additional part of the historical record is provided by the memorials, which, as a collection, are of unique importance in Australia because of their number, their early dates, and the historic significance of the individuals who are commemorated. Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Mirokado
An interesting article which I am sure I can support once you have responded to a few comments...
A few images are missing alt text, in Crypt and Children's Chapel, Memorials and monuments, Worship and ministry, Theology, Education, Description, Architecture, Chapel of the Holy Spirit, Music, Choir, Bells
Done All the images now have alt texts. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:1 St James j.JPG, being really fussy here, the alt text could start with a capital letter
To comply with MOS:EMDASH, please use either unspaced emdash or spaced endash consistently in sentences.
Fixed I think these have all now been done. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has xx — yy (xx — yy, spaced emdash).
We need either xx—yy (xx—yy, unspaced emdash) or xx – yy (xx – yy, spaced endash).
Depending a bit on the fonts being used, you normally can't see the difference in the editing or code view but the emdash is wider in the article, just as "m" is wider than "n" in a proportional typeface. endash and emdash are the first two items in the Wiki markup selection of the Insert dropdown which appears under the editing window (if CharInsert is enabled under Preferences -> Gadgets). --Mirokado (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone help with this? I understand the problem but I have failed to grasp how to make them consistent. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do this now. --Mirokado (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done I changed them to spaced endash, since you would not have added the nbsp unless you wanted them.
But I did not see the information in this sentence expanded and sourced in the rest of the article just by searching for it. It would help if the reader can search for "sexuality" or "ordination of women" and easily find the relevant text in the body of the article. (Womens' ordination is in fact covered adequately, sexuality is mentioned but the stance taken is implied rather than stated).
Fixed? A search for "sexuality" in the article will show that it appears in two places - in the lead and in the "21st century" section where there are two references about the church's attitude to the subject. "Sexual orientation" is also in the "Theology" section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here may be more "how I would try to do things" than "something necessary for a FA". I will leave it unstruck in case we can agree to any update but am now changing the section heading to "Support".
Only by reading the first sexuality reference is it explicitly clear that St James' is taking a liberal view in the debate (a generous minister might welcome all while preaching strict traditional values). This could be briefly stated explicitly in the theology section. The second reference is to a rather clever sermon which is more relevant to the stance on refugees (also mentioned) than sexuality.
The coverage of women in the ministry is fine, but I would prefer to see the same text ("ordination of women" or whatever, with the current link) appearing in both the lead and the relevant section. --Mirokado (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Archdeacon Scott ordered that Hall should vacate the pew he rented at St James' for himself and his six daughters. As Scott continued to occupy the pew, constables attended Sunday services to prevent his occupation of the pew by boarding it up and making it secure with iron bands. Looks as if this should read "As Hall continued ...".
Hall appealed to Reginald Heber, Bishop of Calcutta, and to the law for damages. No mention of Heber in the reference (currently number 20). Why to Heber? The ref says he won 25 pounds damages, we should say that or the reader will say "and...?"
Done I explained this oddity in the text. Sydney was in the same diocese as Calcutta at the time. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have also added a mention of the 25 pounds. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changes: 1884–1904:
... a new portico as and entrance to the tower ... Should be "as an entrance".
An apse had been set into ... The tense implies that this change had already been made. If that is so, we need a bit more context about when and why and perhaps that bit moved earlier in the narrative. Alternatively, say "An apse was set into ..." if the changes were contemporaneous.
Three services on Sundays supplemented by weekday services, remains the norm. Should be "... remain the norm", unless we say something like: "The schedule of three ...".
... its walls defined by brick pilasters into a series of bays with the same proportions as the wall itself. I think "divided" would be better than "defined". I'm having trouble trying to imagine how the bays can have the same proportions as the wall itself. Perhaps a picture would help, although we still need text for the visually impaired.
Fixed. Yes, the only possible answer to this description is that the bays are the same proportion as the wall, turned vertically. Too much! Amandajm (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interior: ... a commemorative gift from the family of the first server at St James'. Please add the name here, "... a commemorative gift from the family of whoever, the first server at St James'."
Crypt and Children's Chapel: ... in 1977-78. Needs an en-dash. Please check the rest of the article. User:GregU/dashes.js can be your friend.
Fixed I think these are all correct now. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Memorials and monuments: I suggest the lang template thus: "{{lang|la|a latrone vagante occis}}" for "a latrone vagante occis".
Done I didn't know about this template before. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Renovation, restoration, conservation: Please wikilink "The restorations were awarded the National Trust Built Heritage Award ...". Ah, I see it is linked a bit later on with the full title, but this is the first occurrence...
Please wikilink Benevolent Society and Bible Society. Purists will say that we shouldn't add wikilinks to a quotation. I suggest, since this is just a list, restricting the direct quote to and "various convict establishments and a range of schools.", in which case you can clarify "the Hospital" and "Industrial Schools" too.
..., presided over by the Rev. C. Kemp, "of inestimable value ...", ... This will flow better if the two comma-separated phrases are joined by a conjunction instead of another comma: ..., presided over by the Rev. C. Kemp and "of inestimable value ...", ...
Choir: The choir have ... – and broadcasts regularly ... Probably "has" and "broadcasts" here, since later usages are also singular. (I think it is OK to use "they" when referring particularly to the choir members).
Happy new year. --Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these helpful suggestions, Mirokado. You have picked up some things that do need fixing. I have been out of internet range for a few days and will work through your suggestions (and the others) as soon as I can. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your responses and updates. The remaining unstruck issue can be dealt with by normal editing, so I am happy to support this excellent article for featured status. --Mirokado (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: evangelical Christian from the same diocese
I've rewritten and moved a sentence about being the oldest extant church. Since this article is about St James as an institution, it is not the oldest church institution, it is only has the oldest extant building. Feel free to further copyedit, but the distinction needs to be clear.
"moderate Anglo-Catholic"... the word moderate only appears in the lead. I agree it's probably a useful term, but because it could be contested, we need to leave it out or add a sourced sentence in the liturgy section.
Done I have sourced the word "moderate" in the "Theology" section and the 'anglo-catholicism" description is extensively discussed throughout the article. So I think such a summary in the lead is now fully justified. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the word "liberal" in the lead equivalent to Liberal Christianity? If so, wikilink. If not, I think we need a link here and in the theology section to the applicable theological classification.
Linking it to that article would be misleading. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is there a clear theological classification the teaching fits into? --99of9 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above "Moderate anglo-catholic" ought to work for an article such as this. It is discussed and cited and "Anglo-Catholic" is linked. There is a great deal that could be said (and indeed has been) about the theology but I do not think this article can support much of that discussion, given its scope. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I have added some more text to try to give a sense of the history of this in the colony and the Church of England as a whole as well as some flavour of one relevant meaning among the many accorded to the word "liberal".Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cites are more watertight now. It's a pity Carnley didn't specifically mention St James'. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an extra reference to Carnley earlier in the article to give some support his involvement with this particular church. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revd Susanna Pain - I've slightly edited this sentence for clarity for those not familiar with the diocese.
"a more liberal perspective than most churches in the diocese on ... sexuality" Can the different position on sexuality be spelled out better in the Theology section? "welcom[ing] ... regardless of ... sexual orientation" is a statement that most churches would support.
Reworded I made this more explicit and moved the reference. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both cites used the term "same-sex marriage" not "sexuality", so I've switched it over. If you find any refs about their theology of sexuality per se, feel free to re-add it later. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The parish at St James' has a more liberal perspective" I think you need a better subject to this sentence... the parish is a geographic region. It would be hard to source "the parishioners", so perhaps simply "the current teaching" (or can you source a persistent historical difference)?
Deleted "the parish". Yes, that was sloppy. In fact, there has been a persistent historical difference which I hope the body of the article communicates. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happier with the current "St James' has..." but I still think "The teaching at St James' has..." is technically better, since evangelicals within the church may prefer not to be bundled in (just as many at St James' may not be happy with the statement "Sydney is an evangelical diocese"). --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refined as requested. There are also several different meanings of "Evangelical", some of them historically significant in this context, but can't really go into that as well. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the railway station was named after the church. If so, it would be good to say so and source (to a newspaper from the time?).
Done The naming of the station and this reference have been added.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"At one time, the parish extended as far as Sydney Heads but St James' acquired its own parish in 1835" does this mean the area to Sydney Heads was initially shared (with who?)? "At one time" is vague - isn't this "until 1835"? Can you reword to make this clearer?
Done Tried to make this clearer by rewriting and adding another reference. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with extra refs, but I find the current version confusing: "The geographical parish of St James' is one of the 57 parishes of Cumberland County, New South Wales, which in earlier times extended as far as Sydney Heads, encompassing other churches including those from different denominations."
Was it Cumberland County that extended as far as Sydney Heads, or St James' parish? What do you mean encompassing other churches? Surely St James can't have ever encompassed any Anglican ones, as they would have their own Parish? And I don't think it makes sense to encompass non-Anglican ones, because even if they're in an Anglican Parish, they're either non-parochial or they have an overlapping (e.g. Roman Catholic) parish of their own.
Tried to make this clearer by simplifying. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have the encompassing removed. I still can't parse which thing extended to Sydney Heads. Cumberland County still does. St James' didn't have its own Parish yet? --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited this to my understanding of the situation. Feel free to reword further. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"box pews" is there an applicable wikilink for those not acquainted with these?
Where does "400 pupils" come from? I couldn't find it in the ADB article. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tightened Also, some of this is in the Education section, so I removed the figure. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Movement and Tractarianism both redirect to the same place, so I'm not sure we need two wikilinks. But I'm not sure, because it's not obvious they'd be the same.
Clarified I have explained that they are the same thing and why in the text and smoothed some of the related chronology. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Latimer Jackson. Served for 10 years, is there nothing in the sources about him personally/theologically?
Added There is quite a lot about him and I have restored some to give some continuity. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this info is relevant. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Carr Smith led St James' towards Anglo-Catholicism" the article said that Allwood already did that. Or have I missed some distinction between the Oxford Movement and Anglo-Catholicism?
Clarified Sacramental worship had been characteristic since Broughton and Allwood. Carr Smith carried it on, especially with all the changes to the building. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"setting "new standards of ceremonial"" needs a grammar fix. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The repetiton of "ceremonial" has been addressed as requested by Johnbod. The grammar is okay, I think. The "thereby" is understood in the sentence. That is, "so he was able to help St James' play a "notable part" in Sydney's revival of Anglo-Catholicism, [thereby] setting "new standards of ceremonial". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But ceremonial is an adjective, unless you use it in a way I've never heard. What about "setting new standards of ceremonial [worship]" or "setting new standards of ceremon[y]"? --99of9 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a quote and the Macquarie Dictionary says the word is also a noun meaning "a system of ceremonies, rites or formalities prescribed for or observed on any particular occasion; a rite or ceremony." Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've never heard that usage, it's me who needs a grammar update! --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Organ recitals such as that in 1936 of music by Bach were given during weekdays." This sentence sticks out a bit, it could be left out I guess. But it also has to be reworded because it implies that organ recitals were only given on weekdays. In the whole twentieth century the organ was never used on a Saturday?
Rewritten I tried to make this flow better and be more accurate. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Challenging sermons continue to be preached in the 21st century when issues when issues of violence, refugees, marriage and sexuality are all topical." Sounds a bit puffy. Supported by only the text of a single sermon and a newspaper article which doesn't mention the word sermon. I think this needs to be reworded.
"The church maintains a relationship with the government and the legal community as it did when it served a convict population under a military government." Unsourced, and vague. What is the nature of the current relationships?
Rewritten This was intended as a summary of things explained elsewhere in the article but I have tried to make it more explicit here and added refs to show continuity. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted I've actually jumped in here - see this diff - and moved the "relationship" claim down to the "community service" section and out of the "21st Century" section. I've also included a multi-sentence quote from 1936 which overtly praises the relationship between this church and legal community. Wittylama 05:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Its commitment to social justice and education, beginning with efforts to serve both convicts and settlers, continued with support for working people and those affected by war and, since early in the 20th century, by visiting those imprisoned or ill and offering practical help to the city's homeless" This is in the 21st century section, but both sources are from around 1900.
Added website for current source. Will look for others. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new link doesn't have anything about "support for working people and those affected by war". --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref added and text clarified Tried to demonstrate that some services have been added in 21st century but the principles remain the same as do many of the recipients of those services. Ref to war service added. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with the point you're trying to make, but we need a ref on each aspect you claim. Glad to have a source on the war affected. Does Cable mention "support for working people"? --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quote comes from Cable and Annable (p.16) where it is in the middle of a discussion about post-World War II problems, moral issues of war and peace, support for young people etc. I have tweaked the section to remove the word "working" but the main point of the 21st century section is about continuity of service in this young century to a range of different types of of people in a range of different circumstances. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has two "Revd X" and one "Revd. X", so we need consistency, but I think you'd be better off either leaving it off entirely, or spelling it out as Reverend. I don't remember what the MOS says to do.
Fixed. The article "Reverend" consistently used it without a fullstop so I've used that as the standard. I've also changed all instances of "Rev." and "Rev" to "Revd". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Eucharist" is not wikilinked.
Done. Linked the first instance of the word and also the first time it is used in the "Liturgy" section (where it is most relevant). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does Carnley 2004 specifically mention St James' as a subscriber to the quoted theological styles?
Reworded He does not specifically mention St James' but it is clear from the discussion in his book and the evidence of the liturgy at St James' that this is one of the churches to which he is referring. I have used the quotes for the benefit of the reader because Carnley is an articulate authority on the matter and his position as (ex) Primate is as relevant as it is possible to be. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky to write then, but I like the new wording better. However the current wording sort of implies that Carnley thinks his tradition "goes back to the Elizabethan theologian Richard Hooker". I have no idea if he does or doesn't, but I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth. Can you finesse this too? --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The congregation remains much the same as it was in 1900", but there are no sources for this after 1900.
Reworded to show how/why the congregation is an unusual as ever. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still no recent reference. "in the 21st century, regular patronage by, and programs for, governors, politicians, the legal community and the homeless create a similar mix" These are referenced elsewhere, so at a minimum you can re-cite the same references. However, are you sure they "mix", are the recipients of Sister Freda program usually referred to as part of the "congregation"? --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten I tried to make clear that the people using the church are of a great variety and that this feature is both notable and historically consistent. The services and some of the programs for the disparate groups are all referenced and discussed elsewhere in the article so I did not want to repeat them. The point is that attendance at the place is for a range of reasons, including of course, worship, and that managing the congregation (which does contain many of these groups) can be a challenge, as the sixth rector observed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text is ok now, but the refs don't support the text of this "Congregation" section. (And the refs that are there seem messed up... is the Lady Munro incident supposed to support Carr Smith's quote?) --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Lady Munro reference is now removed. It was a primary source example but not specifically mentioned in the text. Now, all sections of the congregation part have clear footnotes. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The church has also been associated with the Order of St Michael and St George since 1950." What does this actually mean? I read the wiki page, and it seems to be mostly an honour awarded to individuals. How is the church associated?
Clarified As with start of the law term, there is a special annual service. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me which references are citing each sentence in the following text (is it basically all Cable, with a Kemp quote one-off? If so, I'd suggest putting in some extra Cable links on key sentences): "By 1823 Greenway's school building had been erected in Elizabeth Street and the principal St James' School was situated there until 1882, becoming the Anglican "normal" school with more than 600 students and a range of experienced teachers. In secondary education, a Sydney branch of the King's School operated briefly in the Greenway building and Bishop Broughton operated the St James' Grammar School in a building erected in Phillip Street. The Grammar School, presided over by the Revd C. Kemp and "of inestimable value to the then youth of the colony",[126] lasted until competition from the new University of Sydney led to its closure in 1857. Bishop Broughton also set up St James' College to provide tertiary education for secular students as well as to prepare students for ordination. The St James' School closed in 1882 and the government resumed the Greenway building.[140]"
Ref added The ref to the "normal school" part has been added to separate it from the "inestimable value" quote.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The education section skipped the twentieth century. I take it there's just nothing in the sources?
Fixed I expanded the section a little and added another link. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link (St James "education" page) doesn't mention the 20th century, or the start date of any of the current programs. I have no problem if you leave out the 20th century as you originally did, I was just curious if you had overlooked relevant stuff in references. --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll live with that. --99of9 (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Arthur Mason attended the annual choir picnic" is too trivial to be worthy of mention.
Fixed Have rewritten this. My original intention was just to show that Mason was one of the choirmasters. It is written better now. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"At one time, St James' was described as the "exception" ..." vague given the extent of its history and the fact that it's out of chronological order. I suggest stating the year.
Done The source (Rushworth) says "The Sydney Choral Society commenced at a time when standards of church music in England were at a low ebb, and with the possible exception of St James' Church, were probably as bad, if not worse, in New South Wales." I have added the date of 1845, which is when the Sydney Choral Society commenced, and re-ordered the section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"composers such as Gordon Kerry, Gillian Whitehead, Michael Atherton, Ann Carr-Boyd, Colin Bright, Clare Maclean, Jessica Wells and Kent Farbach" If these people are thought notable, redlink, otherwise don't bother naming them?
Deleted many of the names Yes. there were too many names but if the references in the Pleskun source stay, readers can easily find the other ones themselves. Gordon Kerry should have an article but doesn't.Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"feast days" is probably not common parlance, so a wikilink might help.
Done I added the appropriate link about feast days in the Anglican church. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will be on wikibreak for the next week, and it looks like things are wrapping up. I'm happy for others/delegates to evaluate my last issues. Otherwise Support. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Choir
Whiteghost.ink, there is a quote about the choir that is in the feminine. I take it that the critic is referring to a particular soloist. Could this be made clear? Also, I would drop the sentence about the organist attending the annual choir picnic. It is seriously un-notable, regardless of how well referenced. On the other hand, you could say something to the effect that the choir for many years held annual picnics at whatever location they held them. Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed The choir criticism sentences and the picnic sentences have been rewritten to make the points more clearly. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Johnbod
Support all points addressed.I'm close to support. I have been keeping half an eye on this as it has improved, but I need to find the time for a proper read through.Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead - no link to "Anglican". The architectural style should be characterized here in a word or two.
Done A link to the Anglican church in Australia has been added and the link to Georgian architecture has been relocated. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link (or link at first mention): Bish of Calcutta, portico, vestry, Bish of Oz, Church of England, Sydney University, parsonage, spire, sanctuary, chancel, choir, organ, mosaic, parish hall, liturgy, Australian architecture?, shingled, slate, wrought iron, seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, crypt.
Links done including the difference between architectural choir and musical choir. (I should have done these links earlier.) Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"restoration of ancient ceremonial" ceremonial repeated just after - use "liturgy"?
"The Grammar School, presided over by the Revd C. Kemp and "of inestimable value to the then youth of the colony",[19] lasted until competition from the new University of Sydney led to its closure in 1857." could do with some explanation. How did they compete - weren't they for different age groups? Does this actually mean the college?
Edited There was an error in the ref coding. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the prose in the sections on the ministry seems a touch peacocky, as mentioned above. I'm not sure the Bishop of Newcastle's anodyne remark is needed.
Re-written I have removed the Bishop's remark and instead tightened up and restored an earlier version of the way the legal relationship has endured. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the lead, was there a ref anywhere for "has been described as one of the world's 80 greatest man-made treasures"? Frankly this would suggest a list which was felt to need an entry from Australasia, & it might be better to phrase it that way: "was the only Australian item on a list of the world's 80 greatest man-made treasures", if that was the case, with a ref of course.
Fixed I have made this appraisal more specific as requested. The refs, including to the article which contains the list are still there in the architecture section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's it I think. A very thorough article, very well illustrated. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note
Is there a source review for formatting/reliability buried in the above comments? If not I'll ask Nikki or Brian if they'd do the honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a comment from Hamiltonstone asking, "References (particularly references to websites recently added I think) need to be improved and brought into line with others." After a bit of back-and-forth this has now been struck out as successfully addressed. Is this what you mean Ian? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something along those lines. The next question -- and I admit I probably should've noticed this before -- is whether anyone has spotchecked sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which is standard procedure for someone at their first FAC.
Also I note that several parts of the article appear uncited, including:
Removed until such time as I can find a ref for this fact specifically at a later date. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First para and last sentence of second of Interior
For the first para, this now has a few footnotes added - notably to the official heritage register which lists all renovations ever made. For the last sentence of the second para it has now been simplified and a specific reference for the remaining fact has been included. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First para of Renovation, restoration, conservation
This paragraph has two sentences - the first is an introduction to the kinds of renovations that are talked about in greater length (with many footnotes) elsewhere. The second gives two specific major renovation dates (in which much of the renovations mentioned in the first sentence occurred), which are both now footnoted. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, although the images are generally very nice, there's an awful lot of them, giving the article a very cluttered appearance on my 14-inch widescreen -- have no reviewers had any similar concerns? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding images, several reviewers commented favourably on the illustration and no one has expressed a concern about this. e.g. Hamiltonstone - "the illustration of the piece is extraordinary" and "this is one of the best illustrated articles I've seen in a long while"; Brianboulton - "the illustrations struck me as particularly impressive"; Johnbod - "very well illustrated". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a fair few online sources I was interested in for veracity, and would have noticed if they were too closely paraphrased. I haven't checked any of the offline sources. Regarding images, all my screens are wider than yours Ian, but I had no problem. I'm generally in favour of pictures for a topic like this, unless they're covering the same concept twice. --99of9 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The First years subsection was the main culprit for clutter in my opinion, the rest not so bad -- a horizontal gallery of pictures at the end of that part might be better -- however I'm not about to override consensus on a matter of aesthetics. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of these comments are now all addressed. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Very little is known about this bird, and what is known is somewhat questionable. I've tried to collect as much obscure info as possible (from both new and old sources)), and to make it easy to understand, despite its complexity. I have also added all important historical images, and hope this account will bring some attention to the species. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – To my layman's eye this seems to meet all the FAC criteria. It is evidently comprehensive, and is easy to read and understand. Very enjoyable, in fact, with the pleasing historical extracts. The sources are varied and well cited. Only one minor quibble: the final para puzzled me a bit – after mention of the 1967 speculation we are then told that speculation ceased before the start of the 20th century, or am I misreading this? The OED, Chambers and Collins all prefer "coloration" to "colouration", but they all permit the latter: I just mention the point. – Tim riley (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yeah, I could had worded it differently, one source states there were actual rumours until the 20th century, but I didn't count Greenway's 1967 assumptions as actual rumours, but there should be a better way to clarify this. I'll give it a try soon, and notify you here when I've done it. As for colouration, well, I've used that spelling in the other FAs I've worked on, so it's a bit of a habit now... FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the order of the sentences[97] to be chronological, does it make it clearer that rumours are separate from speculation? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifies the matter nicely. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will stop by shortly to review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Small but perfectly formed and a very interesting and easy read. I've made a few very minor tweaks here and there, but feel free to revert if you feel differently. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - looking over now -queries below.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything we can do with the three lead paras, all of which start with, "Newton's Parakeet...." - just to mix up the prose and layout a little?
The second and third sentences of the lead both start with "It...." - thinking of ways to mix it up a little, maybe reword sentence #2 to " The Alexandrine Parakeet of the same genus is a close relative and probable ancestor." (?)
Newton's Parakeet was first mentioned by French naturalist François Leguat in 1708, and was only mentioned a few times by other writers afterwards. - two "mention"s - maybe "Newton's Parakeet was first written about by French naturalist François Leguat in 1708, and was only mentioned a few times by other writers afterwards." - or something equivalent?
link sternum
''Newton's Parakeet was about 40 cm (16 in) long, roughly the size of the Rose-ringed Parakeet. - I think a dash works better than a comma between the two clauses here.
Otherwise looking pretty on target for FA status. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything except the first one, have some questions. Usually write the full name in the beginning of new paragraphs, just to make clear what I'm referring to. Any alternate proposals? FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just wondering about the sentence "It was mostly greyish or slate blue in colour" in the second paragraph. Does that just apply to the plumage or the feet and/or beak as well? Also, does Psittacula need to be linked (in the 2nd paragraph) when it's in the infobox? Not sure what you think about the two edits I did either. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll add "plumage". Taxobox links are not enough. As for your edit, looks good, though natural selection is a given, and therefore not mentioned in the source, so will have to tweak that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I would like to see a sources and images review. Although I do not anticipate any issues. Graham Colm (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:LocationRodrigues.PNG: what base map or source data does this image use? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- promoting without a formal source review; nothing stood out on my cursory inspection. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, a United States military agency responsible for those aspects of nuclear weapons remaining under the military after the Manhattan Project was succeeded by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on 1 January 1947. I am especially pleased with it as I created the article in 2010. Since then it has passed Good Article and A Class article reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from John
Oppose for now based on prose concerns. Could do with a good copyedit. Sourcing seems ok. Will post a full review in 24 hours or less. --John (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update I am sorry real life seems to have caught up with me. I still hope to post a full review here tonight or tomorrow. --John (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Were you planning to return to this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Sorry this escaped me. I will try to post a proper review, do the copyedit myself, or withdraw my oppose over the weekend. --John (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question "The act that was signed by PresidentHarry S. Truman on 1 August 1946 created a civilian agency, the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), to take over the functions and assets of the Manhattan Project, but the AEC did not assume its role until 1 January 1947." Is it important to highlight this five-month hiatus? Other than that I think it is almost good to go. --John (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye, was such a gap unusual or par for the course with US govt agencies? The way it's expressed makes it sound like the former; if not, the last bit could be recast as "and the AEC assumed its role on 1 January 1947". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not usually when it is so urgent. Five months is a long time. The point is that in this case millions of dollars was being spent and very important decisions put on hold, with the whole Manhattan Project practically on autopilot while first Congress argued over the legislation, and then the AEC commissioners took their time being appointed and getting up to speed on their roles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be sourced? If it's a vital part of the subject's story, of course it should be included. --John (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit more about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me; I still query giving it such emphasis, but I trust you that it's an important part of the story per the sources. --John (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John: How are things looking for you now, as I think we're close to wrapping this up otherwise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still wish we could clarify the tanks issue mentioned below. It's like a teaser as it stands. --John (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the bit about the tanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
You mentioned in an edit summary that 502d is USEng; how about "122nd"? Should that be 122d?
To bolster the base defenses, Montague acquired 18 tanks; what kind of tanks? What happened to them? --John (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. All my source says is: The next month, General Montague brought in 18 tanks and stationed them around the Ordnance, Igloo, and Technical areas. It's sourced to the internal history, so I'd have to access the archives at NARA College Park to find out more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ideally like to see this clarified; "tanks" could mean various different things. It's unusual enough to be worth elaborating on I think. --John (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is all I have. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a real shame; on a military technology article, saying "18 tanks" is almost like saying "7 warships". I'd almost suggest just pulling this sentence if that is all we have in the sources about it. Though I probably wouldn't oppose just over this. --John (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the bit about the tanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update
I think I am now happy with the prose which I tidied here. I will support once the two outstanding items above are resolved. Thanks for taking care of the ordinals. --John (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now support this article's promotion. I'd love to see more about the tanks re-added should it become available. --John (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
Rearden: need ndash in title
Truslow: check caps on publisher name. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All images have Alt Text except File:AFSWP badge.jpeg - wonder if it should be added for consistency? (suggestion only - not an FA req as far as I'm aware).
Some duplicate links:
Manhattan Project
Leslie R. Groves, Jr.
Los Alamos Laboratory
President
Harry S. Truman
Silverplate
Kenneth D. Nichols
"The military side of the Manhattan Project had relied heavily on reservists..." perhaps wikilink reservists?
" However, they were also urgently required for many other jobs in the post war Army...", think post war should be hyphenated (i.e. "post-war").
"...which would become a field unit under the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project..." abbreviation AFSWP should be introduced here.
Typo here I think: "which would be a jointly staffed by the Army and Navy..." ("a" should be removed).
"...Patterson and Forrestal issued a memorandum that formally established the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP)..." should just be AFSWP after introduction of abbrev earlier in article.
"...one for each of the three Midway class carriers..." Midway class might need to be hyphenated here to be consisted with previous usage in article.
typo here: " in April 1947, Lilienthal informed the him..." (specifically "the him").
this seems a little awkward: "...and there now two members from each of the three services...", perhaps reword?
DASA is redlinked in the lead, but you use a piped link at the end of the article. Should the one in the lead by piped also? Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Decided that "prewar" is the correct American English form. And kept the red link on DASA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in my opinion the article meets FA criteria fol these changes. Anotherclown (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from ColonelHenry
I was asked whether I could give the article a look and do a review. It will be forthcoming this evening (10JAN14) or tomorrow (11JAN14).--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a few days to look at the article, I apologise greatly for the delay. After a few minor adjustments, I look forward to supporting this.
Per the FA criteria:
1A: Generally well-written, informative, and factual. I do notice a few stylistic areas that need to be addressed (below)
1B: Sufficiently comprehensive.
1C: Article is well-researched and adequately sourced, meeting WP:V. Article relying on combination of primary documents, and secondary sources that are both rigorous scholarly surveys and popular histories of the program. I did some source checks at random, and didn't see any problems.
1D: Article is a "just the facts" historical presentation--no opinion, no bias.
1E: Article looks stable for the past several years, no evidence or indication of content disputes or editing behavior that undermines article stability.
2A: The lede is pretty good - adequately sums up the article, and meets the requirements of the MOS
2B: No problem with the structure/layout--I think its entirely appropriate for the article's content.
2C: Citations are consistent. Not a style I like to use or see, but they're consistent.
3: I did an Image Review and all looks good--all images are either created by a Wikipedian or public domain federal government work product.
4: Length is appropriate, balances need for details with summary style.
I noticed a few issues to address:
There are a lot of superfluous commas. For instance, in one section I removed about two dozen.[99] For example: One sentence Groves retired at the end of February 1948, and Nichols was designated as his successor, with the rank of major general. didn't need either of the commas. I removed both of them.
No, that is incorrect. A comma is required when "and" is being used to coordinate two independent clauses. So the first comma should be there. I don't use the serial comma though. USEng used to be big on commas, but it is in decline, and people like you are drifting towards AusEng, where comma usage is mimimized. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, comma use is arguable depending on which style guide you look at it, and independent clauses are often condemned (q.v.: cf. Strunk & White [100]) as sloppy and many advocate splitting such awkwardly constructed sentences. Take the advice of wise novelists who have essentially said, unless your famous, don't do it. Perhaps splitting would be better. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A civilian, Donald F. Carpenter from the Remington Arms Company, rephrase..and why is his past at Remington relevant. It seems a superfluous detail. What was he at Remington that makes that relevant to the project? If it's not really that germane, it's easier to say Donald F. Carpenter, a civilian,...
Done. I had in the back of my mind that "civilian" is pejorative in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you've taken a look at the above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review ColonelHenry. It is much appreciated. The subject isn't a well-known one, but many people reading up on the Manhattan Project might wonder what happened next. This article will tell them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 has sufficiently addressed my concerns. I support this article's promotion to FA status.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cirt
Support. The article is impressive in its sourcing, throughout. I particularly like the standardization and uniformity, as well as the easy-to-use Notes/References sects. A few redlinks throughout the article, it'd be nice to see those as bluelinks someday soon, but not urgent for FA. The article is certainly educational and has high encyclopedic value. Minor quibble: I don't think the portal links belong in the References section, rather, suggest using a portal bar format to add a bunch more portals as a portal bar at the bottom of the article. Excellent efforts, overall. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Per WP:Red Link: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished". The whole article was created from a red link. I normally don't create red links them unless I intend to eventually create articles. In particular, intend to create DASA. The conversion to DASA just seemed like a natural place to end the article. I actually started writing about RADM Parker, who is best known for the Battle of the Java Sea, but could not find enough information about him. The other red links were added by other editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
was a real prospect that wartime Mightn't "danger" be a better word here than prospect as it emphasizes the risks in the situation? Suggestion only.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the groundbreaking children's TV show (and my son's favorite thing in the universe). It's been through some major changes since its last FAC, and I feel that it's ready to be scrutinized. Enjoy! And remember, you can do anything you want to do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll try to take a closer look at this later on. I remember that I opposed one of the past FACs for this article, and a cursory inspection looks better. One issue that jumped out at me was that the citations in the explanatory notes are not consistently formatted. The way they are done in note 2 is ideal, since that matches the rest of the article. The MOS doesn't allow mixing parenthetical references (like in notes 3–5) with footnoted citations. The direct external link in note 1 is right out. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I know that I'd appreciate it. You're right; your opposition, SO, was the reason for its last failure, and rightly so. You were correct in saying that this article needed more content summarized from studies, and since I didn't have the time to work on it, I withdrew the nomination. When I finally found the time, I did some more research, added some important content, and the article is much improved as a result. I also fixed the MOS problem; I believe all notes are consistent now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Charles and Matlin captions should end in periods
Done.
Burns image: summary states that copyright holder gives "full privilege of this image to Wikipedia under the terms of fair use", which would seem to be both non-free and inconsistent with the given licensing tag - can we clarify the status of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the statement you quoted was made by the creator of the image, and he created the licensing tag, too. Perhaps he tagged the image incorrectly? I suppose I could just go and correct his error, but would that be appropriate? Or do we have to contact him and ask if it could be done? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the statement suggests he doesn't really understand how licensing works, at least not in the Wikipedia context; however, as the account hasn't edited from 2008 I don't know that there's much chance of asking him. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean we should AGF, assume that he meant to release it, and just go and change the licensing? To be honest, I'm also good with scraping it, since it's not a very good image anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to what, though? I'm all for AGF, but it's not clear to me under what license he intended to release it. It's also tagged for transfer to Commons, but with that summary on it would likely be deleted there. Any ideas? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word that the image would probably be deleted at Commons, so I went ahead and removed it from this article. I think it's for the best. This article has in common the same issue with many articles about children's television programs: lack of images, due to protective copyrights. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, images look fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Source for Emmy noms?
Be consistent in how multi-author works are formatted, both in short cites and full refs
Be consistent in how short cites using et al. are formatted
Above fixed/checked.
Check for duplicate cites, for example FNs 1 and 11
Actually, this wasn't a duplicate; it was a typo. Ref 1 is part 1 and ref 2 is part 2. D'oh! ;)
Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
FNs 86 and 87 should use endashes not emdashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. Wow Nikki, it always amazes me--the things you catch! Your attention to detail is remarkable. Thanks so much. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cas Liber
Taking a look now - free time is patchy so this may be a bit piecemeal....queries below...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 1990, Congress passed the Children's Television Act, but the legislation did not specify how many hours of programming broadcasters were required to air. - you need to explain what the act was supposed to do, as is, article jumps into specifics rather suddenly.
'Kay, didn't think it was possible since it's linked, but have done as you asked.
Yeah, I know it was linked, but just a little explanation like what you just added helps the flow alot. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The character Blue was originally conceived as a cat, and the name of the show was to be "Blue's Prints", but Blue became a dog and the name was changed because Nickelodeon was already producing a show about a cat. - what was that?
People have asked that before. I can't tell you because none of the sources tell what it was.
Casting was an important part of the success of Blue's Clues. - be good to have some follow-on explanation here.
Um, I do explain it, when I describe the casting of the different characters. I can see that the statement's a little vague, so I can omit it if you like.
Not just yet - am thinking about this bit. Did muse upon moving para 1 down to para 3 and moving paras 2 and 3 up. If this is done, the sentence could be removed. But not sure if this is an unequivocal improvement....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Traci Paige Johnson was cast as Blue's voice because, of the show's crew, she sounded the most like a dog. - ??? how/why?
Um, she went, "Bark-bark-bark". What are you asking here?
Well, it is an odd statement that begs for some embellishment - if none can be added, so be it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Behind the Music documentary says that they decided to use staff as Blue's voice, and so they went around the conference table and she was chosen because she sounded most like a dog. Is that the embellishment you're talking about? I didn't include it because it seemed so weird, but I can make it work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outside comment: I understand what is meant, though it sounded odd to my ears at first too. Does "she was able to sound the most like a dog" work? I've boldly changed that, but please feel free to revert if you don't like the wording. – Quadell(talk) 19:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also according to Johnson, Joe's character was more like a preschooler and more innocent than Steve. - needs a ref.
It was a smash hit, largely due to the intensive and extensive research its producers employed - "intensive and extensive" comes across as laboured. I think one adjective is enough here, just choose a good one.....
To conclude - have read over this more - I think it is looking pretty good. Will read again. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some places use the serial comma (e.g. "children's programming, educational software, and licensing"), while other places omit it (e.g. "Producers Angela Santomero, Todd Kessler and Traci Paige Johnson"). I don't mind helping fix this as I proofread, but which do you prefer?
I prefer the serial comma. I'll go through and check too. Thanks for the catch.
I don't understand why the 1997 FCC ruling is relevant. Blues Clues had already premiered by then, and it did not affect Nickelodeon's programming obligations.
It establishes that Nick had already done the right thing in regards to children's programming. It serves as background for the setting and situation of the time.
Ah, I see. What if you started the History section with this? "Blue's Clues was developed during a transitional period for children's television. In 1990, Congress had passed the..." That way, the relevance is completely clear to the reader. (If you can think of more accurate wording than "transitional period", that's fine.) – Quadell(talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who was Johnson quoting in the interior quote of "he didn't want to be a children's host..."?
That was an error in how the quote was presented. I fixed it, and it's more clear now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the following clause, while grammatical, are a tad confusing and could use rewording.
"most other US TV shows made for young children were violent and created for the purpose of selling toys"—"Made" looks at first like a verb, though it's a description; "young children were violent" look like a meaningful segment, though the juxtaposition is accidental; "created" looks like a verb saying what the shows did, but you're saying that they were created.
I see your point. Changed it to: "...and most other US educational TV shows were violent and were created for the purpose of selling toys." I wanted to be specific about the audience of these shows, but after thinking about it, I don't think it's necessary to be so specific, since the statement probably also applied to shows for older kids.
That's very clear and concise, thank you. – Quadell(talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"but Blue became a dog and the name was changed because Nickelodeon was already producing a show about a cat"—This sounds like the name was changed because of the existing cat show, but it sounds like the species was changed for this reason. (It isn't obvious why the name changed, but it doesn't seem related to the species.)
Another good point. I simply added the word "show's" to make it clearer.
I changed the order of the phrases to improve clarity. (As with all my changes for this review, please feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree.) – Quadell(talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a DVD compilation of "milestone" episodes that included first host Steve Burns' 2002 departure and a 12-minute retrospective..."—I think you mean the DVD included these things, the compilation of episodes included them.
I re-structured the sentence, so that it's clearer now.
"His role was to empower, challenge and increase the viewers' self-esteem"—he wasn't there to challenge their self-esteem. Later comment: I see now that this is very close to a direct quote at the top of the "Educational goals" section. I think that sentence should be entirely reworded for two reasons: it's grammatically unclear, and it's too close to the source's wording.
I cut the offending phrase because you're right, it does essentially say the same thing as the next sentence, and then did some cutting and clarifying. Hopefully, it's satisfactory now.
The text says the each episode was tested "in preschool environments such as Head Start programs, public schools, and private daycare centers". Two sentences later, it says the pilot was tested "at daycare centers, preschools, and Head Start programs throughout the New York City area". That feels a tad redundant. If you simply said "at various locations throughout the New York City area" would any information be lost?
No, it wouldn't, and of course you're right about the redundancy. In the sentence about the pilot, I cut everything except "throughout the NYC area". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"who had to translate and embody the vision of the show on-screen"—I don't really know what that means.
I changed that before, by striking the sentence because it seemed repetitious to me.
Does cite 53 (Tracy, pp. 42–43) cover the statement about Fruit Stripe gum, or just the quote about textures and colors?
Yes it does, but I went ahead and inserted the extra ref.
The sourcing is now much improved. – Quadell(talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does cite 73 (Tracy, pp. 54–57) cover every claim in the second half of that paragraph, from producer and director credits, to soundtrack info, to the claim that "young audience enthusiastically accepted [Tom Mizer]", to script changes, to sorts of humor used? I want to doublecheck, because the "enthusiastically accepted" claim in particular needs support.
I added more refs and changed the wording a bit.
Excellent, the sourcing is quite tight here. – Quadell(talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note 4 includes a direct quote: "Not even the developers of the software knew it could be used to create character animation on scale Blue's Clues was using it". There seems to be a missing article before "scale". Was that error in the source, or in the transcription?
Most likely in the transcription. Thanks for the catch.
"As of 2002, over 2 million people had attended over 1,000 performances [of the live production]." Is there any data more recent than that? (A five-year-old that saw the show in 2002 would be 17 now.)
Yes, that's the most recent information. I wasn't able to find how long the show ran, or if it's still in production. Remember that BC is aging; if a child was five when the show premiered in 1996, he or she would be 23 now--a college student. Yikes! ;)
Ah well, we can't go beyond the sources. – Quadell(talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...with five-to-ten signs used consistently in each episode"—at first I thought that meant signs for the numbers 5–10. It would be clearer if reworded as "with between five and ten signs used".
Ok, whatever you say. ;) Fixed as per your request.
The penultimate paragraph (beginning "David Gesler...") is brief and problematic, made up of two unrelated parts. The first two sentences are about a Murray prof who "used Blue's Clues" (somehow) to introduce research methods to undergraduates. It's not very well described, and leaves the reader unsure of what went on, or how it relates to the rest of the section, which is all about preschoolers. The second part is a single sentence about how Blue's Clues is not technically interactive. I think the part about Gesler's use at Murray should be omitted, since it feels like confusing trivia that doesn't fit in well with the rest. Then the sentence about Shalom M. Fisch would be more at home in paragraph 2 of "Influence", which describes three different studies and directly relates to whether the show is interactive, and in what ways.
Done as you suggest, although I separated the 2nd paragraph after inserting the Fisch comment because the rest of the paragraph, about the Bryant study is a different topic.
Excellent. But there seems to be a Cite error now... – Quadell(talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentions "rumors that surrounded his [Steve Burns'] departure", but I don't see where this is mentioned in the article body.
Thanks for the catch; it was an artifact of a previous version that went more in depth about Burns' departure. This brings up a question for me, though: I made an editorial decision to exclude any details about it (i.e., that there were persistent rumors about his death, possible drug overdose, ect., and that was the reason he left the show) because I thought it better belonged in Steve's bio. To be honest, another reason, I decided to not include it here was that the vandalism about the rumors is a pain to deal with. (I swear, it amazes me how, almost ten years after the show stopped production, how persistent it is; to this day, we still have to deal with people--usually anonymous IPs--who believe it and insist that it's true, despite evidence to the contrary.) Anyway, do you think that we should include it here, anyway?
In my opinion, the debate/confusion applies directly to the actor, but does not directly apply to the show. So I think it's most appropriate to keep it in the biography article, not here. – Quadell(talk) 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After a careful review, I think this passes all our FA criteria. All my concerns have been addressed, and I'm impressed with the article. – Quadell(talk) 21:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger
History
"PBS was one of the few sources for children's educational television programming in the U.S., and most other US educational TV shows were violent and were created for the purpose of selling toys." needs a WP:IC and clearer context (the beginning of the paragraph is talking about 1990 and the end 1997).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added both; ref 4 applied to everything before it, but I added the extra one anyway.
Added a few more. I try to avoid over-linking, and many of the terms in this section have already been linked. Please, if you think I've missed any, go ahead and add them.
When you say viewer participation are you talking about kids standing up and talking to the television?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yum, yeah. The statement says that the kids "actively participated with what they saw". What is it you want me to do?
The first time you use the phrase you need to say viewer participation (exhibited by oral or physical response), IMO. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the phrase "in the form of spoken or physical response from the audience" the first time it's mentioned.
Production
When you say "Each episode . . . took approximately one year to complete" do you mean that scripts were worked on individually. It would seem to me that since there was such a repetitive element to the show that maybe they worked on several scripts at a time in production or at least some elements of them were worked on in that way. Otherwise, I can't fathom 1 year/episode.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the source says. The process it took to complete an episode was a year. Yes, I'm sure they didn't work on just one episode at a time, but I don't think that's what this is saying here.
Well later they say that they played the same episode every day. I am a bit confused here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure I can help you with that. ;) I think that this is a case of being unfamiliar with television production. What do you think of this: "Each episode was in development, from idea development to final production, for approximately one year."
Reception
It is 2014 and nothing in this section seems to detail anything about the last 10 years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, although the show still runs on Nickelodeon, it ended production in 2006. The most recent study conducted on it was in 2009. The show is aging, and as it ages, it's receiving less and less attention.
No, I don't, since there's no source out there that states that the show still re-runs on Nick Jr. or that Amazon Prime or that DVDs are still sold. I guess I could add it, but wouldn't that be OR? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I am ready to Support this article for promotion, although I would encourage further wikification in general.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Victoria
This is a nice article and I'll be supporting, but a few nitpick - haven't read all the way through yet:
History
" largely due to the extensive research its producers employed" > largely due to the producers' research? For some reason "employed" stopped me in my tracks.
That's research-speech; changed.
Casting
Mention the year/date Patton replaced Burns?
It states in the previous paragraph that Burns left in 2002.
Thanks, I glazed over! Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Format
Consider moving the long blockquote from the very top of the section. It renders in very small font and I skipped right over it!
I'd like to keep it there, if I may. This section has been through different formats, and other editors have advised me to put the blockquote first, since its current organization (a description of the format followed by explaining its purpose) makes most sense.
Okay, I had a sense it was probably something you've worked on a bit. Not a problem really. Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Educational goals
The parenthical about Wilder joining later - maybe make that a note?
Done.
"They found that as the pilot progressed, not only was children's attention captured and sustained, but they became excited and actively participated with what they saw, to the point that they stood up to get closer to the television and spoke back to the host.[42]" > something wrong here: I'm having problems with the "not only was" (were?)
Technically, it's grammatically correct, since the "was" modifies "attention", not "captured and sustained". But I've learned to trust editors' instincts, especially if they're native speakers. I changed it to: "They found that as the pilot progressed, children's attention was not only captured and sustained, but they became excited and actively participated with what they saw..."
This reads better, thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The production of Blue's Clues was based on research that showed that television, a "cultural artifact" accessible for most American children, could be a "powerful educational agent".[36]" Maybe rewrite to remove repetition of "that" that and something is missing in front of a "cultural artifact"
Reworded to: "Twenty years worth of research had showed that television, a "cultural artifact" accessible to most American children, could be a "powerful educational agent"." I think it's improved.
Ref needed at the end of fourth paragraph
Done.
"Like what had already been done in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, which also inspired the producers" > maybe "similar to Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, which also inspired the producers"
Ok, done.
Production
day care or daycare?
Day care.
Fix daycare in this section? Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of use of subjunctive "would" > I removed some, but maybe check for more
I saw that, thanks. I'll look for more myself when I return in a little while. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Came back to complete; I think that things are improved in this area now.
"The music, produced by composer Michael Rubin and pianist Nick Balaban, was unlike that in most other children's shows. The music was simple, had a natural sound, and exposed children to a wide variety of genres and instruments." > suggest simplifying and combining: "The music, produced by composer Michael Rubin and pianist Nick Balaban, was simple had a natural sound, and exposed children to a wide variety of genres and instruments" to leave out the comparative "was unlike ...."
Done.
I'll finish reading through tomorrow, but wanted to mention that at a quick glance, the "Influence" section seems stuffed compared to the other shorter sections. Any way to split it up? I haven't read it yet, so no suggestions. Nice job! Oh, and by the way - for some reason I did not know Blue was female! Victoria (tk) 01:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about putting in some subsections? I'll wait until you get to your comments about this section before I proceed. Ha ha, you wouldn't believe how many people don't know that Blue's a girl! I actually almost got into fisticuffs with another mom about it! ;) Thanks for your comments; looking forward to more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't see how you can, answered below (got caught in an edit conflict). Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
"Other countries have produced regional versions of the show" > flip, so as to read: "Regional versions of the show have been produced in other countries"? (make the show the subject?)
Done.
Influence
I've read it now and see that all this material goes together, but am wondering whether a more appropriate section title might work to highlight that much of the section explains the underlying research on childhood development and media? Is that a way of characterizing? Anyway, it's an interesting section and haven't found any nitpicks there.
This is pretty standard practice for articles such as this. I suppose we could re-name the section "Research findings". Does anyone else have an opinion?
Quick question: does the research influence how other such pre-school TV shows are developed? If so, then I think influence is fine. If the sources specifically say that research about Blue's Clues is valuable in terms of developing similar productions, might be worth leading the section with a statement to that effect. I should probably have a look at your other articles to see how it's done there before making a mess here! Victoria (tk) 17:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BC research hasn't really affected children's TV all that much, and there hasn't been much in the literature about it. Sesame Street research definitely affected the production of BC, and that's stated in this article. The practice of moving from a magazine format to a more narrative one influenced SS, which is also stated here and in those articles, which I also work on. It's standard practice for Nickelodeon to use research in the production of all their shows, but it's almost always been that way, although that's not something I've seen in the literature, either. So the reason why your suggestion isn't in this article is that there's nothing out there about it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining - I think, more than anything, I was simply curious. It's interesting stuff and you've done a nice job presenting. You've taken care of all the issues I had. Victoria (tk) 13:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As I said, nice job! Victoria (tk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
^Cite error: The named reference NRFF was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference G140 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
.jpg)
to add to "Freshwater life cycle" gallery that has three images, this is a fingerling
This might be a better steelhead to replace the Lake Erie partial that's in there now?
this little fellow might be good to add to the chart if he's different from the other two goldens in there now._2.JPG)
_2.JPG)
Facepalm Of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I hate it when that happens. Especially when it breaks after you nominate it FA.
Done Erick (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of an album is that it contains a selection of separate pieces. This recording is of just one work. I agree with Brian here.
Fixed
Fixed. FYI, the lead editor is out of commission for a few days, so I am taking over the FAC fixes here, let me know what's still outstanding here and I will work on it; I babysat the article the last time the other editor was not available to work on it too. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
_Gods%27_Man_-_surrounded_by_wineglasses.jpg){kind=link}
_Gods%27_Man_cover.jpg){kind=link}
_Die_Sonne_self-portrait.jpg){kind=link}
_(4416923516).jpg){kind=link}
_map.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
