Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2016

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2016 [1].

Catherine Zeta-Jones

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) & Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely lady, Catherine Zeta-Jones is the perfect combination of beauty, brains and talent; it's about time we had a decent enough article to reflect that. This article has been through a couple of re-writes, most recently in reaction to the previous FAC in which the reliability of some of the sources were questioned. Those have now all been swapped out and the article has been strengthened since that FAC. – SchroCat (talk) & Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support As before, should have passed first time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per SchroCat, Blofeld, et. seq.. This had a solid FAC last time. I chose to stay out of it due to the nature of some disputes, but the issues raised were fixed. This is ready for prime time. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- per Montanabw. The fixes look excellent, the overall prose, flawless, and the layout on par with any FA. Praise indeed to Krimuk90 for their excellent authorship and to SchroCat for his perseverance in not letting this article go to waste. CassiantoTalk 06:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to all four of you! I really appreciate it. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments – An excellent piece of work, and I look forward to adding my support. A few minor points before that:

  • "née" – we normally italicise this, I think
  • "Zeta-Jones' dance" – rather a surprise, and not altogether welcome, to see the AmEng form of possessive used here instead of the usual BrE "Jones's"
  • "in a Swansea production of the musical, which was staged at the Swansea Grand Theatre" – too many Swanseas, perhaps. You could advantageously trim to "in a production of the musical at the Swansea Grand Theatre".
  • "English National Opera ... Street Scene, an opera by Kurt Weill" – you could avoid the repetition of "opera" by redrawing as "Kurt Weill's Street Scene", (which would have the additional advantage of not calling the piece an opera, which it isn't really – more a mix of opera and musical, despite what the composer called it). I saw that production, which was wonderful, but I confess I didn't spot a star in the making.
  • "H. E. Bates'" – another AmE possessive. Likewise Lucas' and Douglas' below.
  • "featured as a belly dancer in disguise" – how do you disguise a belly dancer, one wonders? (no answer needed).
  • "an aspiring duchess" – is that a duchess who aspires to something or someone who aspires to be a duchess? If the latter, "would-be" might be clearer.
  • "hench-woman" – the word is in the OED (to my slight surprise) and Chambers but is not hyphenated by either.
  • "Titanic (1996), however, was better received" – would read better without the "however", I think.
  • "leading lady in favour of Izabella Scorupco" – I imagine you mean "in preference to...".
  • " a significant worldwide audience" – what did it signify? Or do you just mean "large"?
  • "Zeta-Jones returned to stage in 2009" – missing a definite article before "stage"?
  • "an annual charitable program" – as we're in BrE this should be programme.
  • "In The Arms Of Love" – are the second and fourth words really capitalised in the original?
  • "the Sight & Sound magazine" – not sure about the definite article. Isn't it rather like referring to "the Punch magazine" or "the Time magazine"?
  • "issued a legal notice prohibiting its release" – this seemed odd, and I see, on checking, that it isn't what the source says: the most you can say is that her lawyers threatened to take legal action.
  • "Accolades" – I say! A bit over the top, surely? "Awards and nominations" would be less redolent of what User:Ssilvers memorably calls "fancruft".
  • "by the Monarchy of the United Kingdom" – not quite accurate (the monarch can do things; the monarchy, being an abstract conception, can't). Better just to say "in the Queen's Birthday Honours" or go straight from "(CBE)" to "in 2010". The title of the award, though ludicrously anachronistic, conveys pretty plainly the country of origin.

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there, I'd say. I'll watch with interest. – Tim riley talk 10:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two further prose suggestions to add to Tim's list. The article begins: "Catherine Zeta-Jones ... is a Welsh actress. Born and raised in Swansea, Zeta-Jones aspired to be an actress from a young age..." – the close repetition of "actress" jars somewhat. You could say: "Zeta-Jones aspired to a theatrical career..." etc. And I think "early age" might read better than "young age". Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I previously reviewed this under my former username (Z105space), and I believe the article still meets the FA criteria. It has certainly been strengthened since the last review. MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MWright96. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I previously briefly commented about the reliability of a certain source, but I could not review it due to the constant heat. Top work; engaging prose, brilliant references, and plenty of content! My favorite of her roles will always be Velma Kelly and her "All that Jazz". FrB.TG (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FrB.TG. And yeah, Zeta-Jones is sensational in Chicago, which is my favourite musical film of all time. Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article has been thoroughly researched and is well referenced. This definitely deserves to be promoted to a Featured Article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba47. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing my co-nom: many thanks Aoba47. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Impressive work. She's come a long way since doing Sainsbury's ads ;-) Had a look at some of the sources and spot checked a few, just minor issues:

  • Refs 17 and 69 are more 'BBC Wales' than 'BBC News'
I guess Wales represents more of a location parameter, doesn't it?
  • Forbes is a magazine not publisher so needs correct parameter
Corrected.
Added.

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on comprehensiveness.

  • Be consistent in how you format multi-author works - sometimes the second author is last-first, sometimes first-last
  • FN36: edition statement shouldn't be part of the title
  • Per WP:ROTTEN, Rotten Tomatoes is generally not a good source to define critical reception of pre-2000 films
  • Don't include section names as part of the title (Eg. FN 69)
  • FN132: BBC is the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2016 [2].

SMS Körös

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a river monitor that served successively with the navies of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during WWI, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, during WWII. During WWI she fought along the Danube from Belgrade to its mouth, and even made a foray across the Black Sea to Odessa. During WWII she was scuttled, raised, and later mined, after which she was raised again and broken up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks pretty good to me, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if the lead could be tweaked a little to clarify that the monitor remained in service throughout the inter-war years. It probably wouldn't need much more than a short clause after the part where you mention the renaming to Morava
  • the launched date of 5 February 1892 only appears in the infobox, I suggest mentioning it in the body of the article;
  • same as above with the commissioning date of 21 April 1892
  • " Equivalent to a Austro-Hungarian..." --> " Equivalent to an Austro-Hungarian..."
  • in the References, Sondhaus should appear before Stein

Support - all my concerns were addressed below. Good work! starship.paint ~ KO 07:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peacemaker67, I have gone through the whole text and my review is below. Additionally, I also have an FAC up there I hope you will check out. starship.paint ~ KO 13:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • fought the Serbian Army, the Romanian Navy and Army, and the French Army from Belgrade to the lower Danube during World War I. - how about the English and the Russians mentioned in the Serbian campaign?
  • I've widened it to the Allies.
  • She was designed by Austrian naval architect Josef Thiel, and laid down at Budapest on 30 March 1890 - firstly, what does laid down mean? Secondly, was the ship designed in 1890, and if not, when was it designed?
  • linked keel laying. No information in sources about when she was designed, presumably immediately prior to her keel laying.
  • Yes, I would have redlinked it if it wasn't a redirect, I expect to create the article sometime soon.
  • Körös was badly damaged later in the campaign - is there further information on this? What damaged it, how was Koros damaged, what was damaged, repairs done?
  • All good questions, but I didn't add that information, and can't find any details in my sources.
  • Alright. I found that source, and will be adding whatever information it has. starship.paint ~ KO 09:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: Konstad source page 4: "In September 1914 she was instrumental in forcing a passage from the river Danube into its tributary the Sava, and then operated on the river in support of the Austrian army during the battle of Drina." Konstad source page 29: "The Serbs repulsed four large-scale offensives, but the monitors played their part by bombarding the Serbian capital of Belgrade and preventing Serbian counter-attacks across the river Sava, which entered the Danube just above the city." on second thought I'll leave you to insert this into the article. Those are exact quotes so they will need to be paraphrased. starship.paint ~ KO 10:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Starship.paint, only just got to these. The first one is already covered, these are the same events as mentioned in Halpern (commenced 28 September 1914). I think the gist of the second one is also already in the article (in a couple of places) as well. I'm also a little dubious about the Konstam source, particularly the fact that her being "badly damaged" doesn't appear in any other sources, especially Pawlick et al which is specific to the Danube Flotilla and has a very comprehensive timeline for each vessel. If she was "badly damaged", there was precious little time for her to be repaired before she was back in action again. Without wishing to engage in OR, I don't think Konstam is in the same league as a source as Pawlick and Greger, and would prefer to leave it out of the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a history warfare editor and so there were several terms I did not recognize. Thus far I have managed to understand them after adding Wiki-links; other clarifications were done too in these edits and these other edits.
  • Thanks, they were great edits/links.
  • The lede and body never actually mentions World War II anywhere but in one header, could you add that into the text for clarity.
  • Done.
  • Immediately after the armistice - which armistice? Could you write and Wiki-link?
  • Good point, Villa Guisti. Have added that.
  • lede: most were obliged to surrender / body: The larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo on 14 April before they were obliged to surrender. - "obliged" seems like a weird word to use in this case (in my view surrender is a choice and not forced), perhaps use ... before they surrendered to the _____".
  • Fixed, it was unnecessarily wordy.
  • ... in which she served as Bosna, alongside her fellow monitor Sava, - wasn't the Sava scuttled too? If it was repaired, it could be mentioned together.
  • Done.
  • ... she was raised and broken up - by who?
  • Sadly, the source doesn't say. I presume the new Yugoslav government, the NDH government had virtually no control of anything prior to the end of the war.

@FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go, any chance I could get a FAC coord dispensation for a new nom? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2016 [3].

Theodore Komnenos Doukas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most fascinating figures of Byzantine history. An ambitious, capable, and quite ruthless man, who sidelined his nephew, captured Thessalonica from the Latins and almost succeeded in recovering Constantinople and restoring the Byzantine Empire, only to be defeated, captured and blinded by the Tsar of Bulgaria. He was then released when the tsar became infatuated with his daughter, deposed his brother to regain Thessalonica, and ruled it via his sons for several years before it was captured by the Empire of Nicaea. In a final act of defiance against Nicaea he urged his nephew the ruler of Epirus (whom he had deposed at the beginning of his reign) to launch a joint attack against Nicaea, where he was finally defeated and captured, ending his career. The article is as comprehensive as it can get, relying on the main biographical work on him (Varzos) and complementing it with several other scholarly histories and articles on specific aspects of the period. It passed GA and MILHIST ACR without problems, and I feel it is ready for FA. Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Theodor_I._Despot_von_Epirus.jpg: need more information on the source - it would appear that the given tags are for the coin itself, but not the photo
    • Hmmm, accoring to its description, it is taken from a catalogue, hence probably scanned. I'm not too familiar with the subtleties of copyright law in this case, but it can be replaced with File:Theodore Comnenus-Ducas cropped.jpg, which is fully licensed.
      • I've replaced the image.
  • File:Stefan_the_First-Crowned,_fresco_from_Mileševa.jpg: source link is dead
    • And what is the recommended solution here? Whatever the source, as a medieval 2d-object it is PD or not?
      • Is an alternate source available, or an archived link? It would be good to have a source available for verifiability purposes, so that someone could check that the description is accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has been archived by the Wayback Machine, link added
  • File:Epir1205-1230.png (original source of the map) - on what data source or pre-existing map is this based?
    • It is itself base on File:Epirus 1205 1230.svg. I don't know the author nor what sources he used, but it more or less matches what is described in the article. I thought about whether to remove this map, but it is evident from its design that it is not meant to be an exhaustively accurate representation of Epirote territorial extent, but to give a general overview. For this role the map is both useful and quite correct. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tsar_Ivan_Asen_II_cropped.png needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks interesting, and I look forward to reading it and adding further comments. In the meantime, may I suggest that you don't use the phrase "fall of Constantinople" in the lead when referring to the city's capture by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, since this term is generally used in connection with its capture by the Ottomans in 1453. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton! Good point regarding the 1204 sack. I'll change it right away. Looking forward to your review! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's The first instalment, taking us to about midway through the Epirus section, and very interesting it is, too. My comments are mostly concerned with prose issues, mostly minor in themselves, but collectively indicating that further attention needs to be given to this aspect. Two recurrent faults are (i) overlong sentences and (ii) a tendency to editorialise rather than observing strict encyclopaedic neautrality:
Lead
  • The first sentence/paragraph is overlong and somewhat convoluted. I suggest a break after "from 1224 to 1230", followed by: "He was also the power..." etc (I'd omit "real" as redundant)
  • How relevant is the "bastard" description? Why not just "half-brother"?
    • Well, Michael was an illegitimate son, and this is often stressed in the sources.
  • "advanced as far as" → "advanced to"
  • "In that year, Theodore diverted the army amassed to besiege Constantinople against Bulgaria, an ambivalent ally which threatened his northern flank." Not entirely clear as worded. Perhaps: "In that year, Theodore used the army he had amassed to besiege Constantinople to attack Bulgaria, an ambivalent ally which threatened his northern flank"?
  • "the splitting off of" is clumsy. Perhaps "the dispossession of"?
    • "Disposession" is not what is meant her; I've rephrased for clarity.
  • Who was "John Asen"?
    • The Bulgarian tsar John II Asen, who is mentioned and linked in the previous sentence.
  • "he installed his eldest son John as emperor in his stead" – last three words redundant
    • The "in his stead" was necessary in so far as it linked this act with his own blinding, which disqualified him. I've rephrased for clarity.
  • "suzerainty" needs a link
  • "In 1246 Vatatzes overthrew Theodore's unpopular younger son Demetrios and annexed Thessalonica" – when did Demetrios enter the picture? The last we heard, Thessalonica and its environs had been left to Theodore and John.
    • It is mentioned at the beginning of the lede, where it is implied that Demetrios succeeded John; I've rephrased for clarity.
Early life and career
  • "a daughter of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos" I'd say "Byzantine Emperor"
  • "notably refers to him" – "notably" is editorialising and should be removed.
  • Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns (2nd para)
  • "an apologist for Theodore". Better clarify, as the last Theodore mentioned was Laskaris. The sentence is overlong anyway, and would be better split after the end of the quotation.
    • "Theodore" on its own refers throughout to the subject of the article; the distinction is quite clear IMO with "an apologist for Theodore, he provided valuable services to Laskaris," and the continued juxtaposition of the two in Bardanes' text. I've split the sentence up, though.
Ruler of Epirus
  • This single section runs to 2,500 words. It would greatly assist readers to navigate the section if it was divided into subsections
  • "Dyrrhachium and Corfu had been recovered" – when had they been lost? Also I suggest you lose "as well"
  • "As Michael II was illegitimate and too young..." This needlessly repeats information given in the preceding paragraph
    • I prefer to keep it, as the context here is different and I feel it bears repeating.
  • "It must be noted that" – editorialising, remove. The content of these two sentences needs to firmly attributed to sources, e.g. "X and Y have noted that..." etc
    • I moved this to a separate footnote. Regarding to attribution, this is not a matter of opinion or dispute between scholars, it is one of usage and helps clarify the issue for the uninitiated reader who might wonder why, when the main article on the Epirote principality is at Despotate of Epirus, this article goes out of its way to avoid naming it thus.
  • Another overlong sentence beginning "The Principality of Arbanon...", and can you explain what "the Epirote orbit" and "magnate" mean (maybe use a pipe-link for the latter)?
  • And another long one: "Stefan II then sought..."
  • "the homonymous archbishopric": I think you mean "eponymous" (homonyms are words that sound the same but mean different things, like "hole" and "whole"}
    • Quite right, I'm quite embarrassed at getting two Greek words mixed up...
  • The wording "...was particularly important. Indeed..." etc needs to be re-thought (see above re editorialising). Unless you are paraphrasing a specific source it needs to be rephrased neutrally.
    • I've rephrased for clarity and attribution to Varzos.

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton and thanks for taking the time for such a detailed review! I've incorporated/answered the first batch of suggestions. Looking forward to more! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will resume the review shortly. As a matter of procedure, I would prefer to strike my own comments, after I've had the chance to look at your responses. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you prefer, I've removed them :). Constantine ✍ 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of points from the above still needing attention, in particular the non-subdivision of this very long section. Reading on now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to FAC coords: Brian is happy as far as his review went. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "he aspired not only to expand his state against Thessalonica": to me "expand his state against" is not very natural phrasing. How about "acquire more territory from"?
    • I've rephrased this.
  • A map would be useful earlier in the article than the current one, since many readers will be unfamiliar with these names.
  • I think File:Epiro 1205-1230.svg needs to be translated into English to be acceptable on an en-wiki FA.
    • For both of the above, I've begun translating the map and making various corrections/additions using the sources present in this article.
  • "The election was uncanonical and thereby of questionable legitimacy": suggest "therefore" or "hence" rather than "thereby", which tends to imply agency rather than just consequence.
    • Fixed
  • "relations between Theodore and Serbia remained cordial": why "Theodore and Serbia" rather than "Theodore and Stefan" or "Epirus and Serbia"?
    • It reflects more the fact that Theodore had good relations with both Stefan II Nemanjić and his successor Radoslav, but I see your point. I've rephrased it, to follow more closely the biographical POV of Theodore, especially since good relations with Serbia were an important pillar of his foreign policy.
      You have "Despite the quarrels of the churchmen, however, Theodore took care not to let them affect his cordial relations to the Serbian ruler", but Theodore's care was not really despite the quarrels -- it was because of the quarrels, if anything. How about: "Theodore took care not to let the quarrels of the churchmen affect his cordial relations with the Serbian ruler"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Western sources claim that he offered to recognize...": Can we substitute a name for "he"? I'm pretty sure this is Colonna, but the context is complicated and it would help the reader.
  • I'm unclear on the discussion of the difference between Philip Van Tricht's views on the conflict between Theodore and Peter II, and those of other historians. As far as I can see Van Tricht's views relate only to Peter's motivations, not to the course of events. What is this contrasted with? I don't think the earlier discussion explicitly says that Theodore never recognized the suzerainty of the Latin Empire. It sounds like that must be the difference, but I think it could be clearer.
    • Hmm, the issue here is interpreting the political context of Peter's landing. If Theodore was still a Latin vassal, even if in name only, then Peter's landing in Albania, and his readiness to trust Theodore, make much more sense. Theodore also, unlike his brother, had not yet openly confronted the Latins, as the territory in Macedonia he expanded into was held by local (mostly Bulgarian) rulers. Most writers consider that Theodore had a clear anti-Latin policy from the outset, and view all his actions from the lens of his eventual capture of Thessalonica and drive for Constantinople. While, as with any ambitious Greek ruler of the time, these were certainly things he aimed at eventually, a continued Latin vassalage leaves open the possibility that he acted opportunistically only after Peter was considerate enough to present himself on a platter. I'll try to make this clearer.
  • I think the "Ruler of Epirus" section needs to be either split or given subsection headings; it's very long for a single section.
    • I've divided it into a section detailing his relations with Serbia and Nicaea, and his wars with the Latins leading to the fall of Thessalonica.
  • "There she quickly appreciated the wealth and strength of the Principality of Achaea": suggest "quickly came to appreciate" as slightly more natural phrasing.
    • Fixed
  • "the hope to be able to assist": suggest "the hope that he might assist" or "that he might be able to assist".
    • Fixed.
  • The discussion of the timing of Theodore's coronation gives the opinions of the various scholars in the past tense. I'd suggest switching to the present tense, which is more usual, and is consistent with the discussion of the conflict with Peter II, where John Van Antwerp Fine and Philip Van Tricht are cited in the present tense.
    • Done.
  • "titelature": I think this should be "titulature" but I hesitate to change it without checking in case there is some shade of meaning I'm unaware of.
    • No, it is an error. Fixed.
  • "to limit the blame on Chomatianos": I think this should be "to", not "on", if I understand the sense correctly.
    • Indeed. Fixed.
  • "the presumption of Chomatianos to usurp the patriarchal privilege": suggest either "the presumption of Chomatianos in usurping the patriarchal privilege" or "Chomatianos presuming to usurp the patriarchal privilege" or "Chomatianos' presumption in usurping the patriarchal privilege".
  • "i.e. for Theodore the right to appoint bishops": suggest "i.e. the right for Theodore to appoint bishops".
  • "Nevertheless, for reasons that are unknown": why "nevertheless"?
  • "Manuel soon lost Epirus to Michael I's bastard son Michael II. Returning from exile, Michael quickly succeeded, apparently with the support of the local population, in taking over control of Epirus." These two sentences say almost the same thing. Can they be combined?
  • "According to a recently discovered letter": better to give the date of discovery in the text, I think. "Recently" won't always mean the same thing.

-- That's everything I can see on a first pass. These are all pretty minor issues. I will do another read through once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie and thanks for the review! I'll go over it today and over the weekend. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike Christie! I've finally found some time to work through the rest of your comments. I'll do the map over the rest of the weekend as well. Best, Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck everything except the points about the map. I'll read through again to see if I can spot anything else. I expect to support once you've fixed the map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • "Manuel was unable to prevent the loss of Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became, nor the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control": I don't think "nor" works by itself here, because the previous negative is hidden in "unable" and the syntactic parallelism is too weak. How about: "Manuel lost Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became; and was also unable to prevent the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control"?
  • You have "disquieted" twice in a short span in the paragraph about Alexius Slav.

-- Once these two minor points are fixed, and the maps are addressed, I am sure I will be supporting promotion. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New map added and both of the above points fixed. A sincere thank you for a very detailed review, and for your suggestions. Constantine ✍ 18:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An outstanding article. Note to the coords: I have not reviewed sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]

Looks good. Agree with Mike's points above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'' the rulers of Epirus would continue to challenge the revived empire "for what they believed to be their own right to the throne" - I think this can be rewritten so it doesn't have quote marks and uses words more distant from source

Hi Cas Liber! I've rewritten this. Anything else? Going beyond prose issues, my worry is always whether the article is accessible and understandable by the average reader, who is probably bombarded with unknown names and concepts... Constantine ✍ 11:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was waiting until Mike Christie had finished above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Victoriaearle

[edit]

Looks interesting. Working my way through - it's a long one.

Lead
  • "The scion of a distinguished Byzantine aristocratic family related to the imperial Komnenos, Doukas, and Angelos dynasties, Theodore's life is unknown before the conquest of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204." Too much going on in this sentence. Perhaps split in some way, telling us that he's the scion of a distinguished family, but the details of his early life are unknown. "Theodore's life is unknown" is awkward as written. Also, with the links there's a sea-of-blue.
    • I've broken the two sentences up and rephrased it a bit. I can't do anything about the "sea of blue" in this case, nor do I consider it a valid objection here, as there are commas etc. separating the links. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicaean emperor Theodore I Laskaris > another sea of blue
  • Second para: second and third sentence both start with "After ... " > try varying
  • "In the meantime, he was succeeded by his brother Manuel. Manuel quickly lost Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became; and was also unable to prevent the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control. " > I can get through this sentence but there's a lot stuffed into it. Suggest trying to split.
Early life
  • "According to a letter of the Metropolitan of Corfu, George Bardanes, an apologist for Theodore, he provided valuable services to Laskaris. Bardanes writes that he "took many dangers for his sake and wrested many fortresses from the enemies and subdued them to Laskaris' rule", distinguishing himself through his valour and receiving many rewards from the Nicaean ruler.[8]" > difficult to parse. Can this be simplified and perhaps put Theodore's accomplishments in a sentence and then have another sentence about the chronicler, perhaps with an explanation of which Theodore he's an apologist for, and then the quote?
  • "Around 1210, Theodore joined his half-brother Michael I Komnenos Doukas in Epirus" >> I've rewritten this a little to try to simplify but it's ok to revert if you don't like it. I'd suggest a new paragraph here.
  • "The reason was that Michael's sole surviving son, the future Michael II Komnenos Doukas, was underage and illegitimate, while his other brothers were considered to lack the ability to rule." > a little awkward. Do the brothers refer to Theodore's brothers or to the underage illegitimate son? Maybe try to tighten so it reads something like, "Michael's only son was underage and illegitimate ..." and then straighten it out from there.
  • Suggest separating the info at the bottom of the second para, about the scholarly debate, re which Theodore is which, into its own paragraph.
    • Regarding all three of the above, I've rewritten and restructured this a bit, mostly to allow the move to Epirus to stand alone as a separate paragraph, and moved the discussion about a possible role in the Peloponnese to the "Nicaean period", as this is where it belongs chronologically and context-wise. The "brothers" obviously refers to Michael's and Theodore's brothers, since Michael II was the only son. I've clarified this again, though.
Relations with Serbia
  • "The marriage fell through due to the refusal of the Archbishop of Ohrid, Demetrios Chomatianos, to sanction it, as Theodora was closely related to the bridegroom through his mother, Eudokia Angelina, a daughter of Alexios III Angelos." > another sentence that's hard to parse because of its length and because it contains a lot of information. I'd suggest leading with the Archbishop, i.,e "The Archbishop of Ohrid, Demetrios Chomatianos, refused to sanction the marriage on the grounds of .... " and take it from there. I believe there's a term (and probably a link) for the degree of separation required for such marriages?
  • Second paragraph begins with a pronoun, but should use the subject's name - particularly in an article like this, so stuffed with names.
  • "the capture of Ohrid, seat of the eponymous archbishopric, was particularly important for the standing of the Epirote state and Theodore's aspirations." Why? Also, perhaps "eponymous" isn't necessary (certainly it doesn't mean anything to me, but it might to a subject specialist)
    • The Archbishop of Ohrid is mentioned one paragraph above. The see was the most senior see of the Byzantine Balkans outside Constantinople, and enjoyed an immense prestige, which in the hands of Chomatianos was used to bolster Theodore's claims of independence from Nicaea and the exiled Patriarch of Constantinople based there. Explaining why Ohrid was prestigious is beyond the scope of this article, but the role it played through Chomatianos is, I think, amply demonstrated in the rest of the article. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this article because it's fascinating. But it is difficult to read and I'd like to see some more work done to trim the prose. Also it would be better if the sections weren't quite so long. I'll try to get back to it; am on the fence at the moment. I've made a few minor edits; please feel free to revert. Victoria (tk) 01:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Victoria and thank you for taking the time for this. I like thorough reviews, and as indicated above, I am always worried about the readability of my articles, especially given the relative obscurity of the subject matter at hand. I've tried to fix/address the issues you have raised so far. Take your time for the rest and thanks again. Constantine ✍ 13:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Constantine, I'm working my way through and will post as I go along. Generally I think the prose needs some tightening to improve the flow and readability. I went through a few paragraphs and hacked out some words, diff is here, but because I'm not familiar enough with the topic I'm worried I'll hack out something that's important, so it's probably best for you to tackle. I suggest trying to minimize words such as "however", "indeed", and others like that and generally anything that's not absolutely necessary. I also think the article can benefit from splitting the long-ish paragraphs throughout - I've made a few suggestions below. At this point I'm leaning support but would like to read through to the end.
Expansion against the Latin states of Greece
  • First para in this section could be split, maybe a new para with “After a few days, Theodore …”; and another with the various interpretations of what actually happened there, i.e, para break with “Akropolites, the chronicler …. “.
    • Good idea for the split, although narrative-wise I've adopted slightly different places for the new paragraphs. I've preferred to keep the two main versions in one para, and have split off Van Tricht's commentary into a separate paragraph. I've also split the section in two, and pulled in some text from the previous section. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe make a separate para for the female regents and Yolanda.
  • Fourth para in the section can also benefit from splitting
Emperor of Thessalonica
  • “According to Byzantine custom, the coronation of an emperor could only take place in Constantinople and be performed by the Patriarch, but Constantinople was still in Latin hands and the Patriarch (now Germanus II, 1223–40) resided in Nicaea; Theodore thus turned to the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, Constantine Mesopotamites, whom he had just restored to his see after removing the Latin prelate.” >> too much info I think and can benefit from a split
  • Fourth para, beginning with “John Vatatzes initially reacted … “ could benefit from a para break, maybe at the point about the synod, “In 1227 … “ Victoria (tk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last batch:

Klotkotnitsa
  • “Contemporary and later historians like Akropolites denounced this as a sign of Theodore's duplicity and treachery, but a more likely suggestion is that Theodore, hitherto undefeated in battle, desired to check Bulgarian power and avoid the possibility of the Bulgarians striking in his rear while he was engaged in besieging Constantinople.” > Split after “treachery”, start new sentence as “A more likely suggestion … “
  • Good point. Done. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The throne in Thessalonica was now occupied by Theodore's brother Manuel” > Theodore’s brother Manuel occupied the throne in Thessalonica” or something like that, so as to have Manuel the subject of the sentence instead of the throne.
  • Tsar or tsar? Uppercase or lowercase. It occurs in both forms in this section
Recovery of Thessalonica
  • I think it would be helpful to have date for when he was freed. The capture and seven years occurs in the previous section, so reminding the reader here of the date isn’t a bad idea
  • ”Before the spectre of civil war,” > “At the possibility of civil war” (?) or something like that. It’s another sentence with a lot of information but I have no suggestions for fixing it.

That's all from me. I apologize Constantine for the delay. To be honest, I forgot to paste these in. I hadn't read the earlier part of the review, so I don't think these comments should make much of a difference. Essentially, for a lay reader the prose is a little difficult to get through, but the article is really interesting and obviously very well researched. Victoria (tk) 20:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria, no worries re the delay, I too am rather busy in RL. Again, thanks a lot for the thorough review :). I'll go through your comments over the next couple of days. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay Victoriaearle, I didn't have much time on my hands to sit down and work on this without distractions. I've made most of the suggested changes, and, in view of other reviewers' comments as well, tried to create more sub-sections. Please have a look. I am aware that the article is not for the casual reader; the dramatis personae alone is a lot to take in. But that is inherent in the subject, and one cannot expect otherwise. That being said, I fully agree that we don't need to make matters worse by bad or convoluted prose, so if you have any suggestions for streamlining the prose further, whether within or beyond the confines of this FAC, I'd be glad to have them. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hi Constantine, somehow I missed your earlier comment of 3 July (either I didn't see it, or the ping didn't work). Anyway, apologies for that. I don't have a lot of time either and sorry to have kept you waiting for so long. Essentially I think breaking the sections up as you have is helpful to a lay reader. Yes, I agree about what you say in regards to the dramatis personae - at risk of making too terrible of a pun, it's all very Byzantine. I think it's fine to promote as is. If I get a chance I might take a swing through to copyedit a bit, either before or after promotion. Will that be ok with you? Victoria (tk) 23:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victoria, it is definitely fine with me whenever you have time. Much appreciated. Constantine ✍ 11:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I think we still need a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently and appropriately cited, except as follows:

  • Book sources for which no ISBN is available might profitably have an OCLC.
  • Is "Paris 1948" part of the title on Lognon? If not, it need not be italicized.
  • You include publisher for at least one journal, and doi for another, but you're not consistent in this regard.
  • Since you are using the 13 digit ISBN, you may as well use that for the further reading as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2016 [4].

Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the most beautiful of the commemorative half dollars and the rarest by design. I suppose by today's standards, the whole thing smacks of political incorrectness, especially the idea of Cook "discovering" an inhabited island. But it's still a nice coin.Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments Singora (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill calling on the U.S. government to issue a commemorative coin for the 150th anniversary of Cook's arrival in Hawaii. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon thought the occasion important enough that, unusually for him, he did not oppose the issue of a commemorative coin."

vs.

"In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill calling on the U.S. government to issue a coin commemorating the 150th anniversary of Cook's arrival in Hawaii. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon thought the occasion important enough that, unusually for him, he did not oppose the issue of a commemorative coin (or: coin's issue)."

And ....

"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar came about because of the observances there for the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming ..."

vs.

"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar was minted (struck) to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming ..."

And ...

"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial coin is the scarcest commemorative half dollars by design". Is the plural intentional?

I've made those changes, though in my own words (the plural was a mistake and has been corrected). Thank you indeed for the careful review. It shows how one falls into habits in writing ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! That wasn't a "careful review" -- I skimmed the article after seeing your blurb re: Captain Cook. I can't do too much more as your references aren't linked. If you could give me URLs to specific pages I'll check the sources, though I'm guessing these books aren't available for preview on Google. The one I did check pointed to George Mason University and asked me for a password.
In the legislation section, I can email you copies of any sources you desire. The books I own and I don't think they do google books preview. I can email you copies of book pages but not until next week as am traveling.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, go for it. Next week is fine. I'm pretty sure that by emailing me (even via Wikipedia) I'll get your contact details. If this is an issue contact the administrator CasLiber. I've emailed him in the past and he ought to be able to confirm I'm a legitimate company owner. Singora (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will send you an email. The Congressional sources are easy, the others I can send you a selection of pages, plus any individual ones you desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Email received. I will of course treat your details as confidential. You can forward me PDFs, JPGs, PNGs and/or ZIPs. I don't know how senior you are, or if you're an administrator, but further down this list is an article about Catherine Zeta Jones. I glanced at it and noticed that sources include the UK's Sun (1 instance), Daily Mirror (4 instances) and Daily Express (3 instances), Australia's Herald Sun (1 instance), Fox News and People Magazine (7 instances). The article is an obvious oppose (you can't possibly use those sources), yet no one has picked up on this. At the very bottom of the page is a video game article, Nights into Dreams. LazerBrain asked for a source review, but no one has pointed out that refs 41 and 66 (among others) are incorrect. You may wish to pass this info on to someone. Singora (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am an administrator, though this is not a matter of administrative jurisdiction. If you reply to the email I sent you, I will send you the government materials immediately and jpgs when I get home in a week of the book pages. My identity, Gary M. Greenbaum, is not confidential, though I choose to edit under a pseudonym. I can't send you stuff until you reply to my email as attachments are not possible through the Wikipedia mail system. I will pass on what you say about the Zita-Jones article to the FAC going on there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I've replied to your Wiki email via Yahoo and sent you an email via Wikipedia. You'll now have two of my email addresses, and can use either to forward me your stuff. I didn't realize you can't send attachments with this Wiki set up. Singora (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've cut the first and changed the licensing on the second. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead states "In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill" whereas the body states "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii". Rather than merely point out the contradiction there, I'm going to dig deeper. I know next to nothing about the Hawaii legislature, whether territorial or state. OTOH, I'm more than very familiar with the territorial legislature of Alaska, where I live. In those days, legislation passed by the Alaska legislature was in the form of memorials to Congress. The territory's delegate would then introduce that legislation in Congress, which would consider and/or act on it. I would assume that Hawaii operated the same way, but I've not read any of Hawaii's organic acts and therefore really can't say.
They passed both a resolution and an act, actually. They may not have used the form you mention. I'll tweak it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Inception" section – to me, it comes across as disjointed and perhaps a bit redundant to make a vague reference to "an organization" which was authorized to purchase the coins from the Mint, then in the very next sentence explicitly mention that organization, yet these sentences appear in different paragraphs.
  • Also in the second paragraph of "Inception", the specific affiliations of some individuals were mentioned, but not of others. I was still in the dark after reading that text as to whether some of the people mentioned were local Hawaiians, or federal officials, or perhaps both.
  • In the first sentence of the "Legislation" section, is Don Taxay the only person known to have commented on that particular aspect? Of course, other perspectives are helpful if they exist, especially if they're non-numismatic in nature.
Yes. He's the only one, and it's just an offhand comment. Numismatics is thinly covered by references, I fear. Most of his book
  • The wording of the first and second sentences of that section comes across as slightly repetitive.
  • "South Dakota Senator Peter Norbeck" – in this particular context, "Senator" appears to run afoul of MOS:JOBTITLES, which I realize is widely ignored because bludgeoning readers with officialdom at every turn is evidently more important.
I'm aware of it, but I feel in the context of political and numismatic articles, having that as lower case in the midst of capital letters is distracting to the reader.
  • "with the profits to be used toward establishing a Captain James Cook collection in the territorial archives." As the mechanics of the coin's distribution and pricing were mentioned earlier on, I'm confused as to whether "the profits" spoken of were those made by the Mint or by the Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission.
  • In "Production, distribution, and collecting" – The statement "The Bank of Hawaii took charge of distribution" is far enough removed in the article from the statement "The Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint" that it may help to elaborate on the exact arrangement those two entities had.
  • "and they remained in the bank's vaults until 1986, when they were sold at auction". Do we know what sort of price they fetched at that auction? As it occurred a lot more recently than the 1920s, I would hope that it's not impossible to find out. It may appear to run afoul of WP:RECENT to explicitly mention auction prices or other values from the past few years in the very next paragraph but leave out similar details from a few decades ago.
None of my online sources address this. I will be home in a week to check the book sources. Most coin periodicals don't have extensive archives. The Numismatist does and I checked, and nothing. It is, by the way, the Auctions by Bowers and Merena " Bank of Hawaii Consignment and the Ezra Cole Collection", January 23-25, 1986.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent an inquiry to the librarian at the American Numismatic Association library, asking if they have the auction catalog/prices realized. They have a large number of auction catalogs but they are not inventoried online. I will work on the other concerns expressed above soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I enjoyed reading this. As the tasks I undertake on here put me into regular contact with the dregs of the encyclopedia, it's nice to discover the occasional article which is far removed from that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm very grateful for your comments. I hope I've answered them all satisfactorily. If I haven't responded, I've gone ahead and done as suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Singora Singora (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC) OK - I'll make a start. I've got 5 PDFs and some HTML. I'll get this done by Sunday. This is later than anticipated, but I got hit out of the blue with some stuff for a new client. More to follow.[reply]

Sorry about that. Do you want me to hold off on sending you the pdfs from the books (I plan to tomorrow) or should I send them?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've got five PDFs:

  • 1. Hawaii house hearings
  • 2. Hawaii house report
  • 3. Hawaii Senate report
  • 4. Hawaii senate passage
  • 5. Hawaii house passage

And the following books:

  • 1. Numismatic Art in America (pages 174-175). The first ref holds up: wrote that the obverse "is too crowded, despite the large, flat, clothed bust" and that the various elements of the reverse design "are all too much for one small coin". The second is wrong: you've written He deemed "the coin honoring Hawaii in 1928 no more a credit to Chester Beach than was the Lexington Concord coin", whereas the source gives He deemed "the coin honoring Hawaii in 1928 is no more a credit to Chester Beach than was the Lexington Concord coin.
Correct, I meant to put an ellipsis here. Fixed. Thank you.
  • 2. An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage (the five scans are too small to use + the quality is dire)
Will resend.
  • 3. United States Commemorative Coinage (pages 84-87). RE: "These represent the eight largest volcanic islands of Hawaii: Oahu, Maui, Kauai, the "Big Island" of Hawaii, Niihau, Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Molokai". This is good. RE: "rising from obscurity" is very similar to the text "arising from obscurity".
I guess. But Taxay didn't make up the phrase, so I don't feel there's an issue. Sometimes there's only one really good track. Open to suggestions.
I thought of "emerging", but it's not as good. You're right -- "rising / arising" is the natural word. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Hawaiian Money Standard Catalog (pages 48-51). For page 48 you've got "Many Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollars were purchased by non-collectors and display the effects of poor handling" and "At least three different counterfeits are known". These are fine. For page 50 you've got "Bruce Cartwright, Jr., was in charge of choosing a coin design for the Captain Cook commission. Mrs. Ethelwyn Castle arranged for him to meet Juliette May Fraser, a local artist. Cartwright had prepared cartoon-style drawings, with the portrait of Cook based on a Wedgwood plaque that had been owned by Queen Emma, showing the explorer facing right. Within two days, Fraser had produced sketches", "The reverse was based on a statue of King Kamehameha I of Hawaii, designed by Thomas R. Gould, and intended to symbolize the past and future glory of the Kingdom [of Hawaii]", "The one that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany to Hawaii; the original was later salvaged and stands at Kohala on the island of Hawaii" and "Juliette Fraser had made several sketches, all with the same basic design elements, but with the chieftain in various poses and with Diamond Head in different positions". Why say "several sketches" when you only know for certain she made three?
If you don't think the three sketches shown justify "several", I will strike it.
Off the top of my head:
  • 1. YOU: Juliette Fraser had made several sketches, all with the same basic design elements, but with the chieftain in various poses and with Diamond Head in different positions.
  • 2. ME: Juliette Fraser had drawn several (some / initial / sample / example) sketches, three of which are reproduced in the Hawaiian Money Standard Catalog. These illustrations share the same basic design elements, albeit with the chieftain and Diamond Head in different poses and positions. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a bit wordy. I think it's best just to mention the sketches. All we are trying to do here is establish she played with different ideas. I've tweaked it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. The Authoritative Reference on Commemorative Coins (these five scans are too small)
  • 6. The Encyclopedia of United States Silver & Gold Commemorative Coins (pages 95-99). For this source you've got "Of the remainder, half was to be sold on the Hawaiian Islands, half reserved for sale from elsewhere. The Bank of Hawaii took charge of distribution on behalf of the Captain Cook commission" and "Sales began October 8, 1928; sales were good and supplies were quickly exhausted. Numismatists Anthony Swiatek and Walter Breen, in their book on commemoratives, write that while there was never any scandal about these coins, there were unconfirmed rumors of hordes of coins, totaling as many as 1,500, bought by insiders and kept off the market". Not sure about this. The deal seems to be that 1500 of the 4975 intended for distribution in Hawaii were kept off the market. There's nothing to indicate that hoarding took place elsewhere. Perhaps you should clarify this. Note that the Bowers source uses the term "investors" rather than your "insiders".
If they got to buy more than the mintage limit of 5, they were insiders, but I'll strike the word. I've clarified that the rumors say that the hoarded coins came from the local allocation.
Good. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll save this before I continue. Singora (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 7. Commemorative Coins of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia (pages 235-239). For page 237 you have "The Philadelphia Mint coined 10,008 Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollars in June 1928, with the eight pieces above the authorized mintage reserved for inspection and testing at the 1929 meeting of the annual Assay Commission. Fifty of the ten thousand were specially finished as sandblast proof pieces" and "One such grouping, of 137 pieces, comprised coins from an allotment for the Bank of Hawaii for sale to its employees. When the display coin was stolen, the bank president took the others off sale, and they remained in the bank's vaults until 1986, when they were sold at auction". The source says the coins were placed in the bank's vault for over half a century. Nothing about 1986. For page 238 you've got "The price was $2 per coin, the highest for a half dollar commemorative to that point". This is okay.
The 1986 is on page 237. "at auction to the order of the Bank of Hawaii, Ltd. on January 23, 1986".
  • 8. A Guide Book of United States Coins (pages 1138-1139). For this you've got "The Hawaii Sesquicentennial coin is the scarcest commemorative half dollar by design; according to R.S. Yeoman's A Guide Book of United States Coins published in 2015, it lists for between $1,850 and $11,000 depending on condition. The sandblast proofs are listed for up to $50,000 but none has recently been sold at auction—an exceptional specimen of the regular type went under the hammer for $25,850 in 2013". This is all good.


What am I supposed to do with PDFs? Tell me what sources link to which PDF. Singora (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PDFs are the copies of the government documents, hearing transcripts, congressional record, and so forth. They mostly support the "Legislation" section. I'll resend the others. Thank you for taking such time and effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent them to you. The five pdfs I sent you earlier are the hearing transcript, the committee report, and excerpts from the Congressional Record. Since there's only one per date, it should be clear when you open them--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do this over the next day or so. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two missing books Singora (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage (pages 123-131).
    • Page 124: "On November 2, Charles Moore, chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts wrote to Assistant Director of the Mint Mary M. O'Reilly that Juliette Fraser's sketches were excellent and would translate well into a coin" and "Numismatic historian Don Taxay found it likely that members of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures were pledged to support a Hawaii half dollar prior to a bill being submitted as preparations had begun".
Error! Correspondence with O'Reilly, along with the date, starts on page 123. Page 124 tells me the sketches had been prepared by Miss May Frazer. Why is he using her middle name?
I don't know why he uses her middle name. Adjusted.
Page 123 is also the correct source for your blurb re: members of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. Why do you write "were pledged" instead of "had pledged"?
It struck me as vaguer and safer, since Taxay really doesn't tell us what was going on. I've adjusted all the page numbers complained of.
I've changed it to "had agreed".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page 127, 130: "Once Beach accepted the commission on March 12, 1928, Juliette Fraser's sketches were forwarded to him. On April 7, he sent completed models to the Mint and photographs to the Fine Arts Commission. Both the Mint and Houston responded with criticism, the former that the relief of the coin was high and difficult to reduce to coin-sized hubs"
Error! Page 124 tells me that Beach accepted on March 12.
Error! Pages 124 & 127 tell me the sketches were then forwarded to him
Error! You're telling me the relief was too high to reduce to "coin-sized hubs". This wasn't the problem. The deal was that the relief was simply too high for their machines (notice the Chief Engraver's comment: "the coin would be very hard to coin because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the coin"). It was the text or lettering that, when reduced to coin-size, would be a problem: it was too small to start with and would be become indistinct when scaled down. The scaling issue, then, pertained to the text, not the height of the relief.
Examine the Caemmerer letter on p. 127. The relief was reportedly too high for their reducing machine (which was fairly common with commemoratives). I'm inclined to take Sinnock's word for it (it would have come from him originally), as he was the first chief engraver to be comfortable with the Janvier reducing machine.
You don't need to link to page 30, though if you re-read it you'll see the correspondents discus typefaces and letter-spacing. These are your scaling issues.
Finally, look again at that engraver's comment of yours: "the coin would be very hard to coin because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the coin". Notice anything?
    • Page 129: "Ferns are visible under that Latin motto: Houston wanted the plants removed, but Beach insisted on retaining them to balance the design"
The word "balance" is the natural choice and can't really be changed.
    • Page 130: "Beach agreed to lower any high points that might cause the Mint difficulty"
Yep, this is okay.
    • Page 131: "Delegate Houston had a long list of quibbles about the coin's design. For example, Beach had placed an anklet on the chief's leg; Houston felt such an item would not have been worn. Beach defended some of his choices, such as the anklet (which was removed when Houston insisted), and promised to comply with the remainder. This did not satisfy Houston, who was also unhappy about the shape of the palm tree on the coin, and Beach modified the design again. Beach forwarded final models, indicating that he would only consider making changes if the Mint requested it. He wrote to Moore, I think the proper thing for Mr. Houston to do would be to take the sculptor and family to Hawaii and let us live in the cocoanut [sic] trees for a while and absorb the atmosphere of that paradise." and "The coin was endorsed by the Commission of Fine Arts; on May 2, O'Reilly wrote to Beach that the design had received Secretary Mellon's approval".
Error! Houston's objection to the anklet ("pertaining to a dancer rather than a warrior") is introduced on page 128. On page 131 he mentions the anklet has not been deleted.
Error! RE: "on May 2, O'Reilly wrote to Beach that the design had received Secretary Mellon's approval" No. On May 2 Beach wrote to Moore explaining the changes. O'Reilly wrote to Beach to announce formal approval on May 9. You've confused the dates of two different letters.

More later.

I've fixed all these things, I hope. Thank you for all your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- The Authoritative Reference on Commemorative Coins (Flyn) Singora (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page 97: "The Captain Cook Memorial Collection, purchased in part with funds raised from the coins, is now in the Bishop Museum in Honolulu"
This is fine.
  • Page 98: "On April 19, Mint Chief Engraver John R. Sinnock wrote in a memorandum that the coin would be very hard to produce because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the design"
You've not sent page 98.
Sent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pages 276-77: "The Commission of Fine Arts met, and, at the suggestion of sculptor-member Lorado Taft, decided to ask Buffalo nickel designer James Earle Fraser (no relation) as to who would be most suitable to turn the sketches into plaster models, from which the Mint could make coinage dies and hubs. Moore wrote to James Fraser on December 19, but as the recipient overlooked the matter, he did not respond until February 7, 1928. James Fraser suggested Peace dollar designer Anthony de Francisci, but Chester Beach was engaged instead"
This is accurate, though I'm not quite sure why the second sentence is needed. I mean, should I really care that James Fraser overlooked the matter, took a while to reply, and then suggested some dude who didn't get the job? Sentences one and three strike me as sufficient.
Agreed. Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page 278: "thus, his gaze is westward"
Yes, this is okay.

Page 98 checked & confirmed Singora (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC) It seems to me that your wording (the greatest relief) and that in the source (the bulk of the relief) are unusual ways of referring to what is generally described as "depth". See relief for more info. I guess this is a numismatist thing.[reply]

Yes, relief is the common term in numismatics, taken from the artistic. Terminology is always an issue, though I don't think there's much ambiguity in numismatics that can't be cured with a link to glossary of numismatics, though I do not maintain that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PDF: To authorize coinage of silver 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of discovery of the Hawaiian Islands

  • 1. This is supposed to support "Perkins issued a report on February 1, 1928, recounting the history behind the proposed coin and indicating his committee's support", but I'm only seeing the minutes of a meeting that took place on January 23. Am I doing something wrong here? Singora (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue after you've clarified this point. I'm sure I've got the right PDF for the source. You've named it: Hawaii house hearings.

Sorry, Singora. What it is, is the report on the bill, it is three pages long.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Wehwalt -- I'll finish this over the weekend. I see now this open brackets u|Wehwalt close brackets triggers the "ping". Is there a limit on how many times you can (or should) ping someone? I've had more than half a dozen from the Old Pine Church article further down this list. It comes across as kind of desperate. Singora (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you feel is best as to your work, not being paid means no one can tell us what to do. Pinging usually works, I'm aware of no limits on it. Once or twice it hasn't worked terribly well, there's some discussion in my talk page archives about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've buggered this up. I was looking at the wrong PDF. Today I'll look at all refs for House Hearings. This is a 5-page PDF.
REF #1 (pages 2-5): "The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar was produced because of the observances there for the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming the first European to reach the Hawaiian Islands, or, as it was termed then, its discovery. Planners decided on a date for the celebrations as August 1928, as midway between the sesquicentennial of Cook's landing in January 1778 and of his death in the islands in February 1779. A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii[a] to give the celebrations official status, to ask the federal government to have the armed forces participate, and for Washington to invite the United Kingdom (Cook's allegiance) and other nations. It also asked the federal government to issue a half dollar and stamps in honor of the anniversary". Yep, this is a summary of the PDF.
REF #3 (page 1): "In the case of the Hawaii half dollar, the Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint". I guess you could replace the second instance of Hawaii half dollar with coins. I'm seeing the Cook Sesquicentennial Commission of Hawaii, btw.
Sources seem to be careless on how they refer to the commission. I've adjusted it.--09:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
REF #9 (pages 1-3): "It was referred to the coinage committee, of which New Jersey Congressman Randolph Perkins was the chair, and which held hearings on the bill on January 23, 1928. Delegate Houston appeared in support of his bill, and to the surprise of committee members, had gotten a statement from Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, stating that Mellon did not oppose the bill. Usually, when a commemorative coin was proposed, Mellon argued that a medal should be issued instead. This had been the case for the Norse-American medal three years previously; its sponsor, committee member Ole J. Kvale of Minnesota, had scuttled plans for a coin because of Treasury Department opposition. Congressman Kvale was very much interested in learning what powers of persuasion have been exercised by the gentleman from Hawaii to bring out a favorable report". This should read such a favorable report.
I don't see where that makes a difference and I tend to go with fewer words over longer.--Wehwalt (talk)
REF #10 (page 4): "Kvale, a Norse-American, asked, why this discrimination against two and a half million people in the United States has come about in favor of about 35,000 whites in that Territory?" This is good.
REF #11 (pages 3-4): "Houston stated he had not lobbied the Treasury for the coin, and Perkins, before promising to find out more information, speculated that perhaps it was because the coins were to be issued far from the continental United States. Houston told the committee that the coin was something that may be kept by those who attend the celebration as a memorial of it and will be available to foreigners who come there, as well as our own people who celebrate the occasion". This is all good
REF #12 (pages 4-5): "Kvale stated he would vote for the bill. Mississippi's Bill G. Lowrey noted that as he had said before, he would not vote for any coin bill; Perkins agreed that Lowrey had made his position clear". Possible error. Nothing about Lowrey on pages 4-5.

More later Singora (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. As for Rep. Lowrey, his comment is at the bottom of page 5, underneath Governor Farrington's letter.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Lowrey confirmed. The difference between "bring out a favorable report" and "bring out such a favorable report" is that your version is not what the guy is reported to have said. My understanding is that quotes need to be accurate. We had this issue earlier: you dropped the word "is". Singora (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures (February 1, 1928)

  • REF #13: "Perkins issued a report on February 1, 1928, recounting the history behind the proposed coin and indicating his committee's support". All good, though I wonder why you've not put in page numbers (1-3). Singora (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since we cover the whole thing, I felt it unneeded for a three-page report.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1928 Congressional Record, Vol. 74

  • REF #14 (pages 3278–3279): "The bill was passed without objection by the House of Representatives on February 20, 1928". Your ref needs a plural for the page numbering. Dates are good. Singora (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1928 Congressional Record, Vol. 74 (March 2, 1928)

  • REF # 16 (page 3949): "The bill was passed by the Senate on March 2, 1928 without recorded opposition". This is okay. Again, you have inconsistencies re: page numbering (Page vs. p.). Singora (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the template that produces that. That's been, I assume, considered acceptable in prior FAs as it has passed without objection. Thank you for your comments. I've made some minor p vs pp changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for another valuable coin. Only minor concerns:

Inception

  • "Mrs. Ethelwyn Castle, a civic-minded individual", - I noticed that the term "individual" might not be considered the politest.
  • "decided to ask Buffalo nickel designer James Earle Fraser", - I expected a name after "ask", but perhaps I am the only one.
I think its OK. It is a false title and appropriately rendered, in my view anyway. It is more compact to place it before the name.
fine if you say so, learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design

  • "The one that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany;", - afraid that "the one" is unclear, perhaps repeat "the statue"?
I changed it to sculpture. Open to ideas.
  • "The palm tree that rises above him is intended to signify romance." - how do we know that? I can't access the source, - is it given in the Slabaugh ref, somewhat later?
Yes, it is in Slabaugh. I can send you a copy if you want. It is from the description of the design, and I suspect he's borrowing from the Report of the Director of the Mint for 1928 or 1929.
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • translate the Latin motto?

That's it today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I've done except as commented.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments and support.--09:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Prose review: I've read enough coin articles to consider myself, if not an expert, quite familiar with historic US coin issues. For one thing, the cast of producers, gainsayers and experts tends to be much the same (although in this case they seem to have avoided death or imprisonment). I'm giving it a fairly close reading, and here are my comments on the first half – largely suggestions and/or minor quibbles:

Lead
  • "Depicting Captain Cook on the obverse and a Hawaiian chieftain on the reverse, only 10,000 were struck for the public, making it rare and valuable today." The different statements are unrelated, but are artificially connected by the gerund (?) "depicting". Something like: "It depicts Captain Cook on the obverse and a Hawaiian chieftain on the reverse; only 10,000 were struck for the public, making it rare and valuable today." might resolve this.
  • Perhaps introduce Chester Beach as "Sculptor Chester Beach", otherwise he sounds more like a location.
  • The final "today" is indeterminate.
Inception
  • First line: "because of" → "as part of"? - and "of" rather than "for" in "for the 150th anniversary..."
  • I'd put "discovery" in quotes
I'm inclined to leave it as is. The phrasing is enough.
  • "Planners decided on a date for the celebrations as August 1928, as midway between the sesquicentennial of Cook's landing in January 1778 and of his death in the islands in February 1779." Suggest: "Planners decided on a date in August 1928 for the celebrations, midway between the sesquicentennial of Cook's landing in January 1778 and of his death in the islands in February 1779. "Sesquicentennial" should be linked.
  • I think I'dsplit this sentence: "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii to give the celebrations official status, to ask the federal government to have the armed forces participate, and for Washington to invite the United Kingdom (Cook's allegiance) and other nations." Thus: "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii giving the celebrations official status. The federal government was asked to have the armed forces participate, and for Washington to invite the United Kingdom (Cook's allegiance) and other nations. The resolution also requested the federal government..." etc
  • "issue a half dollar and stamps" → "issue a half dollar coin and postage stamps"
  • "In the case of the Hawaii half dollar, the Cook Sesquicentennial Commission of Hawaii was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint." Could this be simplified to: "In the case of the Hawaii half dollar, the Cook Sesquicentennial Commission of Hawaii was to be the authorized group."?
  • It's not normal in WP articles to add "Mrs." to names. Is there a special factor in this case?
That's how the source refers to her. It does not say much about her, so I did not feel inclined to remove info.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Gerda, I don't think "individual" is necessarily impolite, but something a bit more informative might be helpful.
The source is not informative on the point of Mrs. Castle beyond what I have written
  • The words "as to" in the final paragraph seem unnecessary.
Legislation
  • First line: "found it likely" → "thought it likely" (or even "considered"? "Found" does not seem right.
  • Maybe add "earlier" to the end of opening sentence?
  • "On February 27, South Dakota's Peter Norbeck reported the bill back to the Senate without amendment and included in the report a letter from Secretary Mellon to Perkins dated February 13, in which Mellon expanded on his reasons for not opposing the Hawaii coin legislation: that only a token number of pieces would be issued, and that the celebration, sponsored by the territorial government, was of national significance". The sentence is a bit too long, and I got a confused as to whether the wording after the colon related to Norbeck's report or Mellon's letter. It's probably fairly obvious, but a sentence break would make it clearer: "On February 27, South Dakota's Peter Norbeck reported the bill back to the Senate without amendment, and included in the report a letter from Secretary Mellon to Perkins dated February 13, in which Mellon expanded on his reasons for not opposing the Hawaii coin legislation. Mellon stated that only a token number of pieces would be issued, and that the celebration, sponsored by the territorial government, was of national significance".

Second half to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I'm up to date. I have made the changes, though sometimes in my own words, except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rest, such as it is:

Preparation
  • No issues
Design
  • "his gaze is westward" – that rather depends on tour position when you're holding the coin.
Word "left" removed".
  • "was based" → "is based"?
  • The comma after "Kamehameha I of Hawaii" should go, to clarify that Gould was the sculptor of the statue, not the designer of the reverse.
  • "The sculpture that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany; the original was later salvaged and stands at Kohala on the island of Hawaii." Relevance?
The sources don't say which was used, so I'm covering both possible origins.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Production etc
  • "When the display coin was stolen..." You might clarify "When the display coin from this collection was stolen..." etc
  • "The Captain Cook Memorial Collection" – it would be helpful if you said, briefly, what this is, presumably a museum or permanent display of Cook-related artefacts or memorabilia.
It seems to be Native Hawaiian material, since that is what they deal with. I don't find anything obviously useful on the web to back up Mr. Flynn's assertion. I'll continue to research this as opportunity presents. I may email the museum as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the scarcest commemorative half dollar by design..." – not sure what "by design" means here. Isn't it just the scarcest commemorative half dollar?
No, some of the multiple date ones, including the Oregon Trail piece have lower mintages for a specific date and mintmark, but cumulatively there are more of that design. I haven't gotten to most of the multi-date series yet.

That's it – I'm rather scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Nicely done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My outstanding points will I am sure be easily disposed of, so I won't withhold support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I havent mentioned it, I've dealt with it. Re the barrel, no't nearly as I must ransack your work to find something to show I'm earning my keep, so to speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments Singora (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) I don't have time to check the last PDF, but I doubt this'll be a problem. Am I allowed to Support on sourcing? The article is factually accurate, and I guess this is what counts.[reply]

You certainly can, and given the work you've done, it is very welcome. Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I looked in earlier, but there was a lot going on and I have only now remembered to look in again. The article looks to me to meet the FA criteria and, not coincidentally, to meet the standard of previous articles in this remarkable series. It's wonderful how Wehwalt can make numismatics interesting even to those not much drawn to the topic. Another bullseye, I'd say. Tim riley talk 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed for your kind words and for wading through this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2016 [5].

Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the more dramatic actions of World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music played in the movie during the escape sequence

Comments by Checkingfax

[edit]
Hi, Hawkeye7. I made a deep polishing pass through the article and made several helpful edits to put the article closer to a Featured Article promotion. I fixed a couple of typos too, but I did not put that in my edit summary. Ping me back when you are ready for my !vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkingfax, there have been a couple of supports now, did you want to be pinged? - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support –  on structure, MoS, accessibility, readability, and brilliance. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    Tried that. But it needs to be scaled up a lot before all the text becomes readable. Best to just allow readers to click on it to enlarge. When I watched the movie I got worried about my map, as it differs substantially from that shown. But our map is correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lieutenant_J._D._Bulkeley_k13927.jpg: is there a NARA link? The current source link is dead. Same with File:Lieutenant_John_D._Bulkeley_g14252.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated to use the current NHC link. Added one more pic down the bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class (almost 4 years ago). - Dank (push to talk)

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

It's good to see an article on this once-famous incident at FAC. I have the following comments:

  • "ultimately arriving in Melbourne on 21 March. This was the occasion of his famous speech in which he declared, "I came through and I shall return"" - this wording is a bit confusing given that the article notes that he actually said this while en-route to Melbourne
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para of the lead should note that MacArthur was the commanding officer of the forces in the Philippines
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Philippines had no navy at all" - but there was a US Navy fleet based there - perhaps note this earlier
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any historians commented on the rights and wrongs of the escape? It looks somewhat indulgent to modern eyes, though probably wasn't seen as such at the time.
    They don't seem to have. I have a lot of books on MacArthur, but none debate it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read the account of this incident in The Fall of the Philippines, and it had some good details to draw on to flesh out the "Decision" section a bit - such as the military rationale for ordering MacArthur out of the Philippines (the history notes that a very senior commander was needed in a hurry with MacArthur being the logical choice) and the timing of the escape (which MacArthur delayed until the situation in Bataan was relatively stable). There's also some interesting material on the extent to which MacArthur resisted evacuating, which Morton suggests was over-egged somewhat by MacArthur's admirers, as well as MacArthur's demand that the best pilots and aircraft in the US be assigned to get him out of the Philippines. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added another paragraph detailing this, sourced from Morton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by jfhutson

[edit]

Will return for a second read-through. --JFH (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Support very gripping. Just a few details:

  • "he united the Philippine and United States Armies under one command." It's difficult to know how to assess this without knowing the previous state of affairs.
But it says that His job was to advise the Philippine government on defense matters, and prepare the Philippine defense forces for the day when the Philippines became fully independent. So we know that the Philippines was not fully
I guess I mean, were the Philippine forces under the nominal command of the Filipinos?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Added a paragraph about the Philippine Army.
But that is in a quotation, and per MOS:QUOTE: As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader. But I wanted to include his mention in the message, because it shows that he was only supposed to take his family and his chief of staff, but chose to take other staff as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe pipe the name to Sutherland and then introduce as you have it. Just so the reader knows there's a link available there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A United States Army Air Corps officer, Major General Harold H. George, was requested by the United States Army Air Forces.[35]" seems to be some words missing. To be part of the expedition?
Changed to A United States Army Air Corps officer, Major General Harold H. George, was included at the request of the United States Army Air Forces Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the suspicion is that Marshall spoke to Admiral King. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit from Brett's account. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistency cited so far as I can tell.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2016 [6].

Margaret Lea Houston

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sam Houston's third (and final) wife, who became the First Lady of the Republic of Texas, and the First Lady of Texas when it became a state. I have been working on this article on and off since 2011.

An explanation about the names. Houston and Lea are the predominant surnames in this article. To avoid confusion, only Sam Houston is referred to solely by his last name. The others are referred to by their first names. Because the children were often given the exact name as the adults, I have included their nicknames to distinguish who they are. Houston City is how many authors mention the city of Houston when they are writing about Sam Houston. It could be confusing to say "Houston went to Houston." or "The Houstons moved to Houston." "The city of Houston" could have double meaning, because he also maintained a residence there. — Maile (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • File:Sam3.jpg same, plus would benefit from moving to a better name

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I'm sorry that I probably won't have time to finish this one, but I'll do as much as I can.
  • "They met in between his two non-consecutive terms as President of the Republic of Texas": AHD and M-W say that "in between" (with or without a hyphen) can't be a preposition. You might change this to: just before his second term, or: just after his first.
CheckedChanged to "They met following his first of two non-consecutive terms"
  • "during his service as a representative": Politicians are really the only ones who think they're providing a service. "when he was".
Checked Changed
  • "a strong, close-knit family": What's a strong family?
Checked removed "strong"
  • "the man who was arguably the most famous and accomplished individual of his place and time.": I don't know what that means. What would a list of people who were the most famous of their place and time look like? Who would be on such a list?
Checked Changed to "the man who was an accomplished politician in both Tennessee and Texas, and who had won the Battle of San Jacinto during the Texas Revolution"
I like it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "8 children": eight children
Checked Done
  • "to the majority of them": feels a little clinical to me. "most of them"
Checked Done
  • "helping with the children, alternately providing the family with financial assistance and temporary housing, as well as managing the household help": I'd go with: helping with the children, managing the household help, and always providing either financial assistance or temporary housing
Checked Done
  • "The Lea family presence in Texas formed a spiritual bond that helped Margaret convince her husband to": I personally don't object, but the tone isn't standard for Wikipedia. I'd go with: "With the help of her extended family in Texas, Lea convinced her husband to"
Checked Done
  • "Nacogdoches": link it ... and it's an odd-looking name for a town, so I'd put "Texas" after it.
Checked Done
Thank you. I've taken care of these. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Marriage section are currently unsourced.
Checked I put a citation at the end of the paragraph that applies to both sentences.
  • First Lady of the Republic: "She renamed it Ben Lomond as a tip of the hat to the romantic Walter Scott works she'd read". Contractions like "she'd" should be avoided if possible. I could understand leaving it if it was part of a quote, but since that is not the case I'd suggest going with "she had" here.
Checked done
  • The last sentence of the section's second paragraph could also use a cite.
Checked done
  • Raven Hill and Woodland: "and his concern that he'd had no letters from her in weeks." This has another contraction that should be removed; since you may not want "had had" in there, consider "that he had received no letters from her in weeks" or similar.
Checked done
  • Another in "she'd had with a breast lump", and one more immediately afterward. Try sweeping the rest of the article for any more.
Checked and I checked the rest of the article for possible contractions of 'd, 'nt or 't
  • "while Congress was in session and Houston in Washington, D.C.." Double period here, and the spacing of the abbreviation seems different than what you're using in the rest of the article. Also, if you think a Washington, D.C. link is helpful, it could be placed earlier in the section.
Checked done
Giants2008 I've taken care of all issues. That was a really good catch on the double period and varied spacing on Washington, D.C. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I can only find one small quibble, which doesn't affect my support.

  • "His will named her as his executrix, and named his cousin Thomas Caruthers, as well as with family friends Thomas Gibbs, J. Carroll Smith and Anthony Martin Branch as executors": I don't think you need "with".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Thank you for your support. "with" was actually a typo, and I've removed it. Good catch. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

[edit]

Support Maile66, I apologize for taking so long to complete my review of this article for Margaret Lea Houston. As always, you have done an exceptional job. This article is indeed well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable; it follows the style guidelines; it has images with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright statuses; and it is an appropriate length. All my spot-checks of sourcing had satisfactory results. I find that this article easily meets Featured Article criteria, and all of the aforementioned issues and quibbles have been resolved. Thank you for your continued exceptional contributions to Wikipedia, including this one. -- West Virginian (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]
Coming now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting looks consistent.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool is negative/clear.

Using this version as a reference,

  • FN 56 is used once, material is faithful to source.
  • FN 68 is used once, material is faithful to source.
  • FN 102 is used once, material is faithful to source.
  • FN 105 is used twice, material is faithful to source.

i.e. looks all in order....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2016 [7].

Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman

[edit]
Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Hawaiian-American Union Army soldier who is considered one of the "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War"; he was among a group of more than one hundred documented Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants who fought in the American Civil War while the Kingdom of Hawaii was still an independent nation. In recent years, he has become one of the many central figures of interest in a revival of interest of this period of Hawaiian history. This article was nominated as a good article and A-List article and has been peer reviewed. Basically, everything known in the sources directly about this individual is already in the article itself, so there are some questions that I won't be able to answer because no known knowledge exist about it. Renominating. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - noting that I've been involved with this article at the peer review stage. It appears to cover the available sources thoroughly and I don't remember finding any additional material at peer review which should have been added. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: generally looks pretty good to me. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this for GA, since then it has only gotten better. The prose & material is FA quality --Errant (chat!) 15:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Unless I missed it, looks like we need a source review for formatting and reliability; also as I believe this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. A request for these can be listed at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Trappist the monk

[edit]
I have been asked to comment here.
  1. reference 2: don't Harvard style references use author or editor names; use of the publisher here seems atypical; is that appropriate?
    • The book is a collection of articles by multiple authors, some of them only a few pages long and then I would use another article from that same book, but by another author, so I thought it would better to use the publisher as the common thread of that book. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. reference 7 requires registration; should have |website=?
  3. Carter 1897 should precede Carter 1913
  4. DAR 1938 and DAR 1910 are used only once each. Is it necessary to use Harvard referencing in such cases? If the decision is taken to keep the Harvard referencing for these two, consider changing 'DAR 1910' to 'Daughters of the American Revolution 1910' so that the names match in §References and §Bibliography; same applies to DAR 1938
  5. Daws 1968 links to snippet view; is that appropriate?
  6. How do we know that 'Secretary of the Commonwealth' is the same as 'Secretary of State'? Because Google says so? Title page says Commonwealth.
  7. Pierce 1958 links to snippet view; is that appropriate? Is this a book or a journal? uses {{cite book}} with |journal=
  8. Pitman 1931 links to snippet view; is that appropriate?
  9. Rogers in §Further reading: Is this a book or something else? uses {{cite book}} with |work=
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: I made these edits. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the numbers in my comments above. Answers here refer to those numbers
  1. I presume that you have read the appropriate section of that book so you can discover the name of the author of that section. The author should be the name in the {{sfn}} and {{cite book}} templates. When the author name is not available, but the editor's name is available, shouldn't we be using the editor name because that name is left-most in the rendered citation? This way we don't astonish the reader who expects the Harvard reference to match the citation.
    • Could we just use the editors name? The problem is this one article is co-written by Justin Vance and Anita Manning, and another article is written by just Vance. In other article I am using the same format and they are using article written by a third author Ruthanne Lum McCunn for example.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. perhaps like this:
    {{cite web |title=1860 United States Census |url=http://www.mocavo.com/Henry-Pitman-B1845-Newton-Middlesex-Massachusetts-1860-United-States-Census/01754860596728994882 |website=[[Mocavo]] |registration=yes |accessdate=September 6, 2015}}
    "1860 United States Census". Mocavo. Retrieved September 6, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  4. (and others) There are those who think that snippet view does not allow proper verification because the text surrounding the 'seach string' may not be sufficient to provide proper context
  5. 'Commonwealthro'?
I may look more when I feel motivated to do so.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again restored the numbering in my comments.
I do not understand what it is that you wrote about Vance, Manning, McCunn in Shively. It seems that you know who the author(s) is(are) but I got lost in the various references to 'other' articles. Other articles in the source? other articles in Wikpedia? both? If you are attempting to cite two articles (one by Vance and Manning, and one by Vance) with a single citation, that is not proper use of the {{cite book}} template. There are ways to do it which I'll explain if that is what is needed here.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: It is a book though so it is not an improper use of cite book. I will use Shively because that is common thread. The book is divided into 11 sections and each section divided into articles written by various historians. The section I am mainly using is the one titled "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War" (pp. 130–163) and the articles in that section include 1. Introduction by Justin Vance and Anita Mannning, 2. Eyewitness aboard the USS Santiago de Cuba by Vance and Mannning, 3. J. R. Kealoha by Vance and Mannning, 4. Kingdom of Hawaii Citizens of American Descent by Vance and Mannning, 5. Prince Romerson by Ruthanne Lum McCunn, 6. Henry Hoolulu (Timothy) Pitman by Vance and Mannning, 7. The CSS Shenandoah: A Confederate Raider in the Pacific by Vance and Mannning, 8. Hawaiian Sailor Helps Convict a Slaver by Manning, 9. From Whaler to Sailor Pacific Islanders and the New Bedford Whale Fishery by Laura A. Miller and Marla R. Miller, 10. James Wood Bush by Vance and Manning, 11. Anaconda Plan: The Great Snake by Carol Shively, 12. The Impact of the Civil War on the Kingdom of Hawaii by Vance and Manning. It has the set up of a journal but it is not a journal and if I were to use cite journal or another similar format, I would have to separate each of individual articles I used into their own bulleted source. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand. I did not say that Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Civil War is not a book. If you are citing more than one article in the book you can create separate {{cite book}} templates (one for each article) or use {{harvc}} to cite the individual articles and the {{cite book}} to cite the enclosing section. Consider this (the four {{harvnb}} templates are a mock-up of how similar {{sfn}} templates would render in §References; page numbers are made up):
in §References:
{{harvnb|Vance|Manning|2015a|p=137}}
{{harvnb|Vance|Manning|2015b|pp=142, 145}}
{{harvnb|McCunn|2015|p=150}}
{{harvnb|Vance|Manning|2015c|pp=152–154}}
in §Bibliography:
*{{cite book|editor-last=Shively|editor-first=Carol A.|section=Pacific Islanders and the Civil War|title=Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Civil War|year=2015|location=Washington, D. C.|publisher=National Park Service|isbn=978-1-59091-167-9|oclc=904731668 |pages=130–163|ref=harv}}
**{{harvc |contribution=J. R. Kealoha |last=Vance |first=Justin |last2=Manning |first2=Anita |in=Shively |year=2015 |pp=135–140 |id=CITEREFVanceManning2015a}}
**{{harvc |contribution=Kingdom of Hawaii Citizens of American Descent |last=Vance |first=Justin |last2=Manning |first2=Anita |in=Shively |year=2015 |pp=141–147 |id=CITEREFVanceManning2015b}}
**{{harvc |contribution=Prince Romerson |last=McCunn |first=Ruthanne Lum |in=Shively |year=2015 |pp=148–150}}
**{{harvc |contribution=Henry Hoolulu (Timothy) Pitman |last=Vance |first=Justin |last2=Manning |first2=Anita |in=Shively |year=2015 |pp=151–155 |id=CITEREFVanceManning2015c}}
in §References:
Vance & Manning 2015a, p. 137
Vance & Manning 2015b, pp. 142, 145
McCunn 2015, p. 150
Vance & Manning 2015c, pp. 152–154
in §Bibliography:
  • Shively, Carol A., ed. (2015). "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War". Asians and Pacific Islanders and the Civil War. Washington, D. C.: National Park Service. pp. 130–163. ISBN 978-1-59091-167-9. OCLC 904731668. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
    • Vance, Justin; Manning, Anita. "J. R. Kealoha". In Shively (2015), pp. 135–140. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFShively2015 (help)
    • Vance, Justin; Manning, Anita. "Kingdom of Hawaii Citizens of American Descent". In Shively (2015), pp. 141–147. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFShively2015 (help)
    • McCunn, Ruthanne Lum. "Prince Romerson". In Shively (2015), pp. 148–150. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFShively2015 (help)
    • Vance, Justin; Manning, Anita. "Henry Hoolulu (Timothy) Pitman". In Shively (2015), pp. 151–155. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFShively2015 (help)
A reader clicks on a reference superscript which jumps to McCunn 2015, p. 150 above. Reader clicks McCunn and the page jumps to highlight "Prince Romerson". Reader clicks on Shivley and lands on the {{cite book}} citation with the section title. |id= required in {{harvc}} templates because there are multiple Vance & Manning contributions.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: Like this [8]?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Because there are three {{harvc}}s all in a column, for the second and third you might want to include |author-mask=2 and |author-mask2=2. For page numbers, you might want to move the page ranges from the {{sfn}} templates to the {{harvc}} templates. Then, at the {{sfn}}s include the specific page (or pages) upon which the source material that supports this article can be found. This way page numbering is hierarchical {{cite book}} identifies the section page range (130–163), each {{harvc}} identifies the page-range of an article (132–135, 146–149, 161–163), and each {{sfn}} template identifies the particular supporting page.
There is a reason that I don't normally have anything to do with FA: it's too nit-picky, as you can see from this discussion of a single reference. So, you should remember that I am not here to specify what you should be doing with this article. Rather, I would hope to help you do what you want to do. The decision adopt or ignore anything that I have written here is yours.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: I am a bit lost. I tried those templates but they came out wrong for some reason. I want to do all of this if it means improving the article. Can you help? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I tried those templates but they came out wrong for some reason means because whatever it is that you tried didn't get saved so the article is in the same state as it was when you posted the diff of what you had done to add the {{harvc}}templates. So, specifically, what did you try and what were the results? Or, better, try again and save so that I can see what it is that you did.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: I was using preview. Saved it now. A lot of the steps you mentioned above are not clear to me. The first part of your suggestion doesn't turn out right, and I have no idea what you are suggesting me to change after "For page numbers,..." Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that you should move the page ranges from {{sfn}} to {{harvc}} not rename sfn to harvc. Then at the {{sfn}} that now doesn't have a page parameter, add a |p= or |pp= parameter so that the reader can go directly the the page in the source that supports the statement in the article. So for Vance & Manning 2015a, move |pp=132–135 to the "Introduction" {{harvc}}. At the Vance & Manning 2015a {{sfn}} add a |p= or |pp= parameter that identifies the specific page upon which Vance and Manning claim Kamehameha "denied permission for the men to go as a unit" (or whichever bit of that note is supported by the Vance & Manning 2015a Introduction).
Am I making any sense?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea what exactly are you talking about. I can't follow along with your instructions. These templates and stuff are all jargon to me. I have no clue. Thanks for the help. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With or without it I think the reference format is already above what is needed for FA criteria especially comparing with today's FA on the main page. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One last attempt before I accept my dismissal:
  1. The section "Pacific Islanders and the Civil War" occupies pages 130–163. We note that in the {{cite book}}.
  2. The "Introduction" occupies pages 132–135. We note that in the {{harvc}}.
  3. Somewhere in the introduction Vance and Manning write something that supports this sentence in note 3:
    However, in order to avert diplomatic controversy and in defense of the Hawaiʻi's neutrality, King Kamehameha IV and Minister Robert Crichton Wyllie officially denied permission for the men to go as a unit.
  4. I presume that Vance and Manning did not need all 4 pages of the Introduction to say that. I presume that what they wrote is on one of pages 132, 133, 134, or 135. That page number belongs in the {{sfn}} template.
So what we've accomplished is to narrow the focus from the broadest (the section) to the narrowest (the specific page) in an orderly manner.
I stand dismissed.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Will continue from above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using this version for consistency of referencing:

  • FN 30 - cited twice, material faithul to source.
  • FN 56 - cited once, material faithul to source.
  • FN 63 - cited twice, material faithul to source.
  • FN 78 - cited once, material faithul to source.
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool ok.

All in all, sourcing looks sound. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Anything else needs to be done?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2016 [9].

2008 UAW-Dodge 400

[edit]
Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2008 UAW-Dodge 400, the third race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series held at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. The 267-lap race was won by Roush Fenway Racing's Carl Edwards who was later penalized 100 points for a loose oil lid on his car's oil reservoir encasement. This article has underwent a GOCE copy-edit and I believe that it is up to the required standard. All comments welcome. Z105space (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • There are a couple of bits of information in the lead that aren't in the body, from the first couple of sentences of the lead. The lead is supposed to include only information that's in the body, rather than be an introduction that doesn't need to be repeated in the body. I think if you repeat the first two sentences, verbatim or close to it, before the "Background" section of the "Report" section, that would work.
    • I've removed bits that are not in the body. Z105space (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I wasn't quite clear on this. If you chop off the lead, what is left should serve as a complete article. Currently your first section starts talking about the track. It should start with some sentence such as "The 2008 UAW-Dodge 400 was the third stock car race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series", and tell the reader what we're talking about. The lead just summarizes the rest of the article. That's not what you have here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      FYI, I've asked about this point here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have chosen to add the remaining parts of the lead into the main body as a result of the discussion. Z105space (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I don't see this. I've just edited the first paragraph of the body to show you what I meant; I cut the crowd size since that's mentioned below. You don't have to do this with a simple repetition from the lead; a glance at other articles will give you ideas on how to merge the information in the first paragraph, but at least this does the job. Feel free to delete what I've done and do it another way, but the straightforward declaration of the facts (it's a stock car race; it's in the 2008 Sprint Cup series; it was held in Las Vegas on 2 March 2008) needs to be in the first couple of sentences in some form or other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I have only slight alterations to avoid simple repetition from the lead. Z105space (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dodging to avoid" is redundant; how about "swerving to avoid", or just "dodging"?
    • I've changed it to "swerving to avoid"
  • "He was joined on the grid's front row by Edwards and felt his car had oversteer during his run": this is an odd pairing of two unrelated bits of information. Wouldn't the note about oversteer be more naturally included in the previous sentences?
  • "Bowyer drove up the track and hit the outside wall": what does "track" mean here? Per this I assumed it meant racing surface, but that doesn't seem right, as then every driver would have driven up the track and you wouldn't have mentioned Bowyer doing so.
  • "Four laps later, Edwards started to challenge Kyle Busch for the lead, while Jeff Gordon had moved up to third on lap 18, and Martin had fell back from third to eighth by the same lap": a couple of problems. You don't want "had" for something that postdates the previous comment; and "had fell back" is ungrammatical.
  • "the third caution was triggered when Stewart's right-front tire burst, and made heavy contact with the turn two wall": as written this means Stewart's tire made contact with the wall, which I don't think is what is meant.
  • I removed one instance of "fell down to nth place" but I see there are several more. Is this standard usage? It seems redundant to me; just "fell to nth place" is cleaner.
  • "On the same lap, Gordon passed Busch, who fell down another position": why "who fell down another position"? Isn't that implied by the rest of the sentence?
    • Removed "who fell down another position".
  • "Biffle and his teammate Kenseth drove alongside each other in a battle for second place on lap 166, until Biffle escaped and ran onto the apron on the next lap": I don't follow what happened here, probably because I don't know what the apron is. Could you add it to the glossary of motorsport terms and link it?
  • "officials located debris in the turn two groove": suggest linking "groove" to the glossary.
  • The post-race section has a lot of quotes. I don't have any objections to any specific quote, but I think it would be a good idea to go through and try to convert some of them to paraphrases -- the fair use justification for these quotes is weaker the more of them you have.
  • This sentence seems to be incomplete: "a device or duct work that permitted the car from one area of the interior of the car to another" -- permitted what?
  • Not an issue for FAC, but is there any reason not to make some of the tables at the end sortable?

-- That's everything I see on a first pass. Most of the points are pretty minor. I think the only issue I'm concerned about is the quotes. I went back and looked at the other NASCAR FAs and this article is in line with the usage there. I'd like to hear from other reviewers on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first source:

  • Jayski's Silly Season Site
    • Article: "Hornish scraped the turn-two wall early in the session"; source: "Hornish scraped the turn two wall early in practice". Too close to the original.
    • Article: "Kyle Busch won the third pole position of his career, and his first at Las Vegas Motor Speedway": source doesn't say it was his first at this track.
    • Article: "he came down the track and Kyle Petty hit Bowyer's rear-end and damaged his front-left fender": source doesn't say Petty hit Bowyer's rear end.
    • Article: "Reutimann did the same and scraped the outside wall, causing right-rear damage to his car. He was black-flagged by NASCAR because parts were hanging from his car"; source: "Reutimann slipped high and smacked the wall, doing right rear damage, NASCAR finally black flagged the #00 as parts were hanging off the car". Too close to the original.

Also, what makes jayski.com a reliable source? Per the about page, it's run by a single person. It's owned by ESPN but it doesn't appear that they exercise editorial control over the site. Our article on the site says that Adamczyk "continues to be the operator". -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've raised the question of whether this is an RS at the RS noticeboard; please join the conversation there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck most of the points above. I'm going to nudge at the RSN for comments on jayski.com; I'd prefer to get more eyes on the discussion, since I gather it's used in many NASCAR articles. Once that's addressed I will look at more sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response at the RSN. Is there an ESPN page where jayski.com is linked, so that it can be seen that ESPN regards jayski.com as a good source for NASCAR news? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The note just posted at RSN is good enough evidence for me that jayski.com is reliable. I will try to continue looking at the sources tomorrow; I'm in the middle of several reviews at the moment so it might be a day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I checked three or four more sources for close paraphrasing and found no other issues. I have not done a full source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

@Dank: Thanks. Much appreciated. I've addressed your comments Z105space (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review (done by Saskoiler)

  • Copyright status
    • Re: military flyover photo . The source URL for this photo is dead. Looks like it has been moved to here.
    • I checked all eight images, and all have acceptable status. [1] Own work - public domain [2, 3, 5, 6, and 7] Flickr with acceptable CC licenses [4 and 8] US Government - public domain.
  • Captions
    • "Military flyover before the start of the race." ← According to WP:CAPFRAG, sentence fragments should not end in a period. Should probably reword or drop the period.
    • "Carl Edwards celebrating his second consecutive victory of the 2008 season." ← Ditto. Also a sentence fragment.
    • Otherwise, captions are suitable.
  • Image choice
    • The last image shows Ryan Newman. It's an okay photo, but the large NASA logo is slightly misleading/confusing, leading a reader to wonder what NASA has to do with this photo or this article. Perhaps it would be better to swap in a more neutral photo, like this one or this one? (Admittedly, neither of these were taken on the day of the race, but then neither is the current image.) Or maybe just crop it?

-- Saskoiler (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saskoiler: All your points have been actioned. Z105space (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. Looks good now. - Saskoiler (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. This all looks good. Everything that needs to be cited is cited, and the citations are to reliable sources and are properly formatted. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2016 [10].

The Man Trap

[edit]
Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the very first episode broadcast of Star Trek: The Original Series, making it the prime candidate for the front page spot on September 8th this year to mark the 50th anniversary. So this has been worked up through GA, and has gone through a Peer Review as well as taking on-board the previous comments received during the successful FAC of "Space Seed" (which please note would be the backup if this FAC fails). Miyagawa (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for archiving that btw. I've been having some trouble with using archive.org on my version of Chrome, but I've since realised it still works in another browser and so have started using it again via that instead. Miyagawa (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Checkingfax

  • Images were found to be resized to 70% because of using unnamed upright parameter: I resized images to 100% by removing the upright parameter from each image containing it.
  • Checked article for MoS compliance: Passed.
  • Refined structure.

Looking good. Please ping me back for my !vote after review is further along. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image captions could be more succinct
  • Toolbox
    • Alt text: Pass[11]
    • Citation bot: No changes were required[12]
    • Disambig links: Pass[13]
    • Edit count: ? (there are no FA instructions on how to present the results of this tool here)
    • External links: Pass[14]
    • Peer review: Found issues here
    • Redirects: 3 issues[15]
    • Reflinks: Pass[16]
  • Date harmony: Pass

Support assuming nitpicks from the Toolbox are addressed. – Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, got them to work directly from the toolbox. There are three redirects - I've requested the deletion of one as I can't find any reference to it's relevance. The other two are using the disambiguation used elsewhere in Star Trek articles (both the current and previous versions of the disambiguation formatting). The javascript peer review makes several suggestions - however, the lead is already the suggested length per the article size as stated at WP:LEADLENGTH. There is no free use image available that would be appropriate for the infobox. There is criticism of starting a section heading with "the", but I don't think there is a better way to refer to "the creature". Perhaps it could be renamed to the "Salt vampire" but that isn't an official designation. However, it did cause me to check for some British spellings, and I'm afraid my native spellings have crept in - two words corrected to American English. Miyagawa (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

Comments: Overall, this is looking good. The prose needs a little tightening, but it seems to be comprehensive overall. A few comments on the lead, with more to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was the first episode of the first season to be broadcast": Why make this so convoluted? Perhaps just "It was the first episode of the show to be broadcast"?
  • Normally I'd say "It was the first episode of the first season"; except this is an unusual case it was only the first episode to be broadcast and really the sixth episode. It's worded like that to avoid the usual drag of IP editors coming in and making the silly edit while arguing that either "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (the two pilots) were the first episode. Hence the unusual broadcast wording. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the more I think about it, why not have the first sentence of the lead as ""The Man Trap" is an episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek, the first to be broadcast." That might make more sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Set in the 23rd century, the series follows the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and his crew aboard the Starfleet starship USS Enterprise.": I don't know if this is the standard format for Star Trek, but it doesn't quite work here. We have a sentence about the episode, then this sentence about the whole show, then a sentence again about the episode. I think the best bet might be to move "It was the first episode of the first season to be broadcast, airing on NBC on September 8, 1966. "The Man Trap" was written by George Clayton Johnson and directed by Marc Daniels" to the end of the first paragraph of the lead.
  • "Johnson took on the writing duties after Roddenberry disliked Erwin's work on another plot proposal": Unless I'm missing it, I don't think we have the reason the Erwin was removed as writer in the main body.
  • The only parts we have on it are in the first three paragraphs of writing. Essentially Roddenberry was notorious at messing his writers around, and this was simply the first occasion that he swapped out one writer for another without all that strong a reason. Personally, I think he knew he had a well known writer who wanted to be involved and so swapped out a friend so that the more famous writer had something to do. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so, but the first three paragraphs of writing do NOT say why Roddenberry moved him on. The only place in the article that says why Erwin was dropped is here in the lead. We need to put this in the main body if we can source it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see what's happened here. At some point Erwin was included in the lead instead of a further reference to Johnson. I've corrected it, so it should now reference the same information as the body of the article. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the "saviour" inclusion in the lead. It seems a little strong, to be honest. In any case, why are we using the British spelling of saviour?
  • Removed from the lead, and fixed the spelling in the body. The error is because I'm a native British writer and saviour/savior wasn't a word I was aware of having a different spelling in American English until your comment. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copy-edited the lead a little, please revert anything you don't like or that I have messed up.
  • Do we need to make more of its selection as the first episode? Why was it chosen? (I took out the reference to "The Naked Time" as we don't really need that level of detail here) And should we be making clear that this was an all-new show?
  • I've expanded that part in the lead a little. Essentially there were four options, and it came down to "The Naked Time" and "The Man Trap", with the latter chosen because it was scarier. Miyagawa (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jumping ahead a little to the Broadcast section (where we have the details about its selection), was there any publicity about the new series? If so, that could be added to this article as it would affect this episode.
  • I've taken a look at some of it for work on other articles and bizarrely (at least for modern shows), it doesn't really discuss this episode at all. They avoided mentioning Spock where they could (or mistook him for a martian) as they thought the ears made him look the devil (one publicity photo featured him in costume but without the ears) and concentrated quite a bit on Grace Lee Whitney as Janice Rand. They used her so much, that she thought she was going to be one of the three main characters. The concentration was about explaining the premise which was still quite unusual for mainstream television (although we take science fiction for granted these days, Star Trek and Lost in Space really did re-write the rulebook and stopped science fiction from automatically being considered to be children's programming). Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, jumping ahead, it is a modern phenomenon that a first episode has a big audience which then declines for subsequent ones. Was this the case here? It might be interesting to see how the first episode fared compared to others. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there are two things that need to be considered here. The first is that back in 1966, there were only three channels. Star Trek, at least in the first season generally came second in the ratings from what I can see. In this particular case it came first, but that would be possible because NBC broadcast new shows a week earlier than either of their competitors. So "The Man Trap" went up against two repeats. But I can absolutely add something to discuss the following weeks' figures. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a further paragraph. While it's true that the overall ratings dropped, which can be attributed to the new broadcast going up against repeats on the other two channels, the show did go on to win further timeslots. I included the ratings from the next two episodes to show the pattern. Miyagawa (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot: A few issues here. I've copy-edited directly but there's a few things I can't clear up. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The starship USS Enterprise arrives at planet M-113 for the medical exams of Professor Robert Crater (Alfred Ryder) and his wife Nancy (Jeanne Bal)": Maybe a word on why they are on that planet in the first place?
  • "travel to the surface using the transporter": I don't know if this is the standard way of writing this, but would "transport to the surface" be a little tighter?
  • In passing, I think "Enterprise" sounds less good than "the Enterprise", but I think the usage here is probably more correct and matches other articles.
  • "and Kirk teases McCoy about his affection for Nancy Crater ten years earlier": The "and" is a bit awkward here, and does not really place this chronologically. Before the transport, during it or after it? Or just make it a sentence by itself, perhaps?
  • "Nancy arrives" and "Kirk sends the dazed Darnell outside" and "Crater arrives": Arrives where? Outside where? Where are we? And where is Crater at this point? I think we need to say where the action is taking place at the beginning of the episode.
  • "McCoy and Spock determine that Darnell died from having all salt drained from his body. Kirk beams back down to the planet with McCoy and two crewmen, Green (Bruce Watson) and Sturgeon (John Arndt). They spread out to search, but Crater slips away.": Too much too quickly I think. How do they determine? An examination? (And why did they not do that first?) Why does Kirk beam back down? (And would "transports" be better here?) and for what are they searching? Crater slips away from who, and how? Just a little more detail required I think.
  • "Kirk and McCoy find Sturgeon's body, unaware that Green is dead too": Not sure about this. We don't actually know that Green is dead, so this is rather abrupt. How is it conveyed in the episode?
  • Now, I have a vague memory (I'm a long way from being a Star Trek fan, but remember bits of this episode) of Green standing over his own body. Is that from this episode? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Green" roams the halls": Halls? Corridors, surely?
  • "attacking several crew members": Are any killed?
  • "They stun him": How?
  • "out of affection": For Crater or Nancy?
  • I'm a bit confused after the third paragraph of "plot" where the action is taking place. The ship or the planet?
  • "so Kirk orders "McCoy" to administer truth serum": The first time I read this, I missed that this was not the real McCoy. Maybe spell it out that this was the creature. Also, where is the actual McCoy? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing: More copy-editing done, please feel free to revert anything. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are using Roddenberry's original "pitch" but we need to make it clear to whom he is pitching it. I'm also a little concerned that we are verging into OR here. As this is a primary source, we need to be very careful, and when we say "The plot featured in "The Man Trap" appeared in Gene Roddenberry's original pitch for Star Trek" we are interpreting the source. The plot in that pitch is sufficiently different to the broadcast story to make this not just a straightforward fact; in reality, only the title is the same. If we are going to go further than say that a story called The Man Trap featured in the pitch, and give an outline of that plot, we really need another source which makes this claim.
  • "The story was handed to Lee Erwin": Would it be more encyclopaedic to say that Erwin was commissioned to produce a treatment (or a full script, whichever it was)
  • "decided to use the 1953 science fiction novel The Syndic by Cyril M. Kornbluth as the basis for the story": It's not quite clear here who decided to use it; Johnson or Black?
  • "Roddenberry felt that Johnson's treatment was wrong": Wrong how? Badly written? Not what he wanted in a story?
  • Simply that it didn't initially fit his vision of the series; most of it was in Roddenberry's head at the time as all Johnson would have had to go on was the series bible. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're still a little light on what happened to Erwin. Had he produced a script, or just the treatment? How did he take it? Why was he moved on? Did he ever write anything else for Star Trek?
  • I've added a little more - he was paid a bonus for his treatment (I haven't seen anything that said he wrote a full script, and I'm sure that would have been leaked at some point if he had) and later wrote an episode in the third season (which I've added as a note). Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have now got the part about the "kill fee" (which I'd never heard of; learn something new every day!), but we already say that he was paid in full to terminate his contract. Is this duplication or two separate fees? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two different payments. Erwin probably didn't complain too much because it seems he was paid more for his treatment not being used than if it had been... and they wondered why Star Trek kept going massively over budget. I've edited it to say that it was two separate payments. Miyagawa (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so the ability for the creature to make apparitions was added back into the story": Was it ever in the original story, or just in Roddenberry's pitch?
  • "Stan Robertson at NBC agreed with the need for more action, and suggested to Roddenberry that they may wish to get medical advice over whether the draining of a chemical from a person would kill them instantly.": I'm not sure how seeking medical advice is going to give more action to the story.
  • "the creature in "The Man Trap" could be the last of the species, comparing it to the reduction in numbers of American bison since the European colonization of the Americas, which Roddenberry found intriguing": What was he comparing? You can't compare a creature to a reduction in numbers.
  • "one of which was to restore the name "The Man Trap"": Again, I'm not sure that it technically ever was called Man Trap, unless we are doing some OR on the pitch.
  • "adding that "There could have been a hell of a lot more art in Star Trek if GR had kept his hands off the scripts."": This is a slightly meaningless quote. Can we clarify what he means by this?
  • "might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap"": Again, this is vague. What does he mean?
  • "although he was concerned that viewers might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap", admitting that he did not like Spock and was concerned that the character would not be understood from this one episode": This is a bit clumsy; are these two separate concerns, or the same concern expressed in two ways? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson was pleased with the final episode, although he was concerned that viewers might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap" due to differences in characterisation": Still not quite right; what differences? Between the characters in this story and in the whole series? Needs to be a bit clearer. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]

Filming

  • "predominantly shot on the bridge": Can we be more precise here? At first, I imagined we were over water! Is there a link, or can we spell it out bridge of the Enterprise?
  • "and Whitney later recalled that the operator could see right up her skirt throughout the shoot and would occasionally try to get personal with her using the puppet": Not quite sure we have encyclopaedic tone here, so I think some rewording is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creature:

  • "Daniels had some apprehension about using a monster of the week format, asking "Do you go for cheap thrills or a more intelligent approach?", adding that they decided to "treat everything as if it were real" in order to ensure that the audience bought into it.": Is there a link for "monster of the week", and should it be in quotation marks? And this is a long sentence; the part after "adding" does nit quite fit and perhaps needs to be a separate sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add a brief mention that I'm aware that there is a publicity photo of Kirk and the creature which would be free use right now because all the Star Trek images from that era did not have their copyright renewed. However, we only upload the ones onto Commons where we can directly evidence precisely when they were published (which is usually through someone selling them on eBay with the original documentation for it attached). We're building up some images now, although the eBay sellers have realised what we're doing and are now masking the images or avoiding uploading scans of the relevant documents. But hopefully at some point, we'll get the image for this. We certainly already got it for "Spock's Brain" so anything is possible. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Themes: Not too keen on this section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • " demonstrated a mantra within the series": A mantra is a sacred phrase, so this is really not the right word here. And you can't demonstrate a mantra.
  • "the original series showed that predators such as the salt vampire were considered to be a lower life form and therefore should be destroyed": How does it show that something is considered. I think I'm missing the meaning here. Either they were considered in the series, or it showed it as a fact. We can't have both.
  • Removed "considered to be" to present it as fact. There was no consideration in the series, just that the reviewer felt that was what the show was demonstrating. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the argument is presented that such creatures should not be killed; however, Geraghty felt that the writers sought to ensure that viewers did not feel any sympathy for the creature by revealing its true appearance as it died": What argument? Who is presenting it? I'm a bit lost by this. And we've just compared it to a helpless dog... This might need a rethink,
  • "it undoubtedly troubled McCoy for some time after the event": I really don't think this belongs in this article.
  • Driveby comment: I think it's a shame to see genuine academic analysis being removed from the article. Perhaps an effort could be made to (more) clearly state the significance of the claims for this episode. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the McCoy line back in, although in an edited form (and therefore I can add the image back too). However I've left the Star Trek: Enterprise reference off, as I take the point from Sarastro that it wasn't relevent to this article (but I'm sure it'll be welcome at the article for "Twilight"). Miyagawa (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A vampiric alien is a recurring idea in science fiction television series..." and the following paragraph: I'm vaguely worried by this, as it looks like synthesis; do sources about this episode make these comparisons, or is it just a fairly random list? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Support with a heavy copy-editing disclaimer: I'm pretty happy with this now, and think it meets the FA criteria. I have one point above but I've reached the end of the article and there are no other major issues other than the vampire point. I should point out though that I've copy-edited this quite heavily now, which may make my support slightly questionable; therefore I'd like to wait for a few more eyes before I switch to full support. Otherwise, I think this is a pretty comprehensive account of this episode. I'll have another look through and if no-one gets to the source review I'll look at that too. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "the last of his kind": Did Kirk refer to the creature as male at this point?
  • "he hated the work": What work?

Support, although I have a few comments that might be worth looking into. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • We repeatedly refer to "The Original Series" in areas of the article discussing the events of the 1960s, but of course the show would not gain this moniker until several decades later; should we be using it, or should we just use "Star Trek"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is just easier to use The Original Series to differentiate from the franchise in it's entirety. It isn't what it was called at the time, but it is what it is referred to as now. Miyagawa (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also - there is actually a publicity photo from the time of Kirk and the creature, which we would be able to use if we could get access to an original copy to ensure there were no copyright markings on it (none of the others seen from this period have them). No publicity photos of Star Trek from this period had their copyright renewed, and so they're all out of copyright. But we've only been uploading the ones to commons that we can definitively prove this. Miyagawa (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further update - was in the process of uploading a fair use shot to EnWiki and it said that the file name was already in use on Commons. So I went and checked what was being called "Salt Vampire" there and it turns out someone has done a rather good full length drawing of the creature and added it to Commons. So I've added that instead. Miyagawa (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- unless I missed them we need reviews for image licensing and source formatting/reliability (Sarastro1 could be prepared to volunteer for the latter; you can list a request for the former at the top of WT:FAC). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review: Spot-checks not done. All sourcing looks to be reliable and of a suitable high quality. All formatting looks correct. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing review There are five images used on this article:

  • Two (George Clayton Johnson & drawing) have acceptible creative commons licenses (attribution and sharealike) - good
  • One (Roddenberry) is clearly in the public domain via NASA... and cropped from a fantastic featured picture on Wikimedia Commons - good
  • Two (Jeanne Bal; DeForest Kelley) are claimed public domain (publicity photos, no copyright marks, 1923-1977).
    • These look acceptable to me, but I am still learning my way around image reviews and I've never come across this before so I thought I'd mention it.

So, I think we're all good on images. - Saskoiler (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note -- you have a few duplicate links, pls check if they're really warranted; you can install this script to highlight them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2016 [18].

Milos Raonic

[edit]
Nominator(s): Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Milos Raonic, a Canadian tennis player who is currently ranked no. 11 in the world. His breakthrough was in early 2011 (when this wikipedia article first received major attention), and he's had a steady climb since then, peaking at #4 last year before injury trouble. He is a two-time major semifinalist, most recently at this year's Australian Open. The article has gone through an extensive overhaul this year (as documented here), been promoted to GA, and has gone through a peer review.

I believe this article meets the FA criteria. I look forward to any feedback you have, and I'm committed to addressing any concerns or deficiencies to the best of my ability. If this nomination is successful, this would be the first tennis player biography to be a featured article; I'm hoping to apply what I've learned during this process to improve other articles as well. -- Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

Oppose - There are numerous unsourced facts. For a FA all statements, which are not common knowledge, require inline citations of reliable sources. Graham Beards (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some examples? I'd be happy to address any deficiencies. Saskoiler (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but please by mindful that FAC is not the place to fix such errors. These should have been attended to before nominating.
  • He received a wildcard to the qualifying tournament of the 2008 Canadian Open, but lost in the first round to Alexander Kudryavtsev. The match was his first in the ATP World Tour and his last as an amateur.
  • This marked his first singles match against a player ranked No. 1, and his first singles match against a member of the Big Four.
  • He defeated world No. 4 Andy Murray in straight sets in the quarterfinals at the Barcelona Open. This marked his first victory over a member of the Big Four. In the semifinal, he lost to world No. 6 David Ferrer. Raonic lost to Juan Mónaco in the third round of the French Open, and followed this with a second round loss to Sam Querrey at Wimbledon.
  • It marked his fourth consecutive loss in the final of an ATP 500 event.
  • Despite the loss, Raonic saw his world ranking improve to a career-high No. 6.
  • This tied previous matches between Mats Wilander and Mikael Pernfors in 1993, and between John Isner and Philipp Kohlschreiber in 2012. The five set match lasted 4 hours and 19 minutes, with Raonic losing and Nishikori advancing to the quarterfinals. In October, Raonic reached the final of the Japan Open for the third consecutive year, but lost to Nishikori again.
  • Later in the month, he reached the quarterfinals of the Australian Open after beating world No. 12 Feliciano López. He lost to Novak Djokovic in straight sets.
  • At the Indian Wells Masters, Raonic won his quarterfinal match against No. 3 Rafael Nadal, after saving three match points from Nadal in the second set tiebreak. It was Raonic's first career victory over Nadal after five defeats. He lost to Roger Federer in the semifinals.
  • Raonic lost a lopsided straight sets match to Djokovic in the final, his third consecutive loss in an ATP 1000 final.
  • The defeat marked Raonic's first singles match against Djokovic.
  • In 2014, Raonic partnered with Eugenie Bouchard to represent Canada in the Hopman Cup. Raonic won two of three singles matches, and paired with Bouchard to win two of three doubles matches. Canada finished in second place in their pool, behind top-seeded Poland.
  • They have played each other minimally, however. Raonic is 1–1 against Karlović and 0–3 against Isner. Karlović holds a 3–2 head-to-head advantage over Isner.
Graham Beards (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've addressed all of the examples listed above as well as a few others. I had tried to get everything sourced previously (going from 68 citations a couple months ago to well over 230), but I see now that I had left some gaps. I appreciate your feedback and patience. — Saskoiler (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have struck my "oppose" and I look forward to reading further reviews. Graham Beards (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from starship.paint

[edit]
Review
Wonderful! I look forward to your feedback. Saskoiler (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Early and personal life
  • Please mention his date of birth in the body; this section.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • His father: one source says his profession is electrical engineering, another says he has a PhD in engineering. But this doesn't mean he has a PhD in electrical engineering. Professional is not equal to studies.
Done - Added a source which confirms the PhD is electrical engineering. Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • His mother: source says she has degrees in computer and mechanical engineering, article does not.
Done - Added this detail. After much searching, I couldn't confirm which discipline the master's degree was in, so it is left unstated. Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • His siblings: article does not mention she is nine and he is eleven years older than him, source does. Good detailed work on his family anyway.
Done - I've added their age differences, and also their schooling. I think the family's academic background are important to show why choosing to become a professional athlete would have been a difficult decision. Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are contradictions between the Ace Age article and the one by the Toronto Star. TS says he was six when introduced to tennis, AA says age seven. Just note both? "aged six or seven"
Done - Good catch. I tried to resolve the disperity, but could not. Both sources agree that his time with Curtis started in 2009, but one says start in 2007 with a two-year gap, and the other says start in 2008 with a one-year gap. I've taken your advice for "six or seven". Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toronto Star says he had "weekly, hour-long sessions" in 1997 at Bramalea Tennis Club after head instructor Steve Gibson recognized his potential. The move to another place was soon after this, not soon after the one week camp. This is worth mentioning.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toronto Star emphasized his parents did not interfere in his coaching. Worth mentioning?
Done - Yes, I think so. It's part of their emphasis on academics. Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toronto Star: “Our only condition was ‘good in school,’ ” says Dusan. “Great marks.” “An honours student,” pipes in his wife. “Below that? No way.” A smart kid on and off the court, Milos kept his side of the bargain... So, how did Milos do academically, where and what did he study? There's no mention in the Wiki article. Source mentions Thornhill Elementary School. Source also says "he agreed to start taking university courses by correspondence at the University of Athabaska in Alberta."
Done - I've added elementary and high school detail here. (university is addressed later in article) Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede infobox does not mention coaches Casey Curtis and Steve Gibson.
Done (Curtis) - I've added Curtis to this list. As his coach for ~9 years, he absolutely belongs. That was a glaring omission.
Not done (Gibson) - I have not added Gibson, however, for a few reasons (a) It was a very brief relationship (once a week, less than a year). (b) It wasn't one-on-one... source says "group sessions". (c) Raonic himself says that Curtis is his first coach (d) I searched hard, but could not find any other source article that even mentions Gibson. So, since it seems to be a more casual relationship mentioned by only a single source, I think it is best to limit it to one sentence in prose and skip the infobox. Any more seems to be undue weight. Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why use "2011 Canadian Open" instead of "2011 Rogers Cup" per the source and per that Wiki article's title? Also mention he was recovering from injury at that time of being the analyst, the source sais that.
Done (mentioned injury) Saskoiler (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Canadian Open" vs "Rogers Cup" - When I began working on the article, there were all sorts of inconsistencies in references to tournaments. For example, a tournament might be referred to as "Canadian Masters" in one paragraph, as the "Rogers Cup" in a different paragraph, and then as "Canadian Open" in the performance timeline tables. But it's all the same tournament, and this is confusing. So, after scouring the Wikiproject Tennis guidelines and talk pages (where it has been discussed many, many times, with varying degrees of consensus), I opted to (a) use tournament names consistently throughout the article (and on the companion career statistics article) and (b) in general, use the non-sponsored names as these are more "stable" over time. For example, the Canadian Open has been referred by numerous names over history. In particular, for the significant tournaments (majors and ATP 1000, which includes the Canadian Open), I follow the Wikiproject Tennis guidelines for performance timelines, which is used on hundreds (or thousands?) of tennis player pages. Saskoiler (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please mention that Monte Carlo is in Monaco. Also mention that he chose to stay there because of proximity to his tennis club (good to get a name of this, it's not the Monte Carlo Country Club which is in France). “I go downstairs, get balls, and practise,” Raonic said. Source: “It’s relaxing; nobody bothers you. Nobody cares who you are.” When he travels to Barcelona for his blocks of training time with Blanco, it’s all tennis. “Monte Carlo is a place I can go, and just clear my mind. And it’s not that far — a one-hour flight.”
Done - I've located another source (video) which confirms that his tennis club is the Monte Carlo Country Club, and then cleaned up the sentence to be more relevant. (Mentioning his home club is much more relevant than other players who happen to live there.) Saskoiler (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Philanthropy
  • I'm not seeing it in the sources that he launched his foundation on 14 Nov 2012. However, it was apparently registered on 22 Feb 2012.
Done - Looks like the registration date was Feb 2012, then the first press conference some months later (couldn't find a good source, but I came across photos), and then had its first big fundraising event in November. All of these are "launching" the foundation in a way, so I just fell back on saying the foundation was launched in 2012. I also added details from the previous year when Milos sought out philanthropic advice. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources say (the star) which aims to help children needing prosthetic limbs play sports and (official foundation) In the initial stages of its work, the foundation will focus, in particular, on children with physical disabilities. and (ATPworldtour) In this stage of its work, The Milos Raonic Foundation will focus on children with physical disabilities and, especially, children in need of prosthetic devices that will enable them to reach their full potential. which I think is worth mentioning
Done - I've added to the mission statement quote. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not in the source that the "inaugural fundraising event for the foundation—dubbed "Raonic Race for Kids"
Done - I've cleaned this up. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Race for Kids seems to be a multi-team competition with well-known captains. Not exhibition matches as "featured exhibition matches between Raonic and Andy Roddick, and between Serena Williams and Agnieszka Radwańska" seems to indicate. According to the source for the second Race, the first Race was won by the team of "the Aces". Please find out more about the first Race and reflect the nature of the Races accordingly. It's also okay to list more notable captains and their profession. starship.paint ~ KO 02:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've cleaned this up as well, by reorganizing the paragraph and identifying one additional source. In the first year, they had both a "Raonic Race for Kids" event and "Face Off" tennis exhibition matches the next night. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Playing style
  • Unfortunately, The Tennis Island seems like a Wordpress blog. Is Jeff Donaldson a notable figure in tennis to ensure reliability?
Done - I wasn't able to find much about the author of that article to validate its reliability (although the article seems valid based on my experience). So, I replaced it with two sources - one is a video analysis showing Raonic doing the inside-out forehand (from a tennis player/coach), and the other is a mainstream newspaper which notes that he prefers the shot. Many other newspaper articles mention the shot as a strength of his, or a preference, etc. Saskoiler (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is Sports Mole reliable?
Done - I think the site is reliable. In this instance, the quote was accurate. However, since the key was really just a single quote from the press conference, I replaced the source with the press conference transcript. (In general, the "playing style" section is one of the hardest to provide sources for. The statements made there consistent with comments by announcers on just about any match of Raonic's, but I don't know how to source comments made during broadcasts in a verifiable way. Finding them in newspaper/online sources is harder.) Saskoiler (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob Cherry Tennis seems like a questionable source.
In this case, the cited source is a 68-second video of footage from the 2016 Australian Open which has been annotated to demonstrate how Raonic is running around his backhand to hit an inside-out forehand. In the footer, it says "... an ITF iCoach Expert..." which links to here. That site is, according to this, an official coaching platform for the International Tennis Federation. It identifies Rob Cherry as a 20-year coach, and establishes him as an expert (i.e. someone who can analyze/recognize an inside-out forehand). I believe this is trustworthy. Saskoiler (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Saskoiler: This said he was a hothead. This alluded to poor mental strength. Any other information on this issue? starship.paint ~ KO 07:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Mental strength" (inner thoughts) is such a subjective term, and I think different writers mean different things by it. The source you mention: "Mentally...Milos has a lot to improve. ... The step he has between himself and the top players is more mental." This source, from earlier the same year (2012) says: "The kid’s mental strength is remarkable". Or, from the 2016 Australian Open match vs Murray, this source says "There is still question marks over his mental strength", while this source uses an image caption: "Mental strength: Raonic won the third set with relative ease". I will keep searching, but I'm not sure I can write anything coherent and meaningful on the topic based on sources I've read so far.
On the other hand, the other source you mention ("a hothead") may be something to build upon. I've heard that very early in his career, he used to be demonstrably emotional on court... behavior that could be described as a hothead. For the last several years, I would say he's just the opposite, practically robot-like. So much so that when he smashed his racquet during the 2016 Australian Open SF, it was absolutely shocking. So, I think there may be something to build upon with respect to his outward display of emotions, which is less subjective than "mental strength". I'll need to search for other sources, however.
Okay, I've researched this a fair bit, the result of which is a new paragraph saying (1) at young age, he was described as hothead (2) as he got older, he was described as the opposite (analytical, stoic, robotic) (3) he ties his systematic demeanour back to his parents. I was not able to find any second opinion that mentions anything close to the "hothead" comment. Hope this works. - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Equipment and apparel
  • SportsProMedia says The new deal, negotiated by Raonic’s management team at CAA Sports, will also see New Balance extend its support for the Milos Raonic Foundation - worth including.
Done Saskoiler (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first, he wore a blue fisherman's sleeve to cover a rash he had due to an allergic reaction to massage cream. This was replaced with an athletic compression sleeve, which is worn for comfort only, and often colour-coordinated with his on-court apparel. - needs references (which I think are already elsewhere in the paragraph) There was a mention of a basketballer's sleeve.
Done (inline reference) - Copied an inline reference down to cover other sleeve details.
Not Done ("basketball sleeve") - I didn't alter the language to include "basketball sleeve" in the prose. After reading at least a half dozen sources, I believe that "basketball sleeve" is just a synonym along with more general terms such as "arm sleeve", "arm compression sleeve", "compression sleeve", "athletic sleeve", and "athletic compression sleeve". In light of this, I've kept the most generic (and yet descriptive) term: athletic compression sleeve. Basketball players, football players, baseball players, etc. all wear these things on their arms. I believe "basketball sleeve" (or "shooter sleeve") may just be a marketing term to sell more in NBA shops, because it was basketball athletes who appear to have made them popular. Hope that makes sense. Saskoiler (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, it's fine. But I don't think the reference says that the fisherman's sleeve is blue.
Done - Removed the word 'blue'. Saskoiler (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should also clarify what His other sponsorship deals are, like Aviva is insurance, etc.
Done - To be honest, my first reaction was that this was a trivial suggestion. However, once I looked at the new sentence, I see the value. It provides a more comprehensive view of the diversity of companies (not "just" companies that market to tennis players) that have find value in the Raonic brand and his marketability. So, thanks! Saskoiler (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome.
  • For his sleeve, I believe the US Open reference says that the sleeve is also worn because Raonic is used to the routine of wearing it, and his team supports it. So it's not exactly just for comfort...? My team would say it helps me. I haven't found a reason to argue that so far.” “With a guy like Milos, who is so specific on what he does every single day with his preparation, it’s just become part of his whole process,” Nunn said. ... "I'm not gonna argue when things are going OK,” [Raonic] said, smiling
Done - Tweaked the language. Saskoiler (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rivals and contemporaries
Done - Both references to Bleacher Report replaced with alternate, higher quality sources with richer analysis. Thanks for all the feedback to improve the article. Saskoiler (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Fan Obsessed and Globalite Sports are blogs?
Done - Both sources have been removed. Saskoiler (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur career
  • Is it worth mentioning that Bradley Klahn is American? I don't know how tennis doubles work really, in terms of nationalities
Not done - I wouldn't oppose if you had inserted it, but I don't think it is necessary. Doubles partnerships often span nationalities (probably the majority of the time). The article doesn't specify the nationalities of too many other players. Exceptions include Pospisil (special relationship), Nishikori (notable because Raonic played him in Japan Open), and various national representation sections (Olympics, etc.) Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright.
  • ten ITF Futures events, three ATP Challenger Tour events, and one ATP World Tour event - can you state that ITF Futures are third-tier events for professionals, Challenger is second-tier and World is first-tier? Would help inform unaware readers like me.
Done - Very good point. Saskoiler (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raonic had received scholarship offers from several colleges, including the University of Michigan, Princeton, and Northwestern University - I don't see this in the Ace Age source.
Done - Moved citation from later in paragraph. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • committed to play for the University of Virginia that fall while studying finance - I don't see this either.
Done - Moved citation from later in paragraph. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While he took correspondence courses from Athabasca University - this is in the Ace Age source. Please add, and if possible, find out what course.
Done (both) - Globe and Mail article: "...he would take university finance courses online..." Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you figure out the deadline of two years for reaching the top 100 and thus referred to a ranking of 933? Is that date mentioned in the Ace Age source?
Done - The canada.com article, dated September 2, 2008 said "Yesterday, the word was that Raonic has stiffed Cavaliers head coach..." → On September 1, his ranking was 933. However, I changed the language of that sentence to be a bit more generic (since no source pins the exact date of the conversations and "deadline deal" with his parents) and just give his ranking range for that summer. I think it reads better now. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay!
2008–2010
Done - Well, actually I just changed the wording to "ITF Futures" to be consistent with the 8 other mentions of "ITF Futures" in the article. Saskoiler (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth mentioning from How Milos Raonic served his way to the top of tennis source: Raonic was ranked around 400 in the world in late 2009 when Niemeyer took over as his coach.
Done - No 377 Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who coached him before Niemeyer and after Curtis? 2008-2009 seems to be unaccounted for.
Done - Found two sources mentioning Guillaume Marx as coaching Raonic while he was based at the National Training Centre. Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When exactly did Blanco start coaching Raonic and what was Raonic's ranking then?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referencing in the Raonic's coaching relationship evolved paragraph needs to be tighter. Stuff like because he had a young family isn't covered by the provided source. Please double-check all the claims in this paragraph...
Done - I think the paragraph is much tighter now. Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention that he was knocked out in the second round of the 2010 Canadian Open after the giant-killing act.
Done Saskoiler (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he did. By approximately 5 months. (Assuming he made the deal in late August 2008, his ranking didn't enter the top 100 until January 2011.) Do you think that should be mentioned? If so, I think probably the best way to do it is to add a parenthetical note to the paragraph where the 2-year-deadline is mentioned, saying something like "(Raonic would later enter the top 100 in January 2011, missing the target deadline by approximately 5 months.)" and citing the rankings history. Yes? Saskoiler (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2011
  • Last paragraph, state he injured himself at Wimbledon against Gilles Müller?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2012
  • How about stating he broke into the top 20 for the first time on 2012.08.13 at #19?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2013
  • Can you find a better source than Sports Interaction?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • State that he was ranked #10 when he was "ranked within the top 10 for the first time"?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2014
  • What was the nature of the injury which caused him to pull out of the ATP Tour Finals?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2015
  • Could you shift Ljubičić's picture to the bottom of this section?
Done - Well, actually I moved the Raonic picture down to preserve the left-right-left-right picture placement scheme. - Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about an update of his ranking at the end of 2015? He was #14 from 2015.11.02 to 2016.01.18, the first time he fell out of the top 10.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Moya stuff should be starting the 2016 section.
Not Done (but improved) - I think it belongs at the end of 2015 for a couple of reasons. [1] The beginning of the relationship goes back to right after Ljubičić left, developed through the IPTL, and was finalized in 2015. (Raonic says "And then it was decided and sort of put together just before the new year.") [2] I think it reads better to combine this in a single "coaching/team changes" paragraph with the departure of Ljubičić (and his long-time manager). To reflect this, I've bolstered that paragraph with additional detail and sources. Okay? Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016
  • Mention that he rejoined the top 10 at #10 on 2016.05.02?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe he was recently eliminated from the French Open.
Done - And also added McEnroe hiring - Saskoiler (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
National representation
  • How did Canada do in each of the Davis Cups? It is unstated for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015.
No change I've chosen not to include any other Canadian team results in this article for a few reasons: [1] Canada's performances have been not been very noteworthy, bouncing between wins and losses each year and not "going deep". In some cases (like the victory over Israel in 2011), Raonic wasn't a key contributer (because he didn't play much or at all due to injury) and thus it's not really part of "his" story [2] The main article for Canada's performances contains this detail. Instead, I chose to focus on the noteworthy matches/years: (a) Raonic's first match, first victory, first (and only) time he played three rubbers (b) 2013, when Canada reached SF. Raonic played a major part in this performance, with 5 wins in 6 rubbers over three ties. Other player articles (e.g. Nishikori, Federer, Djokovic) tend not to list every Davis Cup performance, but rather focus on noteworthy matches or those where the player made the finals, etc. (However, Andy Murray's article is an exception in that it has tremendous detail on every year. I think this is undue weight, however.) Fair? - Saskoiler (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • State that Canada's second place in the pool meant that they didn't qualify for the Hopman Cup Finals.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
Yes, that's right. I recall thinking that the 2016 PDF URL would eventually die, so I thought linking to the "base page" (Tennis Canada publications) would be clever. Then, when it is replaced by the 2017 media guide, etc, the link would still work. However, I've now just put an archived URL there.
Ideally, I'd like to have that PDF included in the references once, and then be able to link to specific pages for different citations. (For example, the media guide is used twice now, and perhaps more in the future.) However, I don't know how to do that. Saskoiler (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it out. Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Saskoiler: Okay! See my comments above! And how about this for the lede? He has remained in the world's top 20 since breaking into it in August 2012.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: I believe I've now addressed all of the questions raised above. Thanks for all your efforts. Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Saskoiler: - for the Davis Cup issue, see this edit of mine. Everything else was settled well. I'm impressed at all the work you've put in, and apologize for the exhaustive review. I'm putting my Support for this comphrensive, well-sourced and understandable article. If you agree with the Davis Cup issue, I'll transfer my support to the top of the review. starship.paint ~ KO 12:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like your Davis Cup edit, and wish I had thought of it myself. I appreciate all of your thoroughness. This is my first time through this process, and I've learned a great deal from your many insights. The article is better now, both in the prose and in the supporting sources. Saskoiler (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck on accuracy and paraphrasing

@Saskoiler, Ian Rose, and Mike Christie: - I did a check and there seems to be some issues here. I think the biggest issue is references not sourcing everything in a sentence, because I did notice generally a concerted effort to paraphrase for a majority of sources. starship.paint ~ KO 09:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Thank you for agreeing to take on this additional review. I appreciate it. I have addressed all of the points you've raised below. Please let me know if you have further concerns. - Saskoiler (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Saskoiler: - alright, I am glad these are settled, though I also understand that more than half of the article's text was written by other users, which might have led to these errors, some of which should have been weeded out at GA. Hopefully you can do a full run-through of the article to check as mine was just a spotcheck. Additionally, I again request you check out my FAC which needs input. starship.paint ~ KO 08:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saskoiler, have you verified for yourself the rest of the referencing in the article is accurate and the writing free of close paraphrasing per Starship's recommendation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [61] turned pro, signing on with the SFX agency - paraphrase this particular phrase
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [64] marking Raonic's first ever ATP World Tour doubles match - is this in the source?
Done Citation added to playing record. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raonic reached his third ATP 500 final, defeating Radek Štěpánek, Viktor Troicki, Tipsarević, - unsourced
Done Citation added to playing record. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raonic opened 2014 by reaching the third round of the Australian Open, losing to Grigor Dimitrov - unsourced
Done Citation added to playing record. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [134] tournaments, along with Federer and Ferrer - this part isn't in the source
Done Detail removed. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [161] his laid-back attitude, his positivity, - use quotation marks for exact words by Raonic
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raonic reached his third ATP 500 final, defeating Radek Štěpánek, Viktor Troicki, Tipsarević, - unsourced
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [184] Competing against Mexico in 2011, Raonic won three rubbers in a tie for the first time, beating both Manuel Sánchez and Daniel Garza in singles and partnering with Pospisil to win in doubles as well - really don't think all the info in this sentence is backed up in this one source
Done Added another reference to his Davis Cup record which was in previous paragraph. - Saskoiler (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raonic represented Canada at the London 2012 Olympics and competed in the singles competition as an unseeded player. He won his first round match over Japan's Tatsuma Ito in straight sets. - unsourced
Done Added citation to official Olympic 2012 draw. - Saskoiler (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [199] His groundstrokes are both solid and consistent - is this in the source or is it too well paraphrased because I'm not a tennis expert, see below
Done It's arguably in the source, but I've simplified to just say "His groundstrokes are both good...". ("Groundstrokes" describes any shot - whether forehand or backhand - made after the ball bounces. This distinguishes them from serves or volleys.) - Saskoiler (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • chip-and-charge strategy (on returns) - see directly above
Done I've simplified the prose. The source does not use that phrase (chip and charge), but it is implied by their emphasis on volleying throughout. Two types of volleys are "serve and volley" (when one approaches net immediately after your own serve) and "chip and charge" (when one approaches the net at any other time). The "charge" means to approach the net, and the "chip" is just the shot which sets that up.
  • [243] his size and his serve, while Nishikori uses his savvy and speed - paraphrase or use quotation marks
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [129] set the record for latest finish ever at 2:26 a.m. - equalled the record, not set the record
Done Good catch! - Saskoiler (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fyunck

[edit]

I added a required key for the performance chart. I added commas to the scores in the records section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also just ran it through the ndash checker and it fixed a couple minor errors. Overall this is is well done article per Tennis Project guidelines. It has a consistent use of of correct "world No." as opposed to "World No.". Scoring in prose (except for extraordinary feats) is correctly eliminated (as opposed to so many other articles). Photos are at their limit (we try to keep it to about 10) but they show backhand, forehand, serving, return of serve, volley... so a good variety of his particular tennis shots. I'm not sure we need a picture of a coach he had 4 coaches ago (of his total of 8 coaches). His stats look up to date, and the overall sourcing is impressive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and for the feedback, Fyunck. I've certainly tried to be consistent with other tennis biographies, while at the same time following the WP:MOS and other guidelines. As to the picture of his former coach (Ivan Ljubičić)... (a) he was the coach during the most successful period of Raonic's career so far and (b) he was the coach as recently as November, 2015. So, I don't think there is any harm in keeping it in, at least for now. I could not locate a current (free) image of any of his current three coaches ( Moya, Piatti, or McEnroe) in a coaching situation. I'll keep watch in the future, though. Saskoiler (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008

[edit]
  • Philanthropy: I'm normally not one to recommend the addition of too many links, but I think a link for the Canadian Football Hall of Fame would be helpful in the second paragraph of the section. While I'm here, this is usually presented as "Hall of Fame" rather than "hall-of-fame", unless Canadian media does it differently than we see in the U.S.
Done (both the link and "Hall of Fame"... it is the same in Canadian media from what I can tell) - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amateur career: Minor, but ref 55 should be outside the parenthesis mark, not inside.
Not Done - The current placement (inside the closing parenthesis) follows MOS:PUNCTFOOT, which says "Exceptions: ... where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2008–2010: "were the first singles matches for Raonic against a top 100 player and against a top 10 player, respectively." For tighter prose, remove the second "against a". They're just redundant in this context.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So, Tennis Canada arranged...". If I know my fellow reviewers as well as I think, they won't like "So" very much. Although longer, "As a result" or similar would be more formal.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2012: If we haven't explained the concept of the Big Four in men's tennis before now, we probably should here. Otherwise, a lot of readers will end up lost when they see that.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general comment, you don't have to repeat the first names of Raonic's opponents once you include them in the first mention. I see a bunch of the first names of people like Federal and Djokovic who appear frequently.
Done (partly) - Due to the length of the article, I've tried to compromise by including the first name only on the first instance per section. So, Eugenie Bouchard is mentioned (by full name) in the Philanthropy section. Then, she is mentioned by full name again in the Hopman Cup section the first time, and then by surname after that within that section. I tried to find something about this in the MOS, but couldn't locate anything. (If I've missed something, please let me know.) I think this is a reasonable compromise now. Okay? Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From MOS:LASTNAME: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Thanks for the link. - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2015: The quote about how his foot was a preexisting issue has writing that doesn't fit well with the sentence as a whole. Consider paraphrasing this one, or add a couple of words in square brackets to make the writing better (namely "a" after "was" and "was" before "made"). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thank you for the suggestions and feedback. I've addressed all of your comments above. Please let me know if you have any further feedback for this article. - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2016: Remove "the" before "Milos Raonic Tennis", since that isn't in the quote from the source and is messing up the prose.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olympics: It looks like "player" is missing in the middle of "Japanese Tatsuma Ito". Or you could just say "Japan's".
Done - As a side note, tennis commentators (and media) often use phrasing like "Japanese Tatsuma Ito" or "Swiss Roger Federer". I must have lapsed into this habit, even though I agree that style of phrasing does not belong in this article. Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raonic and Pospisil: Contraction should be fixed in "they've played each other in two ATP World Tour matches".
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - @Giants2008: Thanks again. I have addressed this set of suggestions. - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This looks like a pretty good model of what a tennis player article should look like. My main piece of advice is to make sure you control the size of the article in the future, because it has the potential to become bloated as Raonic's career progresses. However, that is merely something to consider for the future and isn't something that I would withhold support over. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks for all your constructive feedback, your FAC support, and for your kind compliment. Regarding the article size: [1] If his career ended now, I think the various sections are appropriately weighted. [2] In the future, I would expect that organic editing will probably reduce the first decade of his career with the benefit of hindsight. For example, as part of this year's editing, the earliest years of his career (2007-2010) have been trimmed by over half. Middle years (2011-2012) were cut as well. Much of the expansion (from this January 30 version) was adding more encyclopedic content to "other" sections like "early and personal life", and in significantly expanding references. - Saskoiler (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • There's no need for the citations in the lead; it's harmless to leave them there, but personally I think they clutter the lead. Not an issue for FAC, just a comment.
I don't have a strong preference either way since all of these citations are repeated down in the body of the article. However, I was previously directed to WP:LEADCITE which says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. ... The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." So, based on that, I was advised to add citations on the quotations (in the 2nd paragraph) and on the likely-to-be-challenged "best serve among his contemporaries" (in the 4th paragraph). - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might consider redlinking Danielle Knudson; she's likely to end up with an article one day.
Done. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raonic sought philanthropic advice and conceived the idea of helping disadvantaged children": I don't think you need "sought philanthropic advice", and I'd suggest something like "decided to become involved with philanthropic work, focusing on helping disadvantaged children", since the current wording makes it sound as though nobody had thought of helping disadvantaged children before him.
Done. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (Raonic reached the top 100 in January 2011, around five months later than the target deadline.)". Why parentheses? You refer to the content of this sentence in the following sentence, so it's not really a parenthetical remark. Also, shouldn't it be "scholarships", not "scholarship", in the following sentence, since he received more than one offer?
Done (parentheses) - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (scholarships). The singular "scholarship" was intentional. Since he had already chosen U of Virginia, I assume that all other scholarships had already been turned down, and so he was only turning down the U of V one at this late date. However, it reads just as well with the plural "scholarships"... meaning he turned all of them down and went pro. Plus, the plural works better with the following sentence. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As in 2008, Raonic received a wildcard for the qualifying tournament of the 2009 Canadian Open": the "as in" construction really requires a strict parallelism, but of course he didn't receive a wildcard to the 2009 tournament in 2008. How about "In 2009, Raonic again received a wildcard for the qualifying tournament of the Canadian Open"?
Done - That's a great catch! - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the match, Raonic commented: "I'm not in a good mood, losing pisses me off ... I've gone farther in a Slam than I have before and I've learned things even from this loss." Do we need the first half of this quote? It's colourful, but it doesn't really tell the reader anything.
Done - I originally put that in because Raonic has used that phrase on more than one occasion. But, on further consideration, I think many (most?) competitive athletes say that, so I agree that it doesn't really add anything. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "you just put too much pressure on our shoulder": presumably a typo for "your shoulder"? Since it's inside a quote I didn't want to fix it without checking.
Done (just a typo) - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Some consider Raonic's serve to be among the best of all time. Sampras, Raonic's childhood idol, said that "[Raonic's] serve is bigger than big."': suggest combining these two short sentences; perhaps 'Some consider Raonic's serve to be among the best of all time, with Sampras, Raonic's childhood idol, describing his serve as "bigger than big."
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need all those attributed quotes describing him as stoic? Surely we can just say he is widely described that way, and leave the details to the citations?
Done I've cut all but one of the quotes, which I think is necessary as a counter-balance to the "hothead" quote. I think there's better flow now. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "quickness and mobility" twice in two sentences; I'd suggest changing the second instance to "movement".
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sleeve has drawn attention from female tennis players Williams, Victoria Azarenka, and Caroline Wozniacki." This is rather vague. Have they criticized it? Commented on it? Complimented him on it? Unless there's something specific to say about their comments, I think this could be cut.
    I see you fixed this, but you need to say which Williams sister this is -- it's not clear from context. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've added the "super cool and different" quote (by Williams), and removed mention of Azarenka and Wozniacki. I think keeping it in helps to underline why the sleeve attracted attention from fans and commentators too. (I've added "Serena" to make it clear now) - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raonic and Pospisil have been the two top-ranked Canadian men in year-end rankings": suggest qualifying this statement with the years for which it has been true.
Done (Well, I didn't change anything. The sentence already begins with ""Between 2011 and 2015") - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that being runner up three times running at the Japan Open is noteworthy in Raonic's career, but is it really worth noting in the "Records" section of the article? We wouldn't note if he'd been to the quarter finals of a tournament for five straight years, although that might be a unique event too.
Done I was influenced too heavily by several other player articles (e.g. Federer, Djokovic, Wawrinka) that mention finals, semifinals, and even quarterfinals. However, after reconsidering, it's not significant enough to warrant mention in the "Records" section, particularly because Stefan Edberg reached 5 consecutive Japan Open finals, winning 4 of them. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- These are all fairly minor points, and I expect to support once they're taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your feedback. You've got a keen eye to pick up on some very subtle copyedit items. I have addressed all of your comments above, and I think this has improved the article, particularly with a few very "surgical" deletions of a few words/phrases/sentences. Please let me know if you have any additional comments. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything looks good now. This is a solid article. (And thank you for the compliment!) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- Hi Saskoiler, would this be your first FAC nom? If so, a belated welcome to the process! It looks like we still need the following checks:

  • Image licensing review
  • Source formatting (I can see that Starhip.paint went into source reliability)
  • Spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing (unless Starship.paint has done this to and will sign off)

Let's wait for confirmation from Starship.paint either way on the spotcheck question, and perhaps Mike could look at source formatting, but for the image review you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yes, this is my first FAC nomination. Lots of work, but I've learned a great deal going through the process. I have put the image review request in as suggested. Should I contact Starship.paint and/or Mike Christie, or have you done so already? Let me know if there is anything else I should be doing. - Saskoiler (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I pinged them above, so let's just hang loose for now. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I'll give it a shot, though I haven't done a source formatting review before, mainly because I think I have a poor eye for catching that sort of error. If Starship.paint hasn't done a spotcheck I'll be happy to do that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks to the kind assistance of Starship.paint (scroll way up), Mike_Christie (below), and GermanJoe (below), the three checks you requested have been completed. Let me know if you require any further action. - Saskoiler (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting.

  • Some refs have the source date in parentheses, some with no parentheses. They should be consistent; it doesn't matter which you pick.
This difference results when some citations have an author (which then displays with parentheses, e.g. Smith, Mary (January 1, 2010). "Article title...". Retrieved July 4, 2016.) and some citations do not have an author (which then displays without parentheses, e.g. "Article title..." January 1, 2010. Retrieved July 4, 2016). This formatting difference comes straight from the various cite templates. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 255 has no retrieval date.
References 8 and 255 in the Footnotes section both refer to the "Tennis Canada..." entry in the Sources section, which does have a retrieval date (May 28, 2016). (The PDF is very long, and this was done so that individual references can carry page numbers, while keeping just a single entry for the source itself.) - Saskoiler (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some refs have no source date, and that's OK if it's a website that doesn't give you the date the page was published. I found one case (ref 174) where there is a publication date given; please check that others with no given source date to see if one can be added.
Done - I fixed 174 and a couple others with date problems. I also added the Template:Use mdy dates to help ensure consistency going forward. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for agreeing to take on this one additional review. Much appreciated. I have addressed your feedback above. Let me know if you have any further concerns. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to find that cite web changes the date format in that way, but since it's all within a single cite template I don't think I can complain. I see you added the retrieval date for 174; your answer on the others is fine. Ian, I'm not really a source formatting expert, but Saskoiler is correct that the behaviour I noticed is generated within cite web, and is not due to inconsistent citation template usage. I think that's OK but I wanted to be sure you were aware of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

[edit]
  • All images are CC-licensed and have sufficient source and author information - OK.
  • Flickr images show no signs of problems, and have EXIF and/or credible authorship claim - OK.
  • I have removed the lead image's caption. The city information doesn't really add context here, as this is a photo that could have been taken anywhere. And the name itself is redundant in a lead section. But feel free to revert if you disagree, it's a minor point either way. GermanJoe (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GermanJoe: Thanks for taking the time to complete the image check. I appreciate it. I don't think the caption was needed on the infobox image either. - Saskoiler (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2016 [19].

CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Mexican Professional wrestling championship, promoted by the oldest still active wrestling promotion in the world (founded in 1933). It has recently been through a really good GA review and passed, it's also benefitted from a number of Feature List Candidate review for other CMLL championships where I have applied improvement suggestions across all championship articles. I believe this has all the characteristics of a Featured Article, hopefully you will agree.  MPJ-US  00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – MPJ, I'm sorry that this hadn't attracted any reviewer attention before now. Wrestling articles at FAC have had trouble getting reviewers pretty much since I first started commenting here. I have no knowledge at all of lucha libre, but let me see if I can get things started.

  • First off, did we ever discuss at FLC whether the CMLL champion lists (List of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champions in this case) should be split from the main articles? This isn't an overly long article, so someone will probably ask about that at some point. I can't remember it being brought up, but if it was that would be helpful for others to know. You'd probably remember that better than me anyway.
    • That is going back a while but I believe that there was a limit, I want to say 10 champions, before we should even consider creating a seperate list - and then only of the main article actually has enough content to not just be a short, subbish article. This being a GA I think it meets this criteria, MPJ-US  09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • General question: Is "Light Heavyweight" normally capitalized in this context (meaning when not part of the title's name) in lucha libre coverage? If not, you should decapitalize all instances in the article that aren't part of belt names. If so, feel free to ignore this comment.
  • "Because Lucha Libre puts more emphasis...". Our article doesn't capitalize the second word of "Lucha Libre", so why would it be capitalized here? While I'm here, the term could stand to be wikilinked. I'm not normally a fan of using many links, but it might be helpful to readers since it looks like this form of wrestling is unique when compared to the American version.
  • "La Mascara is the current CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champion in his first reign, who won it...". Since "who" refers to La Mascara, his name would optimally be right before the comma. How about using "The current CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champion in his first reign is La Mascara"?
  • Remove the hyphen from "over-all".
  • "History: "positioning the NWA title as the highest ranking title in the Light Heavyweight division and the Mexican National title positioned as the secondary championship." Reads a little awkwardly. Changing "and" to "with" would probably be enough to fix it.
  • You don't need to fully spell out the NWA twice in this section. The one in the second paragraph can be abbreviated.
  • "with The CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship created to...". Don't think that "The" should be capitalized here.
  • Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "8 days later Dr. Wagner, Jr. won the title back before returning to Mexico." In these situations, just spell out the number at the start of the sentence or reword it to move the number away from the beginning.
  • Again, "over all" should probably be one word.
  • Reigns: "Only two men have held the title more than once, both Dr. Wagner, Jr. and Atlantis have officially held the title two times." Minor, but the comma could stand to be a colon or semi-colon.
  • "due to an injury to the reigning champion or that champion stops working for the promotion". This could use "when" before "that".
  • The wrestler's name Rush is missing from "In late 2013 then light heavyweight champion".
  • Rules: "The official definition of the Light Heavyweight division in Mexico is from 92 kg and 97 kg." "and" should be "to".
  • "However, in the 21st century the official definitions has at times been overlooked for certain champions." "definitions" probably shouldn't be plural here.
    • It's not just the defintion of the light heavyweight division but all the definition of all the divisions. Plural still inappropriate??
  • "With a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" title". Last word should be plural.
  • 2013: "starting on January 22, 2013 and the finals held the following week." Add "were" before "held"?
  • Another "over all" here.
  • Is Footnote 1 referenced by where it appears in-text? I couldn't find a source directly in the note.
  • The all caps should be taken out of "MEXICO" in references 2 and 8.
  • Date formatting in the references should be consistent. I see a couple of ISO dates, but most of them are fully spelled out. It will be less work to convert the ISO dates than the others, so I recommend that option. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you @Giants2008: I appreciate Fthe input, and yes most FAC for pro wrestling often die on the vine due to lack of attention, does not help that I have been busy IRL and not done my share of FAC reviews. I am hoping to address this starting this weekend.  MPJ-US  09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: - Could you please check to make sure my updates are approriate? If so perhaps lend your support? Thanks in advance.  MPJ-US  16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went and performed further copy-edits for you. In particular, I did a bunch of edits to make the article compliant with MOS:JR, the newest part of the Manual of Style that the FAC community doesn't seem to know much about yet. and removed some wordiness in places. Before considering a support, I'd like to see Starship's comment about the most significant CMLL championship fully addressed. It looks like you're close to finding a solution, and I encourage you to work with it until you find something the two of you can agree on. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – Now that Starship's issue has been resolved, I'll go ahead and support. It is a short article, but it is the kind of subject where I doubt there is too much more to say in sources that wouldn't be questioned here. Perhaps there is more in wrestling websites, but without knowing much about their reliability at this level I don't want to push the point. The nominator seems to have done a good job of sticking to print publications and the like, and I wouldn't want to see a step back in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from starship.paint

[edit]
History
Reigns
  • I just noticed that the Rush vacating title and Escorpion winning was mentioned both in the History and in the Reigns section. I think one mention is enough...
  • "Oftentimes a championship is vacated due to an injury to the reigning champion or when a champion stops working for the promotion" - this is a contestable claim requiring a source. You can change "oftentimes" to "sometimes", and source with (injury vacation: WWE's Bryan/Rollins) and (working vacation: AAA's Alberto El Patron).
    • Addressed and since it's a lucha title I went with two luch examples - Mistico II vacating the Welter title due to a motor cycle injury and CMLL vacating tag becaus Hijo del Santo stopped working for them.  MPJ-US  19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice!
  • You say that there are fifteen reigns by fourteen wrestlers in this section and in the lede. Fifteen reigns does not include Aquarius but fourteen wrestlers does. If Tajiri's reign is not counted, there are only thirteen wrestlers. Please fix this inconsistency.
Rules
  • Looking at the reference, the "official definition" seems to be dated to 2001. I think that's worth a mention.
    • Not sure what you mean by that? mention that it was defined in 2001? the definition pre-dates that by at least 70 years with most division dating back to the early days of lucha libre. And yes it's 15 years old but they have not changed in 85ish years now so I don't believe that's a problem? MPJ-US  03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" titles" - this sentence, is it sourced? It's also a contestable claim requiring a source.
    • Well "contestable" may be a stretch IMO, the CMLL page lists 12 championships with the word "World" in the title. But that page does have a reference for each of the most recent champions, I can easily grab those 11 sources and put them on the page I suppose. MPJ-US  03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Since you said that, I Wiki-linked it for you. No need for the 11 sources. But the contestable part is actually the other part of the sentence "the promotional focus shifts from championship to championship over time with no single championship being promoted as the "main" championship of the promotion". Sorry, I wasn't clear. starship.paint ~ KO 05:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see what you mean - that's a tough one. So the WWE title is the top title - but not because the WWE said so, but by it being the focal point of most main events, gets the most storyline focus etc. with CMLL there is not one single title that gets that kind of focus, heck some of them go ignored for months on end. Titles are generally a second tied underneath "Apuestas" (mask or hair matches) in CMLL's pecking order, the Apuestas often get the main events of the big shows - title matches are more to build to the Apuestas. I am just not sure how to source what CMLL's booking pattern has been in the last 83ish years.  MPJ-US  19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about writing Despite a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" titles, the most highly promoted matches tend to be Lucha de Apuestas matches? I based that from reading the main events of the Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre Anniversary Shows...? starship.paint ~ KO 02:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about the reworded sentence now??  MPJ-US  23:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • @MPJ-DK: I like your addition. But I would ask that the promotional focus shifts from championship to championship over time with no single championship being consistently promoted as the "main" championship, instead be removed if the Mondo Lucha book does not support it. Does it? starship.paint ~ KO 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Starship.paint: the Mondo Lucha book is a little vague on that part. I would really like the article to reflect that CMLL does not have "That One Big Championship" because that's the truth. Just trying to figure out how to source such a statement is the challenge right now. I have some various Year in Review magazine editions I won on eBay years back, I may go through those to see if I can source that the main event title spot does not always go to the Heavyweight title.  MPJ-US  23:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Out dent) @Starship.paint: - So I have gone back through CMLL's major show history, I stopped at 2013 when I did not find a heavyweight title match but did find three other singles title matches listed. I am trying to find out when the last title defense was, so I can reference that as part of the "it's not the main title" section. I did not think it would take this long.  MPJ-US  16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on finding the other promotions where the title was defended.
Tournaments
Lede
  • Because lucha libre puts more emphasis on the lower weight classes, this division is considered more important than the heavyweight division, which is considered the most important championship by most promotions outside of Mexico. - I don't recall seeing this in the body. This needs to be sourced too..
  • I did a copyedit for the whole article.
Further note for Reigns section

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Notes -- Did I miss image and source reviews? Also, it seems to have been a long time since your last FA, MPJ, so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. A request for all these can be made at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did not realize the separate reqwuest space for that, thank you @Ian Rose:. It has been a while since I had one pass for FA - and perhaps the fact that I did not realize there was a request space maybe why my last two FACs has less participation than I had hoped.  MPJ-US  14:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review (by Saskoiler)

  • Copyright status
    • There are three images, all with acceptable status. One is own work (public domain), and the other two are both from Flickr with CC licenses for attribution-sharealike.
    • Both Flickr images are attributed to author "Carlos Amapol", but Flickr suggests "Carlos Adampol Galindo". I think this should be fixed, ideally including a link to the author's Flickr page too. (Re: Best practices for attribution)
  • Captions
    • "Dr. Wagner Jr., who lost the championship in Japan without it being sanctioned by CMLL." → This is not a sentence, and should therefore not end with a period (re: WP:CAPFRAG).
    • Other two are good.

-- Saskoiler (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review @Saskoiler: I believe I have addressed all issues?
Yes. All looks good now. - Saskoiler (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Victoriaearle

[edit]

Hi Ian I tried to do some spotchecks and ran into a little trouble.

  • First: Ref number 2 (Royal Duncan and Gary Will (2000). "Mexico: CMLL EMLL Light Heavyweight Title". Wrestling Title Histories. Archeus Communications. p. 395. ISBN 0-9698161-5-4.) and ref number 8 are the same book (Royal Duncan and Gary Will (2000). "Mexico: EMLL CMLL". Wrestling Title Histories. Archeus Communications. pp. 395–410. ISBN 0-9698161-5-4.), so that should be fixed. This book isn't available online - not even in snippet view, so it can't be checked. (I just noticed that ref 5 is also the same book)
  • I have the actual book, I won it on eBay some years ago. So page 395 is the listing for the CMLL World Lightweight Championship specifically and used to source statements about the Light Heavyweight title specifically. Pages 395-410 lists all championships brande as "CMLL World" (Heavy, Light Heavy, Middle, Welter etc.) and it used to source a statement that applies to all the championships. And yes ref 5 is from the book too, different pages. I tried to be as specific as possible with the page indicators here instead of having one more generic reference that says "pages 390-391, 395-410". MPJ-US  03:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref number 7 (Madigan, Dan (2007). "Okay ... what is Lucha Libre?". Mondo Lucha A Go-Go: the bizarre & honorable world of wild Mexican wrestling. HarperColins Publisher. pp. 29–40 and 114–118. ISBN 978-0-06-085583-3.) is linked and available online, but I can't find any of the information its verifying. Certainly there isn't a close paraphrasing issue, but I am a little concerned that a variety of search terms doesn't bring me even close. But g-books being what they are, perhaps someone else should take a look. Or perhaps I've lost my touch.
  • My book is still packed away after we moved so it's not readily available. I tried to check the "Google books" site, but it does not actually cover the chapter. It skips from page "37 to 272", but that's not the page labeled as "37" since the foreword is not numbered. I don't think the online version includes either of the chapters I cited, I think the only options is that I would have to get the book out to confirm content for you.  MPJ-US  03:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the other sources are in Spanish, so we'd need a Spanish speaker to take a look. I can't sign off on this, unfortunately. Also I noticed some of the sources need work, i.e I'd think Howstuffworks should be in italics (is this even reliable?), and HarperCollins usually has two "L"s. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the typo in the name and the italics, will look into the "How stuff works" source - to be honest I took that off other wrestling articles that used it, so I am not sure of the reliability. For the Spanish language sources, my Spanish is fair when it comes to reading it but google translate or built in browser translators usually handle the Spanish language web pages pretty well.  MPJ-US  03:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the reply. I think you'll need a full source review and generally the spot checks aren't done by the nominator, that's why I said we need a Spanish speaker. Pinging Ian Rose again so he's aware. I've done all I can here. Victoria (tk) 03:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just it be clear, I did not offer to do the spot checks, I offered a way for a non-Spanish speaker to actually check spanish language sources, just trying to help the process along.  MPJ-US  12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

[edit]
  • @HHH Pedrigree: - if I remember correctly Spanish is your first language? Could you help MPJ-DK out on the spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? starship.paint ~ KO 12:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPJ-DK: - I checked the other non-Spanish online sources as HHH Pedrigree checked the above. For reference 23, you might want to add another source (an official one) to prove Fantastica Mania is an NJPW event. For reference 7, are you sure the relevant pages in the ebook are 13 to 29? I can read 13 to 29 online but I don't see the EMLL information. I see a quote in the book is emll was a member of the nwa from 1952 to 1986, and Lutteroth controlled the Alliance world light heavyweight, middleweight... but I cannot see what page it is from other than it being after page 88. The rest that I could access are fine. starship.paint ~ KO 05:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Starship.paint: I will add the NJPW source, better to be 100% covered I agree. So 7 is to source that EMLL had control of the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship, the other source sources that in 1958 the Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship became the secondary title when EMLL gained control of the championship - so between the two I believe it's covering the preceeding statement?  MPJ-DK  10:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm going to promote this but a couple of things you could look at afterwards:

  • I noticed at least one case of figures less than ten in numeral form, e.g. "8-day" -- usually expect those to be spelt out.
  • You have some duplicate links so pls check if those are really necessary/appropriate -- you can install this script to highlight them.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2016 [20].

Impala

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a graceful antelope. The article was promoted to GA status in 2014, and now nominate it for FA status after expanding it further using better sources. Thanks. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Checkingfax

[edit]
  • Hi, Sainsf. I gave it a runthrough and made some minor edits to smooth it out functionality/MoS-wise.
  • I would suggest adding alt-text to images requiring it.

I will be happy to do another runthrough and make an !vote after more comments come in. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Thanks for your comments and efficient edits. I tried to add proper alt-text here, please check. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sainsf. I am not good at creating alt-text for images. Maybe Graham87 can take a look at them for you. I will say that two of them merely repeat the caption, and that is not helpful, so the text of those two can be deleted for now. You do not have to remove the whole parameter, just the text portion. That way somebody can see that it needs filling in (leave alt=). I will take a shot and say you did a pretty good job of not being redundant in your alt-text. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will delete them for now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, they sound pretty good. Thanks for adding them. Graham87 08:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checkingfax, care to !vote? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sainsf.
  • I am not a fan of sections that start with images. The default is for images to float right and I usually stick with the default unless there is a way to move an image down a paragraph and float it to the left. Many times I am able to re-juggle images in a big article and avoid sections starting off with images. This Impala article has some two paragraph sections that may be too short to move an image down, justify it left, and not have it impact the following section. Give it some thought and ping me back. I will not ding you for whatever you decide is best. I do feel that sections with images as their first content breaks up the flow of reading an article. I have no problem with all images being right floated if that is a solution in an article. This article has enough real estate to allow some left floating without walking on section headings. I love the article and its current presentation. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On this point, it is entirely optional where an image is placed in the beginning of a section. There was a guideline, but it has long been removed.[21] FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. No rigid rule about that.
  • Is there an inconsistency with number ranges in a case like this? (there may be others): 24 to 48 hours, and occurs every 12–29 days
  • I don't think consistency is mandatory in that, I like some variation and have never been advised against doing this.
  • I feel that at least the first use of the {{convert}} template should use abbr=off for each type of unit (metres, hectares, kilogram, etc.)
  • Not sure if it is necessary, I never do in any of my articles... the meaning is rather apparent.
  • Since there is no word limit I feel percent should always be spelled out instead of using % – except in infoboxes, tables, etc.
  • Once again either can be used, taking care that either "%" or "percent" is said.

I like the use of the {{clade}} template. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FA Toolbox:

Alt text: See this – top two images would benefit

Not sure how to add alt text in infobox, and what to write for the range map.

Citation bot: Added |year=2005[22]
Disambig links: 2 links still need DAB[23] It's at the top of the article, I don't think anything needs to be done.
Edit count: ? (not sure what we are on the look out for here)
External links: No dead links found
Peer review: Reports two links needing DAB[24] It's at the top of the article, I don't think anything needs to be done.
Redirects: 1 marked invalid[25] It's at the top of the article, I don't think anything needs to be done.
Reflinks: Pass
Dates used consistently: Pass
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Addressed. Sorry for the late response, busy with GA Cup. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • remove the pronunciation key from the lead
Someone had attached a "pronunciation?" tag there when I began work on the article. That's why I added it.
  • change "The slender, lyre-shaped horns, only on males..." to "The slender, lyre-shaped horns, that are only on males..." or "The slender, lyre-shaped horns (that only occur in males)..."
Done
  • "Browsers as well as grazers..." doesn't that just mean "herbivore"?
Both are types of feeding behaviours, and in antelopes one of them generally predominates. Here we know for sure that it is a herbivore, and I wish to highlight that both ways of feeding can be observed in this antelope.
  • is the plural of impala "impala" or "impalas"?
Sources use both. And in antelope articles (like sitatunga, mountain nyala, and the FA hartebeest) I have stuck to what appears to be the singular form.
  • "An annual, three weeks-long rut toward the end of the wet season, typically in May" this is a fragment
Fixed.
  • change "aepyceros" to "Aepyceros" in the Etymology section
Done.
  • change "Known as the common impala. Occurs across eastern and southern Africa. The range extends from central Kenya to South Africa and westward into southeastern Angola" to "Known as the common impala, it occurs across eastern and southern Africa. The range extends from central Kenya to South Africa and westward into southeastern Angola" do the same for A. m. petersi
Done
  • change "...from the Pliocene of Ethiopia" to "...from the Pliocene in Ethiopia" (optional)
Seems "of" and "in" can be used interchangeably here.
References
[edit]
  • ref no. 4's OCLC number is 24702472
  • ref no. 6's OCLC number is 861302215
  • ref no. 9's OCLC number is 852789105 (might want to check the all book refs for their OCLC numbers)
  • ref no. 13's OCLC number is 854973585
  • I'm stopping with the OCLC numbers. Make sure all book refs have one (any of them with an ISBN should have an OCLC)
Thanks for your comments, will look into these soon responded. But in none of my previous FACs have reviewers asked for OCLCs, are they mandatory? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, it's just another id number for the book   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: I have added OCLCs for all the book refs. I don't think it is necessary to add it, just remain consistent in whatever you use. Please continue with your comments. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Congratulations on another great article! Best of luck to you on your pending GA's   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I really like the images, but the image under diet from a zoo in some cold country seems a bit out of place among the rest. How about some wild animals grazing?[26]
  • Awesome. No idea how you come across the best image always.
  • "An alternative name for the impala is "rooibok"" From what language? Sounds Afrikaans...
  • Fixed
  • "n 1845, Swedish zoologist Carl Jakob Sundevall placed the springbok in Antidorcas, a genus of its own.[8]" Not sure why you mention this, was the springbok originally in the same genus as the impala?
  • Removed, seems it was added by mistake
  • "led palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba to consider" When?
  • Fixed
  • "According to Vrba, the impala evolved from an alcelaphine ancestor. She noted that while this ancestor has diverged at least 18 times into various morphologically different forms, the impala has continued in its basic form for at least five million years.[9][15] Several fossil species have been discovered, including A. datoadeni from the Pliocene of Ethiopia." This doesn't seem to have been confirmed by genetic evidence, why go so much into detail about this theory?
  • I came only across this hypothesis when I tried to learn about its evolution. I don't think there is much outside that. If there were a better theory, I would have replaced this, but seems this should be there for now. Other sources repeat the same thing citing Vrba.
  • Not really something you have to act on I think, but per our discussion about the genus being monotypic, the extinct species Aepyceros datoadeni seems to perhaps warrant a genus article...
  • Then Antilope too may have extinct species we may not know about. And Aepyceros was perhaps never created, though this fossil species was mentioned right at the top.
  • "Several fossil species have been discovered, including A. datoadeni" What are the others?
  • I can't seem to find the names of the others... this is the only one mentioned almost everywhere.
  • "The horns, strongly ridged and divergent, circular in section and hollow at the base." Seems an "are" is missing here...
  • Blooper fixed. Checking for more...
  • "Black streaks run from the buttocks" Does the source really say buttocks, and not rump or such?
  • Nothing weird about that as sources do use it, try this [27]. Any problem with the word?
  • "these glands males are most active" Glands males? What is that?
  • "classifies the impala as Least Concern" Perhaps add "overall"? Since it doesn't apply to the black-faced one, apparently...
  • Fixed
  • "is spent in feeding and resting" Spent on?
  • Fixed
  • Rut is not linked outside the intro.
  • Fixed
  • "A possible explanation for this could be that because the impala inhabits woodlands, that are considered to have a high density of ticks, unlike the other animals in the study that inhabit grasslands, the impala could have greater mass of ticks per unit area of the body surface." This sentence is rather convoluted, perhaps put some of it in parenthesis?
  • Fixed
  • "in a study, ivermectin was found to" Perhaps state that this is a form of medication.
  • Fixed
  • "Impala carefully feed on" What is meant by carefully?
  • It means they are careful in what parts of the plant they choose. Would "meticulous" be better?
Yeah, could "parts of the plant" be mentioned as well? FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to support once this is dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one! FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A study revealed that time spent in foraging reaches a maximum of 75.5%" Percent of what? The day?
  • Fixed
  • Are the subspecies sympatric anywhere?
  • This map [28] can give an idea of the black-faced impala's distribution, though it seems wrong about the common impala. Sources don't say exactly where their ranges meet, but it seems they must meet somewhere in southern Africa.
  • Perhaps state the main difference between the subspecies in the intro, much space is given to behaviour in the intro (I'd say the kicking part is too detailed there), but not description.
  • Done
  • The male in the taxobox has very short horns compared to the one under description. is it a juvenile?
Hmm, it's a featured picture after all, I think "mature" animals are generally preferred for recognisability, but not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Hi, care to !vote? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Really sorry for my awfully late reply, GA Cup is literally eating me up! I have removed "carefully" as the part following this indeed shows the care the animal takes while eating. Thanks for your support, and your help with issues Checkingfax has raised. :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for FA promotion. I gave it a read-through, and didn't find any significant issues. It looks to be in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and edits. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "The impala ... other impala": If you want to use "impala" as the plural, that's fine, but then it reduces readability if you use the same word to mean two different things (plural and singular mass noun) in the same sentence. In general, the article might benefit if you tried to maintain the plural or maintain the singular longer than you do. It wouldn't surprise me if other reviewers recommend "impalas" as the plural.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Thanks for your support, edits and comments, sorry for getting to this so late. I think you refer to these lines (all I could find with two meanings):
  • The impala displays two characteristic leaps – it can jump up to 3 metres (9.8 ft), over vegetation and even other impala...
  • Impala on the periphery of the herds are generally more vigilant against predators than those feeding in the centre; a foraging impala will try to defend the patch...
  • The historical range of the impala, spanning across southern and eastern Africa, has remained intact to a great extent, although impala have disappeared from a few places...
I have tweaked these to keep only one meaning. Is that what you wished to see? Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

[edit]
  • All files are CC and have sufficient source and author information - OK.
  • Flickr-images show no signs of problems - OK.
  • 2 photos lack EXIF-data, but have been uploaded by long-term contributors with credible authorship claim - OK.
  • File:Leefgebied_impala.JPG - On FA-level this range map, more precisely the data it represents, should be verifiable by a reliable source, just like any other content (WP:V). I know, you didn't upload the map - but could you provide a reliable source for the shown range, and add it to the image information page please? Or maybe there is another range map with better background info? GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the IR. In this type of articles the IUCN is the best source for range details. Should this [29] be enough to support the map? The range is nearly the same as shown though the subspecies ranges appear to have been combined. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Impala.png seems to reflect the actual range a lot more accurately (shown by IUCN, and IAE as well - see [[30]]). Admittedly it looks a bit less "nice", but the current map shows some major discrepancies compared to the verifiable range (especially in southern Namibia, the middle section, and northernmost parts of the range). I wouldn't mind some minor differences due to technical difficulties or different datasets, but the actual differences between the various maps seem to be too significant to ignore. Considering the actual map lacks background information for verification and the linked map has 2 reputable sources for verification, I'd lean towards using File:Impala.png instead of the current one. This alternative file is already used on several other Wikis (like 50:50 between the 2 map versions). GermanJoe (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I have replaced the map with the suggested one. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added the 2 (likely) source links for verification to the image information as well. GermanJoe (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2016 [31].

Agharta (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1975 live album by jazz musician Miles Davis. It was a divisive record, controversial for its jazz-rock music, Davis' last recording before his retirement, and influential on a younger generation of musicians, particularly because of guitarist Pete Cosey's frenetic playing. The album was later reassessed positively by critics, who viewed it as the culmination of Davis' electric period and one of his best works. Dan56 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Prism

[edit]
Prose review by Prism
For now I will just give a preliminary review and tomorrow I will hopefully explore the article better. At first read this is generally very good.
Lead
  • fiercely innovative is verging on puffery.
  • Sony's Japanese division suggested its title, Agharta, which is a mythological subterranean utopia. I suggest rephrasing this, since the word Agharta is already said in the previous sentence. Perhaps:
Sony's Japanese division suggested its title, which refers to a [[Agharta|mythological subterranean utopia]].
  • cover artwork — artwork is sufficient
Background
  • subsequently is redundant
  • The first concert began at 4:00 P.M. — It is previously mentined that it was held in the afternoon. This is trivia.
Reception and legacy
  • I believe mini-LP should be changed, as that term is usually reserved for mini-albums, as per the Wiki page that it is associated with.
I don't think that page is a very good reference. I added "replica" to make a distinction. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to come. Prism

Support from EddieHugh

[edit]
Review by EddieHugh
:I don't have much time, but I like what I've read and want to see another jazz piece get to FA. So, starting with the lead (just state your objections if you have them, as some of these are minor)...
  • "jazz community". Is there a better term than "community"?
Maybe "scene", but I've already used that in the body... both "jazz community" and "jazz scene" are often used in the literature. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alternate cover". Despite "alternate" being a record label favourite, this really should be "alternative".
Merriam primarily defines "alternative" as another word for "alternate", so I'm not sure... Google Books turns up slightly more results for "alternate album cover", so I'm deferring to that. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Merriam link is to the first definition of alternate: "occurring or succeeding by turns". If you insist that "alternate" is better, then I won't insist on "alternative", but it's ugly at best. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing what you see; the link leads to the page "Alternative - Definition of Alternative by Merriam-Webster" and when I scrolled down to "Full Definition of alternative", the first listing was "1. : Alternate 1", which I would take to mean the words are used interchangeably. "Alternative" also means "offering or expressing a choice", which isn't accurate here; buyers in Japan vs. the US didn't have a choice in which cover they wanted to buy, generally speaking. And if we followed the releases listed at Discogs, the release history suggests the covers did "occur in turn", as the album was released and reissued in Japan, then the US, then Japan again, then the US again, and so on... which might make "alternate" more appropriate in this case. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "alternate" as the first definition in the link you gave, then go down to full definition 1 and you'll find what I mentioned. It's here. As per my last – you insist, so that's fine. EddieHugh (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was reassessed positively in the years following his retirement". The retirement was in 1975, which would be the same time as the contemporaneous reviews, so this needs to be revised.
According to the 1980 article included in the Alkyer, Enright & Koransky (2007) book, "positive critical revisionism has lately occurred" with regards to Agharta; that would be years after 1975, after the first series of reviews, which were unfavorable. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Could it be made clearer, as we have a maximum 5-year period in which we know it had occurred? "in the years following his retirement" is vague and, if taken as 1976+, would incorporate the Jazz Forum and NYT reviews listed, which were from 1976. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1976 would be the year after Davis had retired, not the years (and not an entire year after he retired, which was in fall 1975; Jazz Forum reviewed the album in February 1976 and NYT in April)... but I'll change it to "subsequent years" anyway. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mid 1970s" should be hyphenated.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "working in the studio only sporadically and haphazardly; the 1974 releases Big Fun and Get Up with It compiled...". Could you spell this out more? e.g. if correct, that his only releases between 1972 and the Osaka concerts were mostly from old sessions.
There were other releases that compiled even older recordings (such as 1958 Miles and Jazz at the Plaza Vol. I, not to mention other live albums such as In Concert...) I don't wanna go beyond the source. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "physical pain and difficulty walking from health complications, including joint pain caused by sickle-cell anaemia...". How's 'physical pain and difficulty walking, caused by joint pain from sickle-cell anaemia...'?
The joints in the knees I would assume (see also NIH) Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry – I meant 'what do you think of that rewording'? Pain & difficulty walking count as health complications, so "health complications" jars. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decimated ankles". Unusual use of 'decimate'. Is there a clearer word?
I've seen it used that way before (in reference to Bill Buckner's painfully arthritic knees), and it fits the definition IMO ("to severely damage or destroy a large part of (something))", as well as Davis' particular condition: his bones were more susceptible to damage because of his osteoporosis, so the accident not only broke the ankles, but left them significantly brittle (Chambers, Miles Davis: Grove Music Essentials) Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking that definition, 'destroyed ankles' is either unclear or too casual, while 'badly damaged ankles' is clear and not casual. How about reducing the ambiguity by using 'badly damaged ankles'? EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "painkillers, cocaine, and morphine, which combined with his alcohol and drug use". Surely the first part of the list describes "drug use": rephrase.
I specified "recreational drug use"; the first part of the list would more so be self-medication. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources back-up all of those being used for self-medication (cocaine is surprising, but I wouldn't know!), then that's ok. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a better picture of the Hall? There are several structures in the one used (or point out in the caption which one is the hall).
I added "(left center)" to the caption; all the available pictures of the old Festival Hall show more than one structure, while the good ones (including those of the inside) are of the new Festival Hall rebuilt in 2012. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later that same year". Need to be clear if it was 75 or 76.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the release dates in the Background section because they lead in to info on the album itself? If so, it's a bit unusual, but I quite like it in this instance.
Yes. I had no idea where else to put them that would read well, and it gets mentioning Pangaea/the evening concert out the way. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition 1st para. I'm confused by this, as it doesn't match the track listing given later. The differences for disc 2 are explained, but not for disc 1.
I didn't want to be redundant by mentioning "Maiysha" twice and it seems like something readers can figure out for themselves, but I did add to the audio sample caption that "Tatu" is part of the "Prelude" track. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition 2nd para and elsewhere. Better to cite source at the end of any sentence that contains a quotation. Or has policy changed on this?
I didn't to avoid cite overkill; I couldn't find anything at WP:CITE or MOS:QUOTE about exceptions to repetitive citing. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but they played it faster as they grew rapport with each other and Davis live". "but they played it faster as the band's rapport grew"?
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davis, Cosey said, had the ability to "transmit thoughts and ideas like that to his frontline guy"". I think this can be cut; doing so would remove questions over what "frontline guy" refers to.
I paraphrased it slightly; Cosey uses it in the source in reference to the soloists in Davis' groups. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "playing – just". Be consistent throughout with either endashes or emdashes.
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ran the drum machine through several different pedals", and guitars running earlier. Guitars was borderline ok, but a drum machine being run is too casual a use of words.
I replaced it with "processed". Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He arranged his guitar strings in different places". What does that mean?
I added "...on the fretboard". Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "36 different". 'different' is not needed.
removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason for picking out "E-flat tuning" from the 36? If so, state it; if not, cut the mention.
Hendrix happened to use it; mentioned. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the manner of the guitarist's". Too many guitarists! Hendrix or Cosey here?
I revised the sentence(s). Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Composition" seems an inadequate section heading given its content.
It's pretty broad I admit... how about "Composition and performance"? Dan56 (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "and" can be read as including or as separating, so works well for this context. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonny Fortune pic: caption needs a final ".", I think. (Same for the audio sample?)
No, it's not a complete sentence (MOS:IMGSYN); I revised the sample caption. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True – thanks! EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing there... EddieHugh (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued...

  • Macero was known for doing lots of editing. Is there any info on what was done for this album?
Nothing specific about what he did unfortunately. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Earth's surface". Including the definite article is more natural to me.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "great cataclysmic". 'great' is redundant.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the back cover, a UFO was also depicted either...". 'A UFO was also depicted on the back cover, either...' could help, by putting the new topic of the para first in the sentence.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "." for the album cover caption, too.
It's a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence (MOS:IMGSYN). Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for "/5" for some reviews but stars for others?
MusicHound and Sputnikmusic didn't use stars, while the others did. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agharta was originally panned by critics in 1975". Cut "originally", as it's unnecessary and could be read as meaning that it was panned again later.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, as mentioned above, some of the reviews mentioned in this para are from 76, not 75, so this opening needs another rephrasing. EddieHugh (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews that were accessible were from '76, American reviews, the year it was released there... but the source cited verifies it was panned in 1975. I revised it to "was originally panned by critics" while the Lou Reed album part I revised to "...much in the same way Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music album had in 1975." Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(1975) had that same year". "(1975)" is redundant.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Q-tips" or use a more international term.
Cotton swabs. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he stills cued". Typo somewhere.
Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reflecting on his live". Probably best to slip in another 'Davis' ' here for "his".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut apostrophe from "mid-1970's" in boxed quotation.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • nb 1 "the side three". Superfluous article.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track listing. "Original double LP". Specify which one this is: Japanese/US ("original" implies Japanese, but it could be clearer).
The format reflects both actually, and specifying the country would beg the same question for the other listings, or at least not be consistent. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miles Davis – composition, organ, trumpet". Composition is covered in the previous section, so cut.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 94 no longer has that info (the archived form does). Is maintaining the link correct?
The archive parameter wouldn't work without the original; I checked it off as "dead". Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In refs: Bayles title has incorrect use of caps ("With", possibly "An"); Campbell em/endash again; Graham no caps for "At".
Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell needs the 2 spaces removed. EddieHugh (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title at the page is rendered with the spaces ("Review Miles Davis - Agharta") Dan56 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's conventional to make typographic changes to such things, as with capitalisation. We shouldn't have a spaced emdash. EddieHugh (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories: isn't it a 1975 live album?
Corrected. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've spotted up to now. It reads well (probably too many quotations, but that's hard to dodge), so I should be able to support. EddieHugh (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieHugh:, I responded/made corrections. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Responses to points still live (I count 6 of them) are indented above. EddieHugh (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I responded and addressed the rest, @EddieHugh:. Let me know if theres anything else. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All done apart from the spaced emdash. EddieHugh (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. Dan56 (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie

[edit]
Review by Mike Christie
Leaning support; this is a fine article.
  • "By 1973, Davis had established most of his band's line-up": I assume this means "most of the line-up that would be used for Agharta. I think it would be better to say so explicitly.
I don't think that would lead as well/as tactfully to the paragraph introducing what Agharta was, i.e. a recording of a concert from the Japanese tour; it seems redundant. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "pallete" is not a typo, I think it needs a "[sic]" inside the quote to indicate that to the reader.
No, it was my mistake; the source says "palette". Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the individual segments performed did not cohere as a whole": I think "performed" could be cut.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the clichéd "rock phraseology" of the guitarists, whom he said lacked wit, harmony, and taste": with "whom", this means that the guitarists lacked wit, harmony and taste, but I think you mean that the phraseology lacked those things. If so, it should be "which".
No, the critic was referring to the guitarists. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AghaRTA Jazz Centrum, a small jazz club named after the album, hosting nightly performances and an annual jazz festival played by local and international acts": if the festival or the venue are likely to ever have articles of their own, they would be worth redlinking here.
I doubt it would have enough third-party coverage for an article of its own, apart from some brief passages in travel guides repeating the same information about the club. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agharta belonged to a period in his career": shouldn't this be "belongs"?
I'm not sure; shouldn't the (past) tense been kept consistent throughout? would the meaning be changed significantly? Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a place where most other music has not explored since": looks like an incompletely edited sentence. One way to fix it would be to delete "where".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The movie article references the album (the period in Davis' life right after it, its music, etc.) so it's indirectly related (WP:SEEALSO); I added list of double albums because it had been deleted as a category a few years ago, and I've seen it done this way elsewhere in place of the category. Dan56 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie:, I fixed some things, responded to others. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The points you haven't fixed are fine; they were suggestions more than real problems. Any comment on the two See Also links I mentioned? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I replied above; Cheadle, the film's director, discusses Agharta and Davis after having recorded it/retired, so it gives another perspective on something that's touched on in this article (Miles_Ahead_(film)#Production). Dan56 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for my support; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm ignorant of jazz, so I can't make any assessment of the content of the discussions, but it's well-written, seems well-researched to me, and flows smoothly. Personally I would cut the See Also link to List of double albums, since a reader who follows that link won't learn anything about Davis or this album, but that's not something worth opposing for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you're right, so I've replaced that link with one to Black Beauty: Miles Davis at Fillmore West (another electric-period live album), where I have added more information about the "coded phrases" Davis used on Agharta, @Mike Christie:. Dan56 (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; I think that's an improvement. Best of luck with the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

[edit]
  • Support I've read the article thoroughly (sorry it took me few days), and I can comfortably support the prose. I think the article is well researched and well written, and given its legacy (as concluded in the reception section), it serves as a nice overview of this period of Davis' career.--Retrohead (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've read the first half and from what I can see so far it's well written and very informative. I just skimmed the second half and can't really comment nn that. Karl Twist (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AJona1992
  • It would be better if you remove the "so he" and add a semicolon instead for better flow (first subsection; third paragraph). Other than that, the article is well-written, detailed and complete, the writing is superb, and well deserving of FA status. Another great read Dan, – jona ✉ 16:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised it. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2016 [32].

Old Pine Church

[edit]
Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the history, architecture, and spatial environment of Old Pine Church, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This article was written in the same style and format as four other Featured Articles on NRHP properties: Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), and Literary Hall. All guidance is welcomed and appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sourcing and other comments

  • I ran Duplication Detector on each linked source in the article. No issues of concern showed up. (See the next editor's comments below. Apparently, Duplication Detector doesn't flag well on PDF.)
  • Nice job with the measurement conversions.
  • Question? Is there a way you can link something to help the reader know what triune immersion is? I'm a little unsure myself if that means they got dunked 3 times, or if they did it in the name of the Trinity. Is it perhaps like this:
(Dunk #1) "In the name of the Father..."
(Dunk #2) "...and the Son..."
(Dune #3) "...and the Holy Spirit..."
  • I believe I've mentioned before how much I enjoy reading your articles about old churches. You really excel at detailing the architecture and interiors. You do it so well, I can close my eyes and picture standing inside that church, seeing everything you have described.

— Maile (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maile, I've clarified the statement on triune immersion and have found a source, J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of Protestantism (2005). You were correct that triune immersion involves the dunking of a new believer three times, once for each entity of the Holy Trinity. Take a look at the statement's current formatting and let me know if you have any further suggestions or edits. I will definitely take a look at Margaret Lea Houston as soon as I have a moment and have addressed Singora's issues with this article. Thank you again for your thoughtful review and suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture section Singora (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the positive feedback re: this article's architecture section. What follows is a comparison of the Wiki article and the PDF source.

  • Singora, thank you again for your review of this article. As you stated below, these descriptions are a bit difficult to word differently from the original source, as the architectural descriptions can only be altered so much. I will go one by one, and will address each of the similarly-worded sentences you have identified. Take a look at each one and let me know if they are sufficiently changed to be acceptable for your approval. Thank you again for taking the time to review this article and identify these sentences. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki: Old Pine Church is a large, one-story, front gable log building
  • PDF: is a large, one-story, front-gable log building
    • Revised version: "Old Pine Church is a large, one-story, gablefront log building." We are quite limited here, as there are only so many ways to say that the building is large, one story, and has a gablefront or front-gable architectural form. Let me know if this is different enough. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wiki: The church exhibits a symmetrical front façade, facing to the west, and encompasses a central main entrance consisting of double four-paneled doors
  • PDF: The symmetrical façade, facing west, includes a central entrance with double-doors, each wooden with four panels
    • Revised version: "The church exhibits a symmetrical front façade, which faces toward the west, and encompasses a central main entrance consisting of double four-paneled doors." There are only so many ways to state that the church has a symmetrical façade, that it faces west, and that it has one central main entrance with two doors that consist of four panels. I am definitely open to suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wiki: The main entrance is reached by two concrete steps, which are adjoined by a modern metal balustrade
  • PDF: Two concrete steps with a modern, metal balustrade lead to the entrance
    • Revised version: "The main entrance is reached by two concrete steps, which are adjoined by a modern metal handrail on either side." I've changed balustrade to handrail as it is more appropriate, but again, it is what it is. As always, I am definitely open to a suggested rewording. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wiki: A small wooden sign painted white reading "Old Pine Church" in black lettering is located over the church's main entrance
  • PDF: A small sign reading “Old Pine Church” is located over the entrance
    • Revised version: "A small wooden sign painted white reading "Old Pine Church" in black lettering is situated over the church's main entrance." Is this sufficiently different by changing located to situated. A white sign with black lettering placed over the main entrance can only be described in so many ways. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wiki: The main entrance is flanked on either side by one nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden window (MY NOTE: the word "flanked" implies "on either side")
  • PDF: Nine-over-six doublehung sash wood windows flank the central entrance (MY NOTE: notice the correct use of the verb "flank")
    • Revised version: "The front façade also consists of two nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows which are located on either side of the main entrance." I've modified the structure of the sentence, without any usage of flank or flanked. Let me know if this is sufficiently different. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wiki: The church's side elevations, facing toward the north and south, feature two symmetrically placed nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows
  • PDF:The north and south (side) elevations each have two symmetrically placed nine-over-six double-hung sash wood windows
    • Revised version: "The church's side elevations, facing toward the north and south directions, consist of two nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows, which are placed symmetrically." Is this worded differently enough. As always, I am open to suggested rewordings. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wiki: Between the two windows on the church's north elevation is located an exterior concrete block chimney of modern construction
  • PDF: A modern exterior concrete block chimney situated between the two windows is on the north elevation


  • Wiki: The east (rear) elevation of the church is also symmetrical in plan, and features three nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows with the center window placed above the other two windows
  • PDF: The east (rear) elevation is also symmetrical. It has three nine-over-six double-hung sash windows with the center window elevated above the other windows
    • Revised version: "The rear elevation of the church, which faces toward the east, is also symmetrical in layout, and features three nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows with the center window placed above the windows on either side." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wiki: The church's windows have been repaired throughout its history, with materials compatible to those originally used
  • PDF: The windows were repaired at some point, but compatible materials were utilized (MY NOTE: the Wiki version "throughout its history" is not implied by "at some point")
    • Revised version: "The church's windows have been repaired with materials accordant to those originally used." -- West Virginian (talk)


  • Wiki: The church's interior exhibits an open architectural plan. Against the rear (east) wall, centered underneath the middle window, is located a simple wooden frame pulpit
  • PDF: The interior of the building has an open floor plan. A simple wooden frame pulpit is situated against the rear (east) wall, centered under the middle window


And so on. I guess this kind of stuff is not always easy to re-write.

  • Singora, thank you for taking the time to review this article, and for highlighting some of the close wording. This was a bit difficult because there are only so many ways you can describe these features. I will go through and try to fix each sentence from the article that you'd identified so that it is not as similar as the source. Thank you again. I will be getting to this within the next 24 hours. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Singora, I've finished rephrasing or otherwise revising the above-mentioned sentences. Thank you again for your review. I will re-review the architectural section to see if I can further reword these sentences. Please let me know if you have any suggestions in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Singora, please re-review the article for any further close wording. Corinne from the Guild of Copy Editors was kind enough to review the article, and provide a further copyedit of the architecture section. As stated above, architectural writing is difficult because some descriptions can only be described appropriately using similar wording. Please take another look and let me know if you identify any further issues. You'll notice in your selected sentences above that I took special caution not to duplicate the wording of the original source. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: no issues. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


More from Singora Singora (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read this and to be honest it's sub-par. In the lead, for example:

  • 1. "The church is believed to have been utilized by German Methodist settlers"
  • 2. "By 1870, Old Pine Church was primarily used exclusively by ....". This sentence appears twice in the article.
  • 3. "The church and its adjoining cemetery were added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 12, 2012, due to its ..."
    • I've removed "adjoining cemetery" as this sentence is merely meant to reference the church's architectural significance. The sentence now reads: "The church was added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 12, 2012, due to its..." -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Restoration section. You've got:

In 1968, residents of the Purgitsville community raised the necessary funds to conduct a restoration of Old Pine Church. It is probable that during this restoration the boarding room addition was removed from the church structure; there are no extant remains of the addition. During the restoration, the church's unpainted weatherboards were painted, a new roof was installed, the original windows were repaired, and the original wood floor was replaced. The pressed metal ceiling may have been added during the restoration.

Every sentence uses the word "restoration". How about something like:

In 1968, residents of the Purgitsville community raised the necessary funds to restore Old Pine Church: the church's original windows were repaired and the unpainted weatherboards painted; a new roof was installed and the original wood floor replaced. The boarding room addition was probably removed (nothing of it now remains) and the pressed metal ceiling may have been added.

Do CTRL+F and search for the word "located". You'll see 13 results, many of which are in the Architecture section. Losing them all should be easy:

  • You: Along the foundation of the church's perimeter are located fieldstones ...
  • My suggestion: Fieldstones span the church's perimeter foundations ....


  • You: Located centrally against the rear wall, underneath the middle window, is a plain wooden frame pulpit
  • My suggestion: A plain wooden frame pulpit stands against the the rear wall, underneath the middle window


  • You: The church's small wood-burning stove was originally located in the center of the sanctuary but was relocated to the church's north wall ...
  • My suggestion: The church's small wood-burning stove originally occupied the center of the sanctuary but was moved to the church's north wall ...
    • I've used your suggested rewrites for the aforementioned sentences. I've also modified further uses of "located" throughout the article. Please take another look and let me know if you find any other sentences in need of further tweaking. Only four uses of "located" remain. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More errors:


And so on.

  • Singora, I've incorporated your suggested edits, and I have made further modifications to the article. Please take a look and let me know if you find anything else that inhibits this article from receiving your support for Featured Article promotion. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your thoughtful guidance and suggestions. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Singora, I just wanted to touch base with you to ensure that you were aware of the necessary changes that I have made to the article. I have incorporated your suggestions, and have made further changes. Please re-review when you have a chance, and let me know if you find any outstanding issues or problems. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "have a "minimalist appearance".": Per WP:INTEXT, attribute it or paraphrase it.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank, thank you for taking the time to engage in a thorough and comprehensive review and its corresponding edits. I added an inline citation after "minimalist appearance" per your suggestion and per WP:INTEXT. Please let me know if you see any outstanding issues with this article. Thank you again for your review, and thank you tremendously for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax

[edit]

Hi, West Virginian. I am impressed by your gracefulness and graciousness. I will comment below in a minute.

Lead

  • Lose: unincorporated community. Move it to the body.
  • Lose: U.S. state. Move it to the body
  • Delink German
  • Replace most uses of: Old Pine Church with the church
  • Remove as many scare quotes as possible
  • Replace image caption of: Old Pine Church, viewed from the west, facing the church's front elevation. with Front of the church. Do not use a full stop as this version will be a sentence fragment per MOS:CAPFRAG. Use the present version as alt text (using the alt= parameter).
  • Delink common words like siding, bark, ceiling, pews
  • Define extant somehow without making a reader click on a wikilink
  • Suggest leaving exact date of adding to the register for the body of the article
  • Expand the first use of the convert template using the abbr=off parameter and switch; for distance, area, volume, etc.

Will be back later to comment on the remaining sections. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this thorough and comprehensive review of the Old Pine Church article. I apologize for my belated response. I have made all the necessary modifications for this section, with the exception of one suggestion. Could you be more specific regarding your suggestion for defining extant? Please elaborate further on your suggestion for defining extent, and let me know if you have any further suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, West Virginian. The belated response only had me worried for the sake of all the hard work you have put into this FA Candidacy. I was afraid it might get tabled in your absence. Glad to see you are back on the con. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkingfax, because of your review, this article is definitely in a much better position for promotion to FA status. Thank you again for your suggestions. It has been my mission to get every NRHP listing in Hampshire County to FA status, so I am determined to get this one through, too! Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location

  • Image caption is not succinct. It is not being used as Fair Use so there is no need for an extended caption. It is Mill Creek perhaps in the Fall.
  • Expand use of the U.S. initialism at first use in the article body to United States
  • For the {{convert}} template use abbr=off for each unit measure for first use in body of article
  • Do (West Virginia Secondary Route 220/15) and U.S. Route 220 overlap in their usage? Redundant to a degree?
  • Substitute the church for most instances of Old Pine Church. I won't mention this again.

More later. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, again, thank you for your review. I really appreciate this! I've made all the suggested edits for this section, per your guidance. West Virginia Secondary Route 220/15 is a side road that radiates off of U.S. Route 220, so it is not redundant to state them both. Let me know if you have any further suggestions for this section and I'll make the necessary changes as soon as possible. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

Background
  • Saying Mill Creek valley once is enough, IMHO. Use The valley going forward after that where practical.
  • Use abbr=off for first conversion of acres in body of article
Establishment
  • Define the first use of extant in the body of the article
  • I wanted to clarify what you meant by defining extant in the article. Should I change this to existing?
Brethren affiliation
  • Define Brethren even though it is wikilinked
  • Brethren is later defined in the article through the description of their use of triune immersion. Would moving this information earlier in the paragraph satisfy this suggestion? Thank you again for your guidance.
Restoration
  • How much money was spent on restoration? Were there any donated hours or goods?
  • Unfortunately, this information was not available in the available references.
Current use
  • Six citations seems like overkill for the first little paragraph :-}
  • I know it looks like a lot, but to properly cite all the information shared in this first paragraph, I need to include the reference for each piece of information.

More later. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, thank you again for this review. I addressed your concerns and suggestions for this section above. Again, I wanted to clarify what you meant by defining extant. Your review, and your suggestions are greatly appreciated and have greatly improved this article so far! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, West Virginian. Maybe use documented in place of extant? If the shoe fits that is. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Church exterior
  • The image here looks a lot like the infobox image so is fairly redundant. I would suggest replacing it with an image of a nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden window which is hard to describe, but a picture says 1000 words.
  • Delink bark, siding and metal roof
Church interior

More later. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, all done! Let me know if you find anything else in this section. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery

  • Delink granite and chicken wire
  • Is it a cattle gate or is it a cattle guard? I mostly see guards in place in lieu of gates for places that get traffic. If it is a gate, it really would not matter what kind of gate it is.
  • Maybe use documented instead of extant. 25% of our readers and editors are between the ages of 10 and 17.
  • Did you mention any of the types of trees that are in the area? Other than the Oak?

Probably pretty well done with comments. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkingfax, thank you again for your thorough review of this article. As for this section, I have de-linked the suggested words, and I have also changed extant to remaining. This area is primarily mixed oak. There may be other tree species in the mix, but the large trees in and around the church's property are oak. Please take another look at the article and let me know if you have any further suggestions or guidance. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well, it only took me a month (serves me right for not checking my talk page), but I did give it a review. Short and sweet version, no problems that I can see. Well sourced, great use of books rather than weblinks. I love it when an article is sourced almost entirely (or completely) by books. It really shows the hard work put into the article. Good use of photography as always. All and all, another great article. :) Apologizes for the delay. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:18 on June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:33 on June 25, 2016 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, thank you so tremendously much for taking the time to engage in a review of this article. Neutral homer, I always appreciate and value your guidance, and I am so thankful for your support. No apologies necessary for the delay; I apologize to you for my delayed response to this statement. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're Welcome and No Worries. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:22 on June 30, 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2016 [33].

Dr. No (novel)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr No is the sixth in Ian Fleming's series of Bond stories, and the one which tempted a couple of film makers to see what they could do (and looked what happened when they tried). This article has undergone a re-build recently, bringing in information from new sources, re-structuring the article along the lines of the previous Bond novel re-writes, and giving a few passages a brush-up to bring them in line with the MoS. It's had a very profitaAtble PR, where there were a lot of excellent comments, and the article is all the stronger for it. Many thanks to all who care to constructively comment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was among the peer reviewers, and was very happy with the page at that point. Subsequent polishing has improved it further and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. This developing series on the 007 books is, I think, just what Wikipedia readers will be looking for: good background and context, clear plot summary, comprehensive coverage of reception and adaptations. This latest addition is well up to the high standard set earlier. Tim riley talk 11:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much along the lines of Tim, an excellent article and clearly meets the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any reason for the book and film titles being "Dr. No" but the character being "Dr No"? EddieHugh (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full stop isn't generally used after Mr, Dr, etc. I've looked at my copy of the novel again (hoping to find Fleming followed suit!), and as most of the versions drop it on the cover but he doesn't refer to Dr. or Dr No, but calls him Doctor No throughout. I'll follow suit to avoid confusion. – SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Checkingfax

[edit]

Hi, SchroCat.

  • Box templates are reserved for pull quotes per template:quote box and per WP:MOS. Need to duplicate the text into the body of the article so the boxes become true pull quotes, or convert {{quote box}} templates to {{quote}} templates. Confirm all quotes are sourced.
Hi, SchroCat. I think you will be happy if you convert them to blockquotes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. The use of blockquote is a deliberate choice based on the formatting of the page, and the break of the text around the box. Using the QUOTE template provides a sub-standard reader experience. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Then you'll need to add the quote box text to the body so the quote boxes become pull quotes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm happy for them not to be thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Per {{quote box}} documentation:

This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page. In most cases, this is not appropriate for use in encyclopedia articles. The Manual of Style guidelines for block quotations recommend formatting block quotations using the {{Quote}} template or the HTML <blockquote> element, for which that template provides a wrapper.

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what the guideline says, thanks. It is, after all, only a guideline and "recommends", rather than proscribes. Like many other FAs, GAs, FLs and other articles, this uses the box in a slightly different way. I have no more to say on the matter than that. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. I am not going to flog the quote box pull quote issue. However, I was percolating on images, and IMHO the article would benefit from another image or two. Additionally, the bird one is a bit dull and dark; only the caption saves it, and the caption is not succinct per MOS:CAPTIONS. Moving some of the quotes inline or converting them to blockquote using the {{quote}} template would free up some real estate for another germane image or two. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any suggestions for images that increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter I'd be happy to see them, but as the quotes help inform the reader, the bar is quite high as to what would be an improvement. – SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extended MoS discussion --Laser brain (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These are not good candidates for pull quotes (less than 1 out of every 10,000 WP articles has a pull quote in it; it's a bombastic journalistic style rarely used in an encyclopedic context). Just use the {{Quote}} template. WP is not a blog, and doesn't cutesy-decorate block quotations, but follows the style of paper encyclopedias and other mainstream publishing in this regard. The use of pull quote templates for block quotes (or inline quotes, for the shorter ones) in these cases is especially inappropriate and annoying. All of the uses are for wry critics' responses to fairly trivial matters, and do nothing like a pull quote, which highlight a quotation as encapsulating the central message of a piece or section. The purpose of pull-quote boxes of this sort is: "If you walk away with only one thing in mind after reading this, it should be what's in this box." Instead, this article it abusing the style badly, and repeatedly, to laser-target readers' attention to what turns out to be random, bald-faced trivia. It's a bait-and-switch move. PS, regarding the obvious WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument: If any FAs are doing something similar, they should be cleaned up to stop doing so. SchroCat's treatment of MoS as something to fight and rail against, instead of a community consensus to go along with except in rare WP:IAR circumstances, is WP:SOAPBOX stuff that FAC should not be swayed by.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stanton: First off, I removed some indentation from your comment to make it easier to read and comment on. I think the regular {{Quote}} template is only appropriate if the text says something like "In an interview, Foo said...". If a quote from a letter to Ian Fleming is added, it wouldn't make sense to have {{Quote}} since it wouldn't flow with the rest of the text. In this case, it should be either a pull quote or removed if deemed too trivial. With that said, I believe it offers a good illustration in lieu of more images in the article and should be kept. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm soap-boxing and need to be fought against? (and did you actually look at SOAPBOX? What exactly am I advertising here?!) Perhaps you could depersonalise your comments, rather than come in with all guns blazing simply to wind people up.
Firstly no, these are not "pull quotes" in the sense our MoS describes them: they are quotes formatted into boxes, rather than in-line. The quotes are relevant to the text where they are placed in much the same way as an image is (they enlighten the understanding of the reader—don't forget we here to serve them, not to make a fetish from a creaky MoS) without additional excessive text to make the same point the quote box does. As Montanabw recently put it, this is one of the many times that "The template documentation is out of date and out of sync with what they are actually used for." Our always flexible guidelines (not set in stone at all) around this don't reflect the reality, and it is they that should be made to fit with increasingly common usage (not an argument for here, obviously, but the thought of ever trying to discuss a change to the MoS with those that seem to fight all changes leaves me cold).
As to the claim that "All of the uses are for wry critics' responses to fairly trivial matters, and do nothing like a pull quote, I'm afraid that's just untrue, all of them are not. Two of these contain quotes from Ian Fleming and one contains a quote from a letter to Fleming. – SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't drag other editors into it; this is not a campaign. You (and allegedly Montanabw) have it backwards: The template documentation is not out of date. Rather, the early deployment of the templates is, and is in a slow process of being cleaned up. Years ago, there was no consensus on how best to format quotations on WP, and people just did whatever random thing they felt like. That has changed (see MOS:QUOTE). In the last few years, these templates, which were all over the place in style and purpose, have been consolidated into just a few variants, and those for pull quotes have been identified and documented as such. Moving on, no one said any of the quotes in the article are not relevant in their contexts. They are relevant and arguably should be preserved – as standard block quotations. What they are not is pull quotes. No amount of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-style special pleading by pointing at GAs/FAs that pre-date MoS's more specific instructions about quotation formatting is going to magically make MoS not apply to this article. See the #2 FA criterion: "It follows the style guidelines". The old article need quotation style cleanup; that is not going to be aided by adding more pages that need quotation style cleanup. If you want to push for Wikipedia to actually change to preferring that block quotations be put in a decorative box, feel free to open yet another RfC proposing this, at WT:MOS or WP:VPPOL. Good luck with that; the community does not want the encyclopedia articles to look like someone's personal blog, or such proposals would not have been repeatedly rejected already. PS: All WP guidelines are resistant to change, otherwise they would be useless as guidelines. You need to have an unassailable reason, not willy-nilly whim, to change one of them substantively, as their value is primarily in their stability and consistency. You can call guidelines "just guidelines" all you want, but it will not change the fact that they are not essays you can ignore at will. WP:IAR does not work the way you seem to think it does, nor does WP:PAG. And it's a moot point here because of criterion 2; if that criterion said "and complies with the following list of essays: ...", you'd need to comply with those as well to get the FA badge. You're free to propose in another RfC that FAC drop criterion #2 entirely. Unless that actually happens and it concludes with such a changed consensus, people need to stop treating FAC and similar forums as anti-guideline campaigning soapboxes. It's tendentious, and a WP:1AM problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could pull your horns in and stop addressing everyone like we're worthless pieces of shit? (And linking to meaningless essays won't wash – they hold no water here or anywhere else). You are personalising the debate against me to a degree that is unnecessarily contentious and disruptive. Your goading will fail, I'm afraid. Now, to the point in hand.
1. I never claimed it was anything like a "campaign" (and the link you used is an odd one - as it's the second time you've linked to that page, I'm not entirely sure you understand it. Perhaps you could check what you link to before you post next time). The reason I linked to Montana is that I don't like quoting people behind their back. (As such your accusation of a "campaign" fails AGF and is a shallowly disguised personal attack, but I am used to such things).
2. I am glad you have backtracked on your false claim on the content of these boxes (it's never good to make such mendacious statements when it's so obviously wrong).
2.1. I see that despite having your "error" pointed out to you above, you have again–deliberately–reiterated what I can only call a lie in describing the quote in the boxes as "trivial commentary". If you are unable to comment on this matter honestly (and without the unconstructive and disruptive wall of text) I suggest you move on to something more constructive.
3. Yes, as I indicated before, I have no wish to start an RfC on quote boxes for the reasons I outlined earlier: trying to discuss any changes on matters of style with the self-appointed 'guardians of the MoS' is something that leaves almost all editors too tired to even bother starting. Me included.
4. Local consensus can overrule the inherently flexible MoS, regardless of the inflexibility of approach of some who try and enforce the guidelines (not set-in-stone policies, but guidelines). It has done so on dozens of articles of varying standards. This isn't OSE, but LOCALCONSENSUS.
I have little desire to continue discussing this with you, particularly given your aggressive approach and PAs so far. Our opinions go in different directions on is point, and so far the LOCALCONSENSUS on this article is against you. – SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Laser brain (as the closing admin on this FAC), As Smccandlish has started leaving inappropriate Arbcom threats on my talk page (having possibly followed me to a discussion on the Cary Grant article), I will not be taking part in any further discussion with him. – SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See above; the fact that some other articles are misusing pull quote templates for things that are not pull quotes is not a good reason to misuse more pull quote templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least four citation are URLs missing accessdates. There may be more.
Hi, SchroCat. These citation titles at minimum:
The James Bond Phenomenon: a Critical Reader
The Politics of James Bond: from Fleming's Novel to the Big Screen
Ian Fleming's James Bond: Annotations and Chronologies for Ian Fleming's Bond Stories
Ian Fleming.com
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for clarifying Checkingfax. The first three are books (linked to Google Books, but still books). As they have the unique identification there already (through ISBNs), no access date is needed. For Ian Fleming.com, I presume you mean footnote 3, which is the only use to support information: th access date is there already. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. The citations include URLs that are subject to WP:Linkrot so they do need accessdates. For printed books – no – but for citations with URLs – yes they are needed.
Not as far as I am aware (because if the Google link rots, the information is still supported by the physical book, for which we have the full publication details). Nikkimaria, as an experienced source reviewer, what's you're take on access dates for Google books? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Accessdate refers to when you were able to access the web page. If a citation has a URL, an accessdate is germane to it to prevent linkrot. This is one area where I see eye-to-eye with Flyer22 Reborn. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the documentation at Template:Cite book, "access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book", so I'll leave it out on that basis, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. No harm to include them just in case the link rots out. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the link rots out then we still have the full publishing details in place. Those sources will not have changed from the books which are not on GoogleBooks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Access dates are useful for websites that change over time; in this case, the source being cited will not change whether it was cited 10 years ago or yesterday. URL is a key part of a web citation, but for a book citation even if the link does rot the citation remains complete. Per the documentation, access date is not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • <ref name="Obs: Richardson> as you can see is missing the closing quote mark. This occurs in at least 2 places with that ref. Check for more.
Hi, SchroCat. It is used once to precede the full citation then it is used again at least once as a standalone ref name that is self-closing with a forward slash in it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some pedantic editors like to see WP:LDR style references listed alphabetically by leading initial
Hi, SchroCat. Instead of this:
<ref name="Cook (2004)">
{{cite news|last=Cook|first=William|title=Novel Man|newspaper=New Statesman|date=28 June 2004|page=40}}</ref>

<ref name="ABR: JB Jamaican">
{{cite news|last=Thomson|first=Ian|title=James Bond the Jamaican|newspaper=Arts & Book Review|date=6 June 2008|p=21}}</ref>

<ref name="Bergonzi (1958)">
{{cite journal|last=Bergonzi|first=Bernard|title=The Case of Mr Fleming|journal=Twentieth Century|date=March 1958|authorlink=Bernard Bergonzi|page=221}}</ref>
they prefer to see them in alphabetical order by the leading letter like this:
<ref name="ABR: JB Jamaican">
{{cite news|last=Thomson|first=Ian|title=James Bond the Jamaican|newspaper=Arts & Book Review|date=6 June 2008|p=21}}</ref>

<ref name="Bergonzi (1958)">
{{cite journal|last=Bergonzi|first=Bernard|title=The Case of Mr Fleming|journal=Twentieth Century|date=March 1958|authorlink=Bernard Bergonzi|page=221}}</ref>

<ref name="Cook (2004)">
{{cite news|last=Cook|first=William|title=Novel Man|newspaper=New Statesman|date=28 June 2004|page=40}}</ref>
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That's background coding that has no impact on man nor beast (or even a computer!), so I'll leave it as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. It helps future editors perform their edits. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A portal for Books could be added but that might be redundant. Your call.
  • A portal for film could be added since the article is in the film category
  • Is the publishers' name needed in the infobox image caption? You tell me. I do not know.
  • Ref #41 is throwing a red error because there is an accessdate but no URL in the citation. Either: 1) remove the date portion after the accessdate parameter or 2) add a URL to the citation. You can see it at this permalink, but when you make the edit to fix it, do not edit from that old page; be sure to edit from the most recent page. The error looks like this: |access-date= requires |url=
  • {{DEFAULTSORT:Dr. No (Novel)}} can be deleted since the sort key matches the article title to a T
  • Hi, SchroCat. In infoboxes, well most anyway, image size does not need to be called out unless you are trying to scale the image up and the image is under 220 pixels. If you do need to scale up you can omit the px portion of the scaling. So where this is:
| image_size = 200px
delete the 220px portion so it looks like this:
| image_size =
The image will stretch to fit. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 200px in there shrinks the image a tad: without that shrinkage it domainates the top on smaller screens, to my eye at least. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Hmmm. I have not experienced that in this infobox. MOS:ACCESSIBILITY and MOS:IMAGES and a few other places guide us not to hard size images unless forced to. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, they are guidelines, not hard-proscribed rules. The image is still within all reasonable ACCESS guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Yeah. MoS is merely a guideline to promote a consistent order of things and equal access. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding the website parameter:
| website = to the info box and populating it with this metadata: {{official website}} then migrating the book's official URL to Wikidata. At that point the infobox will pull the URL from Wikidata.
  • In External links, remove the official website cruft and replace it with this:
* {{official website}} of [[Ian Fleming Publications]]
and it will fetch the URL from Wikidata.
  • No, I think not on balance. The IB contains enough information about the book without bloating it out further. If the festering turd of Wikidata decides to drop unsourced, unreferenced and unsupported rubbish into the IB at a later date, it'll be reverted as the vandalism it is. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Ouch. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Featured Article toolbox check
[edit]
  • Alt text: Pass, but suggest double check by Graham87 and by Natalie.Desautels
  • Citation bot: Pass
  • Disambig links: Pass
  • Edit count: ?
  • External links: Pass
  • Peer review: Done
  • Redirects: ?
  • Reflinks: Pass
  • Copyright vio: ?

That is all for now. I will check back later in the FA review process for further comments and to !vote. Ping me back any time. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC) {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Checkingfax. A couple of questions to be answered in there, where you've lost me entirely. If you could clarify what you mean, I'll try and work it out. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SchroCat. Bedtime for Bonzo here. G'Nite. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just a few comments, but in general the article is very good:

  • "Dr. No was the first of Fleming's novels to face wide negative criticism in Britain": I would say "widespread" rather than "wide" here, personally.
  • "More recently BBC Radio produced a version": I would specify "BBC Radio 4".
  • The caption on the picture of the Roseate Spoonbills is confusing if you read it before the section on Plot in which it appears. Maybe make it clear what island you are referring to?
  • "the location became the background for Crab Key": does this mean "the location inspired Crab Key"? I assume so, but am not sure. If so, why do you not just say that?

As I say though, these are minor nitpicks and matters of taste, and they do not affect my support. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done


Support - An enjoyable and informative article. I haven't read the book since the 1960s, but now I'm tempted to read it again. I have a few nitpicks, which I'm happy for you to ignore if you think they would not improve the article.

  • "Dr. No was serialised in The Daily Express, first in an abridged, multi-part form and later as a comic strip." Doesn't "serialised" and "multi-part" mean the same thing?
  • "The island has a colony of roseate spoonbills at one end while local rumour is that there is a vicious dragon living there." there...there
  • other devices from Rohmer's novels included Doctor No's secret lair and the use of the mad scientist trope. Would linking "trope" be useful?

Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work. Just to show I've read the article, here are my nitpicks:

  • I would move up the mention of Jamaica's colonial status into the first paragraph.
  • "Venus elegans" are species names not usually italicised?
  • "of inaccessible mangrove swamp and salt flats" evidently not inaccessible.
  • "the books about whom" maybe "who featured in books"
  • "The novelist Raymond Benson—who later wrote a series of Bond novels" something more novel, perhaps?
  • "about the meaning of power with a number of villains in the series. His conversation with Doctor No reveals that the latter believes it can only be secured through the privacy required to maintain the sovereignty of his island; he quotes Carl von Clausewitz's first principle in support of his argument" Does how you secure power go to its meaning? And you may want to illuminate us as to von Clausewitz's principle.
  • "Benson sees no discrimination in the relationship between the two men[29] " this is somewhat at odds with the discussion of the relationship between Bond and Quarrel earlier.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some late comments – not too late, I trust. I've also done bits of light ce which you may wish to check out.

  • In the lead: "did not come to fruition" is unnecessarily verbose – you could just say " failed" or "foundered". The identical phrase appears in the "background" section.
Background
  • "In June 1956 the author Ian Fleming became involved in a project with the producer Henry Morgenthau III to collaborate on a planned television series..." → "In June 1956 the author Ian Fleming began a collaboration with the producer Henry Morgenthau III on a planned television series..."
  • "By January 1957 he had published four novels in successive years..." I'd be inclined to say "Bond novels"
  • The paragraph beginning "The writer Simon Wilder..." seems oddly placed in "Background", since it discusses the finished work. Probably better sited in the "reception" area.
  • "echoed in the cover" → "echoed on the cover"?
Plot inspirations
  • I think the two "withs" in the first line should each read "of"
  • Instead of the gnomic "the location inspired Crab Key", could we not have a line which indicates what it was about the location that identified it in Fleming's mind with Dr No's lair?
  • It is Patricia Wilder's nickname, rather than her name, that Fleming used for the book's heroine.
Characters
  • Opening sentence: the construction "For the first time in the Bond novels, there is friction between Bond and M in Dr. No" freads oddly. I prefer: "In Dr. No, for the first time in the Bond novels, there is friction between Bond and M..."
  • "Rider is one of three women..." I'd probably use her fuller name here
  • "ideal concept" – perhaps "idealised concept"?
Style
  • "Amis" needs to be identified.
Publication history
  • " In 1964 the novel was serialised in France-Soir for the French market, which led to increased sales of Bond works in that country, with 480,000 French-language copies of the six Bond novels being sold that year." I'd split this.
  • While I have no particular criticism of the second paragraph, again I feel it is misplaced, as it is not concermed with "publication history". As to its best place, I'm not quite sure, since it discusses Fleming's work generally rather than concentrating on Dr No. Perhaps put it at the end of the "reviews" section, after the specific book criticisms?
  • I have mulled over this a lot previously. It not rightr to go into the review section, as it's not about the reviews for this work, but it did have an impact on the sales etc. Would it be better in the "Background" section, or where it is? - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews
  • "For the first time in the series..." → "For the first time in the Bond series..."
  • "The unnamed critic in The Manchester Guardian referred to Johnson's "sex, snobbery and sadism" complaint, and conceded that while "the casualties take place on a somewhat narrower front than usual, they are heavy". I get a sense of non sequitur here; heavy casualties do not obviously equate to sex, snobbery and sadism.
  • "In April 1958, Fleming wrote to the paper..." Clarify if this is still the MG
  • "Fleming partly accepted the criticism from the paper..." last three words unnecessary
  • "Chandler...praised the first chapter as "masterly" in Fleming's depiction of colonial Kingston." Not actually grammatical, should be "praised as "masterly" Fleming's depiction of colonial Kingston in the first chapter."
  • "Chandler was also praising of..." – awkward. Perhaps just "Chandler admired..."
  • "the Fleming biographer" → "Fleming's biographer"
  • "described it in terms of" → "described it as"
Adaptations
  • Suggest delete "also" in the first line
  • "It was the first Bond novel in the Eon Productions series..." Surely you mean the first Bond film?

Nothing of great significance here, and I look forward to supporting when these are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian. Having slept on it again—and taking into account that Moisejp also raised the point in the PR—I have moved it from where it was and into the Background section. It's one of those events that doesn't fit perfectly in any of the individual book articles, or any of the sections of the articles, but it's a key point, particularly given the Paul Johnson critique later. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment -- recusing from coord duties, and piling on as an unashamed fan of the books, I made a few small changes and have just one suggestion:

  • "In From Russia, with Love Fleming experimented with an unusual narrative structure..." -- might leave the uninitiated hanging, do you think it's worth briefly (just a few words if possible) stating what was unusual?

Structure, level of detail, tone and the prose overall seem fine to me so about ready to support but see below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- licensing for both looks appropriate but neither of the source links worked for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Checkingfax mentioned this earlier, but I noticed the only image in the article besides the cover is of a Roseate spoonbill bird, which is fairly trivial. It would seem odd for a FA to only have that much illustration. If you can find some images that can pass image review to help illustrate some of the major concepts, that would be ideal. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Checkingfax, if you have any suggestions for images that increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter I'd be happy to see them. Just for the sake of comparison, the previous book in the series (also an FA) has the same number of images. – SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that link. I feel like the Adaptations section could use an image from the comic strip and/or film articles, although the FRWL article does not have any images in this section either. For the sake of consistency, it could be omitted, although I still feel it to be a bit sparse in the image realm. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no copyright free images for either the strip or film, and we'd be hard-pushed to justify the non-free criteria, – SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I presume one could use the same rationale as used in the strip and film articles, but in any case, I think the quotes are an adequate substitute for the purposes of a novel article as I mention in the above discussion regarding "pull quotes". Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the novel, and a fair use rationale would not be acceptable to illustrate the secondary issue of adaptations. I suppose we could slot the old Goldeneye image into the Writing section – it appears in other Bond novel articles. But I don't see a great necessity. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

Most of my comments were addressed during the peer review. Here are a few more:

  • I noticed you removed mention of Chris Blackwell. I thought it was an interesting fact. But if someone else asked you to remove it, no worries.
  • I did a mini-edit just now about the "Carl von Clausewitz's first principle" part, but I'm still not convinced it is clear. Perhaps consider just removing the sentence, if it doesn't clearly let the reader understand how Dr. No's beliefs were related to this principle?
  • Again, it was advised by another editor. I think the inclusion is justified, so it's probably my text that needs work (I added a couple of words to help, but I acknowledge I may need to do a little more). – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your edit today makes it clearer. Thanks.
  • "Many of the female characters in the Bond series have a physical flaw, and Rider has a broken nose—the result of the rape she suffered." The footnote only gives one other example, which I found possibly not convincing for "many".
  • Yes, it's definitely better.
  • I think Wehwait said something about this too, but the the rosy depiction of Bond's and Quarrel's relationship at the end of the Themes section doesn't acknowledge that a more troubling aspect (about superiority and inequality) has previously been mentioned (in Characters). I'm not totally sure what to suggest here. Maybe just a small mention in Themes about "Notwithstanding other writers' depiction of the inequality in the relationship, Linder describes ... ; Benson sees ... " Moisejp (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ive added the Lindner name in there. There is a 'natural superiority' aspect in Fleming's writing, but that's common in much British writing of the time, and a reflection of society at the time, so there may be a cultural nuance to this for some readers. – SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read this comment before I read your edit, and I thought, "Just that surely won't help much." But when I read your edit I was surprised that the addition seemed to improve the overall flow. Maybe having the extra name in there serves as a subconscious reminder that these are all different people's opinions, so the difference from the Characters section seems less jarring. In any case, it worked for me.
  • I should say, thanks very much for your in depth comments, thoughts and edits at PR: they were very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2016&oldid=732179281"