Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2015

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Of Human Feelings[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a jazz album by saxophonist Ornette Coleman. The previous FAC did not reach a consensus, after which I resolved the concerns in the oppose at that FAC by BananaLanguage with checks of print sources and text. Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Per MOS:QUOTE, linking should be avoided inside quotes. Either drop the links or paraphrase the quotes to keep them.
The guideline says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes", so does it suggest it's not always possible? I'd think cases where a unique phrase or term which cant be paraphrased is the exception, like "collective consciousness" or "key (music)|key", unless I should drop the quotation marks altogether since these are unique enough phrases? Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and sought to recruit electric instrumentalists for his music, based on a creative theory he developed called harmolodics: Does harmolodics require electric instruments? The wording seems to imply so
Revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • all the musicians are able to play individual melodies in any key, and all the while sound coherent as a group: is this the theory, or an aspect of the theory?
It's the theory --> "According to his theory..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He taught his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach: is this harmolodics, or has the subject changed?\
Harmolodics; I changed it to "...this new improvisation..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, Coleman's music publishing company. Nonetheless, Coleman still wanted to set up his own record company with the same name: I don't understand---the rejection of the recording led to the failure of Coleman's recording company, but he wanted to revive it?
I don't see how that's suggested here, that the rejection of the recording led to its failure. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know what's being said here. He "still wanted to set up his own record company", but the failed session had been a project of a record compnay he already had? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "Nonetheless" with "In addition to this company, he also wanted to...". Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The session was originally titled Fashion Faces : do sessions have titles, or was this the working title of the album?
I've read sources that say both--Palmer's 1982 NY Times review says the working title--while the source cited here says the session. I deferred to the latter because it's a bio on Coleman by a jazz writer. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike most albums at the time, it was recorded with a Sony PCM-1600 two-track digital recorder.: I'm assuming this is trying to say either (or both) (a) that the album was a two-track recording rather than whatever ridiculous number of tracks they were up to by 1979 (b) it was digital. The way it's worded, the emphasis is on the Sony as opposed to other brands.
The source suggests neither--just that it was a PCM-1600, which it called "then-rare". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about the source---I was talking about the wording, which tells us that, unlike most of the industry, Coleman et al used a Sony. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased it to say this recording item was rare at the time. Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a type of music that originated in 1970: has the advent of jazz-funk been pinpoited so precisely?
Source says "about 1970". I rephrased it as "originated around 1970". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to make each pair of guitarist and drummer: it should probably be made more explicit before this point that there were two simultaneous drummers.
It is in the lead, "background", and in "recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In passing, yes, it's mentioned there were two people who were drummers. It doesn't say they played simultaneously, which I think will surprise most readers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added "simultaneously" to where they're mentioned in "Recording", Curly Turkey. Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandel felt that the passages were neither very soft or loud, because the album was mixed with a middle-frequency range and compressed dynamics: shouldn't this be in the "Recording" section rather than "Compostion"?
It would seem so, but it's a critic's interpretation or opinion on how it was recorded and his impression on how a musical passage in a song here sounds. I could move it there, however, if you still feel it's more appropriate in "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether it goes earlier or later, I don't think "Composition" is the appropriate place. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it to "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jump Street" is a blues piece with a bridge: is there something unusual about a piece of music having a bridge?
The source said it's a "blues with a bridge". I think the point of highlighting this in the source was how simple the composition was, but it functions better in the sentence here on different songs' different compositions/features. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we assume the reader is well familiar with the context Coleman was working in, which is not a good assumption to make at Wikipedia, which aims at a general audience. We can't assume a reader will know these things, though, and will likely read it as I did: "A blues track that features a bridge". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a general audience would know what a bridge is. At least that's the impression I've gotten when trying to talk about music with friends that are just casually interested in it lol. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to explicate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't really do that. Would it be best to just remove it altogether? Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think so—otherwise it just leaves heads scratching as to why it was even mentioned. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • cancelled both deals upon Mwanga's return from Japan: any reason why?
No :/ Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • including the electric guitar from rock: except that the electric guitar didn't originate in rock
It didn't necessarily have to; according to what's cited in Rock_music#Characteristics, it's a central element to rock music. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English is a central element of American culture, but we don't say that English is "from the United States". Besides, electric guitar is hardly a fringe instrument in jazz. What he incorporated was guitar with a rock-like approach (distortion, etc). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think comparing that to this is apples to oranges. The source phrased this in a similar fashion anyway: "Coleman had begun to experiment with ... rock or rhythm-and-blues elements (by adding electric guitar and, for a time, a blues singer to his group)." Also, a general audience associates the electric guitar with rock music more so than with any other genre, doesn't it? Palmer, a professional critic, seems to make this association too. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then Palmer's being sloppy in expressing himself, isn't he? Distortion is something that definitely came from the rock approach, but the electric guitar itself is objectively not "from rock", and was far from uncommon in jazz. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think he is--"electric guitar" is an element from rock music. It's also an element from the blues, but I think Palmer said rock because that may have been the source for Coleman in discovering electric guitar as something he'd want to include. "From" doesn't necessarily mean it originated from it--it was reappropriated and became know as the key element to rock's sound. Also, jazz purists, particular critics of this album, complained about the electric guitar being used by fusion and avant-garde players, because it's not traditionally found in bop or straight-ahead jazz, which is what a general audience usually associates with jazz. I would compromise with your revision about a "rock-like approach" to the electric guitar but none of the other sources suggested this, that Prime Time's guitarists for instance played in a rock style. I'll remove "the" and leave it as "including electric guitar from rock...", so it doesn't suggest what you're saying as much--just "electric guitar from rock", if that helps? Dan56 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or I could just remove "from rock" altogether? Dan56 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be disappointing, as it's obviously a rock influence. You may not intend "from" to mean "originated in", but that is certainly a valid reading and therefore makes the reading ambiguous and open to such misinterpretation. What you want to say is that he was incoroorating a rock influence and thus added electric guitar, right? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey, Would this change from "elements" to "influences" suffice? Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really: it's the "from rock" wording I'm objecting to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed "from rock". Dan56 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... again, it's not the word "rock" I have an issue with—it's an important detail that rock was the influence. It's better than it was (implying electric gutiar came from rock), but the fact that it was a rock influence that drove Coleman to add it is an important detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ellerbee, the guitarist on this album, is said by a source to have incorporated distortion actually, although I've read a little up on it and early R&B records seem to have predated distortion in rock music ([2]), so it's whatever I guess. Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is going off on a tangent. The point is, the source tells us that it was rock that influenced Coleman to add electric guitar. I mentioned distortion merely as an example—as it was the full saturation-style distortion that was a rock innovation and standard part of rock guitar playing, and that's what you hear on the record. I'm not expecting that to be mentioned, though, as the sources don't say that. What's important to mention is what the sources do mention—that including electric guitar was a rock influence. The problem is specifically the wording "electric guitar from rock". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "...including rock influences such as electric guitar and..." Curly Turkey. Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Well, I guess that's better. Okay, I'll let this one drop. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-Western rhythms played by Moroccan and Nigerian musicians: if the musicians were Morrocans and Nigerians, that's not clear from this line

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it as "...Nigerian musicians he enlisted." Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some more Turkey[edit]
  • made the most sense out of Coleman's harmolodic theory: meaning, out of his recordings it was the esiest to understand? Or it got the most out of the theory?
I cannot check the source, as it is behind a paywall--I originally accessed it through snippet/search through Google News Archive, which no longer has that search function. What is unclear about the way it is written as is? Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • , which he said is "like learning a new language".: I think this could safely be dropped, as it's about the critic rather than really about the album, Coleman, or jazz.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: reverts:
    • felt the album's supporters in "hip rock circles" have overlooked flaws such as the dilutive digital production: yes, it says he "felt", but this could easily be read as "the dilutive digital production was something he thought was a flaw", rather than "he felt the digital production was dilutive". Is it a fact or an opinion that the digital production had a dilutive effect? It certainly wan't the intention, was it? Ditto with "one-dimensional". You can see the difference between "He felt the playing was one-dimensional" and "the playing was one-dimensional, which he thought was a flaw", right?
I assumed everything after "felt..." implies it his opinion. Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not logically, no. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok, revised. Dan56 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to fight over a "however", but I don't think it adds anything substantive to the prose, but does unnecessarily chop it up and slow it down.
    • "saying" is a present participle? So what sense can you make of "He was saying"? You might want to read up on "ing" forms---they're not even restricle to making participles.
Ook, read up on it. I had assumed another editor's change to something similar at another article was correct when they explained it like I just did. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the biggest thing missing from the article is perhaps a paragraph giving a capsule overview of Coleman's career and music and its reception in the jazz world. The article makes a lot of assumptions about the reader's knowledge: for instance, lines like "the man once accused of standing on the throat of jazz" jump out of nowhere. How is the reader supposed to interpret this?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Curly Turkey. I've dug up a source and added a line to "Background" introducing Coleman's background in the '60s. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another nitpick: In the mid-1970s, however, he stopped recording free jazz with acoustic ensembles: does this mean he stopped playing free jazz, or that he continued to play free jazz but with electric instruments? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source, both. "Coleman had abandoned his free jazz style ... Also, by the mid-1970s, he no longer performed with acoustic trios and quartets..." I combined it in the article, because the part about him pursuing a new direction in his music reinforces a departure from his free jazz style. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tweaked it. I guess all my concerns have been addressed, so I'm ready to support. The "free jazz" in the infobox may be a bit confusing, though. Generally, I think the "genre" parameter should be restricted to genres that can be used to describe the album as a whole, rather than genres that happen to appear on it—otherwise it can lead to endless "genre" lists whenever anyone thinks of yeat another genre that can be thrown in. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Khanassassin[edit]

  • Support; gave it a read-through. A well-written, easy-to-read article, no issues found. Except one (maybe), but not big enough to delay a support. It probably isn't even an issue. Check it (in the Recording section): "The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, Coleman's music publishing company. In addition to this company, he wanted to set up his own record company with the same name, so he chose his longtime friend Kunle Mwanga to be his manager." Isn't this essentially the same thing? I'm probably wrong. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music publishing companies own or are assigned the copyright for a composition, while a record company deals with the master recording of that composition. Dan56 (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Max24[edit]

  • Support; article is well-balanced in content and structure, with plenty of reliable sources. --Max24 Max24 16:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK (GermanJoe)[edit]

  • Non-free lead image and sound sample are within WP:NFCC - OK.
  • Other images are CC - OK.
  • All images have sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • File:Ornette_at_The_Forum_1982.jpg - Flickr-image with no original EXIF-data, but similar uploads from the same Flickr-user have valid EXIF, no obvious signs of problems - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether books include locations
  • Be consistent in how volume is treated - compare Jenkins and Larkin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dan56 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • FN54 returns 503 error
  • I'm concerned about the Butterworth source. The article states that "Coleman did not want to embellish", but the source actually indicates that this was not possible with the equipment used. I would also suggest quoting the "cornpone" section - it's quite a neat turn of phrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I revised it slightly. Footnote 54 is Klein right? I did not get an error. Dan56 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure readers would be familiar with "cornpone". Would "hokey" be a better substitute? Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

It's a super article, well done. I am planning to support having had a slight hack at it. It's well-written, interesting and seems well-sourced. How does the sourcing work though? There seem to be an awful lot of links in the Bibliography section which are not used. Why's that? --John (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Regarding the Bibliography, do you mean some of the references aren't used in the article? The article uses short citations (listed in "References"), which are used together with full citations (listed in "Bibliography"), which give full details of the sources, but without page numbers. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I am familiar with this referencing style but it seems I lost the ability to count. There seems to be a problem with Morrison, Buzz (June 24, 1982). Rolling Stone (New York) (372). Missing or empty . A couple more points:
Thanks for pointing that out. It seems editors introduced that missing parameter to be flagged recently (Help talk:Citation Style 1). Before, I just assumed titles weren't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot say "first introduced" as this is a tautology. "However" seldom adds anything, see here and here.
np. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like Of Human Feelings was acclaimed by contemporary critics as it is so vague as to be meaningless. Almost any work of art will have been "acclaimed" by some critics. What does the reference (Tinder 1982, p. 19) actually say on the subject? If we can add something more focused here that would be great. Otherwise I would favour just removing this.
Yes, but it doesn't say it was acclaimed by some critics. Readers should be introduced to the section with something summarizing the general reception. The source itself says "Listening to a tape of Coleman's much acclaimed, soon-to-be-released digital album (Of Human Feelings) I was amazed at just how prominently Jamaaladeen's bass was featured." How about something like "Of Human Feelings received considerable acclaim from critics upon its release"? Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder if we need quite so many quotations. I count 21 plus a boxed quote. In some cases these are just a word or two. I think it would be better to paraphrase some of these. --John (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try a few, but I really don't want to tread the same ground reviewers in the previous FACs had when they nitpicked certain things to death because they felt were it was too close paraphrasing or extreme claims that there'd be even a slight modification in the meaning the source intended. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider withdrawing your comment that the previous FAC for this article, or any other article, was "nitpicked to death" because it undermines the work of the Wikipedians who review Good and Featured Article candidates WP:CIVIL. BananaLanguage (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interest in rehashing this; I made a remark on my impression of certain instances in previous reviews, not the totality of every reviewers' input. I paraphrased a bit @John:. How do you feel about this article so far? Dan56 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisited this after a few weeks. I now make it 31 quotes plus one in a quote box. (I don't think it has truly gone up by 10, maybe I miscounted before! But the number is still too high, in my opinion.) We are slightly into WP:QUOTEFARM territory and the majority of these could and should be paraphrased. I also still dislike the way the Critical reception section is written. It is dense with quotes and mainly fulsome adjectives, and I believe it could do with some restructuring. At present it contains sentences like Giddins remarked that its discordant keys radically transmute conventional polyphony and may be the most challenging thing for listeners, but recommended they concentrate on Coleman's playing and "let the maelstrom resolve itself around his center".[24] which in my opinion fails to meet criterion 1a, "...well-written ... engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". I am confident that with some work this article could meet the standard but where it is at the moment, I do not think it is there yet.
  • Oppose. --@John: (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better? @John: Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I read somewhere that {{ping}} doesn't work unless you freshly "~~~~" your comment. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did that in my previous revision, but fine. @John: Dan56 (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nudge. I appreciate the effort you have made to reduce over-quoting in the article. --John (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What more would you like to see done? Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@John:? Dan56 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Dan. That last edit did the trick for me. There are still a bit too many adjectives in it for my taste but I think it is good enough now for me prose wise. --John (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This nomination has been running for a ridiculously long time. What's the state of play? I am considering archiving. Graham Beards (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "archiving"? There are three supports and one oppose, which I've tried to address... Dan56 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, four supports @Graham Beards:. Dan56 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2015 (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) 11:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Three-cent silver[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... The three-cent silver filled a need when issued, and when it was no longer needed, dragged on for some years and eventually was abolished. A companion piece to three-cent nickel which recently ran on the main page. It's had a GA review and shows off some of the high-quality images we are starting to get for the coin articles after years of crappy ones or with dodgy copyrights. The ugly Spanish colonial two bit is not one of them, it is from my collection, by the way.Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. That was easy, thanks. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed for that; :)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata comments[edit]

Support. I found the article to be a tough read in its more technical/numismatic parts, but I blame that on my lack of knowledge rather than the way the article is written. I certainly wouldn't advocate dumbing it down. Subject to the qualification that I don't know my reverse from my obverse, the article appears to meet the FA criteria: comprehensive, appropriately sourced, well-written and of an appropriate length. Only minor nitpicks:

  • "Early that year, Congress authorized a gold dollar" - Too much had passed for me to remember what "that year" was.
  • "Spanish silver coins were the bulk..." - This mega-sentence seems to be crying out to be split into two.
  • I take it there is no wikilink available for the Spanish real?
The Spanish colonial real is linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The small size of the coins was less popular [than what?]"
  • "Despite the statutes, in 1853 and 1854, Snowden had the Mint purchase large quantities of silver bullion at a fixed price" - did he actually break the law (as "Despite the statutes..." implies), or did he just find a way around it?
He broke the law. No question about it. Ignored it anyway. Not that he was making a secret of it!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of the "Further reading" section? It only lists one publication, which is already in the bibliography.

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I"ve caught anything. If I haven't replied, it means I've simply done what was necessary. Thank you. I'll look over the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel_66 comments[edit]

  • Support
  • No DABs, external links are good.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • Add a |lastauthoramp=1 to Flynn and Zack in the bibliography to match usage in the cites.
  • Spotcheck not done, but sourcing is fine.
  • No issues with prose, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, and for looking at the imaging and sourcing. I've made that adjustment--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492[edit]

  • Lead feels like it repeats a little bit of information
I've deleted the repeat of 1873. I dance around the points in the lede paragraph later in the lede but I don't repeat much I think.
  • Not listed is the 1851 proof three-cent silver, of which only one is known, which was last sold in 1996 as part of the Louis Eliasberg collection - how much did this sell for? Or, if no price listed individually, the collection itself?
Seems they sold it again. I've corrected that.
  • the latter would prove the only mintage of three-cent pieces outside Philadelphia. - why?
My sources do not say. Mint records about a lot of things are not complete.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (later restored in 1878) - worth noting if it was just the silver dollar? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I conventionally do because otherwise people may be confused about the silver dollar being abolished, after all, Grandpa used to have one.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2015 (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) 11:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Hermeneutic style[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the elaborate style of Latin in Anglo-Saxon England. It has received a peer review and passed GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a couple of suggestions.

  • I don't really like the end of the first section (the bit about the different meaning of the phrase). Besides being self-referential, it seems somewhat out of place at the end of a section, after hermeneutic style has already been established by the preceding text to have a certain meaning. Do you think it could be added as a footnote in the lede? If not, maybe you could put it at the beginning of that section instead of at the end.
  • I have put it as a note to the end of the definition section. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks just right this way, I think.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a minor point, could you please change one or two uses of "the Continent" to "continental Europe" to help readers who might not be familiar with the other usage (just in case)?
  • In England: "According to Scott Thompson Smith, "Æthelstan A"s charters..." The way the quotes are used here makes it a bit confusing and unclear whether or not it's meant to be possessive. I suggest "According to Scott Thompson Smith, the charters of "Æthelstan A" are..." to avoid confusion and quotation mark strangeness.

Other than those minor points, I can't find anything to criticize. You've done a great job on this topic, which I confess to having never heard of until reading your article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I will follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, everything looks good now. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • All images are PD-old or PD-art/PD-old and have sufficient source information - OK.
  • File:Apuleuis.jpg - added some background information to image summary. - OK as illustration. His depiction differs vastly within Commons:Category:Apuleius, but this depiction has some source information to clarify the situation. GermanJoe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much.

Comment

  • fixed some MOS:ENDASH issues in references, I have not checked in-text dashes and hyphens though.
  • "Lapidge 1993" - I'd put the reprint information within the full citation, it's a bit distracting in the reflist. Template:cite book has |orig-year= for such details (see template documentation for usage info). GermanJoe (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how to deal with this. The book is a reprint of essays, and where I cite his view in the article as held in 1975 it is relevant that the essay was originally published then, but I also cite other essays not from 1975. I cannot see a field in the cite book template for a note saying that one chapter was originally published earlier. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a suggestion, but I would personally just use the 1993 citation, since you mention explicitly both times it's cited that the opinions are from Lapidge's 1975 essay. Alternatively, if you have the 1975 work, add it separately to the bibliography. GermanJoe may have a better suggestion; I'm not known as an expert formatter by any means.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe @Nikkimaria: has a good idea. I can't remember a case in the past, where "old" reprints and new research were cited from the same book. Noting the original article title (somewhere in the citation) might help to reduce this confusion, not sure. GermanJoe (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So each essay in the book is from a different time? If so, I see your options as follows: you cite the essay directly as originally published, or you include full bibliographic details for each essay - using either orig-year as GermanJoe suggests, or this method - or you combine the two and go with something of the form (original details. Reprinted in current details). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, is this an entire essay being reprinted or just someone quoting from an older essay?-RHM22 (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind; I found it on Google Books. See here. Everything is reprinted from other sources. Nikkimaria, can Dudley Miles use the same citations that are used in the acknowledgements section, to make it a bit simpler?-RHM22 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for everyone's helpful comments. I have been looking at whether I have access to the original 1975 article in the journal Anglo-Saxon England, and so far as I can tell I do not, although I have only just got access to JSTOR and I am not yet familiar with it. I cite extensively from the paper, but I only mention the 1975 date twice where it is relevant. I have thought of putting an efn note with name= against each mention of the 1975 date with an explanation of the date discrepancy. Another alternative is to go to a library which has the original paper and photocopy it. Further comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this specific article is not in JSTOR (but feel free to double-check) :/. The only journal entry for him in 1975 is "Some Remnants of Bede's Lost Liber Epigrammatum". GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some testing this ref works for the situation: "<ref>{{harvnb|Lapidge|1993|p=105}} reprinted from {{harvnb|Lapidge|1975|p=orig. page number}}</ref>". Having this short ref, you can define a separate citation for the Lapidge 1975 article with all "old" biblio info (note: "sfnm" would work too, but doesn't allow flexible additional text between the 2 templates). GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Joe. Sorry about putting you to trouble but I think I have found a better solution. I have arranged for the original article to be emailed to me so that I can cite that directly. I can add a note to the 1975 source that it is reprinted in the 1993 book. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can cite the 1975 source directly, you don't need to mention the reprint (the original source is actually the "better", more authentic source for referencing). And no worries, I actually enjoy such technical challenges :). GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I reviewed the article for GAN, and commented at the time that it seemed to me of FA standard. I still think so, and the additional images are an excellent bonus. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I read this through a couple of times when it was first nominated, and couldn't find anything to comment on then. I've now read it through again and came up empty-handed again. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- correct me if I missed it but I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

  • Consistent citations (fixed a few more MOS:ENDASH issues), full bibliographic details provided - OK.
  • Can't comment about content reliability in details, but the used sources are all recent academic books and journals from historians and other topic experts - OK.
  • Approx. half the sources are based on Lapidge, but considering the article's scope and his apparent influence on this specific area of research this is to be expected - OK.

Some minor cleanup points:

  • Adams - publisher location is discouraged (somewhere deep in the MOS), when the city is part of the publisher's name (check throughout)
  • I cannot see anything about this in WP:CITE and I think it is better to be consistent on what details are shown. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks a bit odd (Cambridge, Cambridge) close together, but if nobody has strong feelings about it, it should be OK as is. But I had to mention it in the review :). GJ
  • Anglo-Saxon England - is used several times, but with 3 different formats for publisher info.
  • GermanJoe I do not understand what you mean. The formats all look the same to me. Can you clarify? Note: Anglo-Saxon England is a journal, the title of Stenton's book and part of the title of the Wiley encyclopedia. They are all shown the same as far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant the journal with ISSN 0263-6751 (assuming it is the same). It is used 5 times with different issues: twice without any publisher info and once without publisher location. You should use the same format for all 5 instances. GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopaedia - lists all main editors (4) on the cover. "et al." is probably not wrong, but I wonder if listing all 4 wouldn't be more appropriate? (optional)

GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks Joe. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • All OK now (status updated), thanks for the quick fixes. GermanJoe (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose thanks for your edit. On changing "a considerable number of foreigners" to "many foreigners" at Æthelstan's court, I think this may exaggerate the number. As it is not known how many there were I have deleted the considerable number and changed it to "foreign scholars". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2015 (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) 11:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When asked which state he hails from, our sole reply shall be, he hails from Appomattox and its famous apple tree." Fellow Wikipedians, I give you Ulysses S. Grant. Soldier, politician, businessman, and author, he bestrode mid-19th century America like a Colossus. Easily the most popular man of his age in the United States, he comes before you in this article which, since it last appeared on these pages, has undergone extensive copyediting and significant content changes, not to mention a thorough A-class review at WikiProject Military history. My co-editors and I think it meets the FA criteria. As the bit of doggerel that I've copied above suggests, we hope to get this on the Main Page by April 9, 2015, the 150th anniversary of Grant's victory at Appomattox Court House. Thank you for your attention. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I am a Wikicup participant, and I believe I would be eligible for points on this, but I have to check with the coordinators -- much of the work was done last year. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Support I was an A-class participant. Much improved and very worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, and thanks again for your comments at the A-class review. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "Emboldened by Lincoln's call for a general advance": This was "... a general advance of all Union forces" at the end of the A-class review, and many readers won't think these two sentences mean the same thing. There have been a lot of tweaks since A-class, and they're mostly fine from a copyeditor's point of view, but some of them change the meaning, and I have no knowledge of whether they were made by people consulting the sources who decided to change the meaning. But I trust Coemgenus's and Wehwalt's judgment on this.
  • "an immediate taking": ugh.
  • 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) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support and the copyediting. I've reworded the parts you pointed out above. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

My interest in the Gilded Age has been stimulated by some fine articles from the Wehwalt stable, and I realise that Grant is a central figure of the period. But I feel somewhat frustrated with this, an evidently well-prepared and accurate account of Grant's life, the issue that niggles being that of length. The article is over 14,300 words long, not the longest-ever potential FA, but within the top half-dozen, I suspect. However, this is the "main article" in a series covering all aspects of Grant's life; the series collectively amounts to well over 55,000 words – including a whopping 18,000+ in the article on Grant's presidency. With such an abundance of detail available in the subarticles, does this main article have to be quite so long? The art of encyclopedia writing encompasses selection, summary, and succinct expression, and it doesn't seem that these have been fully exercised here. My chief frustration is that, because of the pressures of my other WP commitments, I simply won't have time to read and properly review an article that is of great interest to me. This is no reflection on the efforts of Coemgenus and the other principal contributors, but it does raise – again – the question of what is, or should be, the accepted maximum length of a WP article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken. The article is long, longer than any I've ever worked on. Since before it was made GA, Alanscottwalker and I have worked to tighten and summarise the prose, with some success. Compare, for example, this pre-GA version. I've cut things and had editors object, so we add them back in in the name of consensus. The sub-articles have helped, but have not solved the problem.
I recognise that saying "it could be worse" is not a great defense, but it is illustrative of how much information there is out there about Grant, and how much of it various editors wish to include in the article. The size of major articles have crept up over the years across the encyclopedia. I think a lot of this is because things that used to be just stated and linked are now both linked and explained briefly in the article. It makes for a more fluid read, but it does add to the length of the thing.
If you can think of some areas that could use trimming, I will gladly cut them down, but I think we're approaching the point where leaving more out means telling an incomplete story of the man. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A FA quality biography of the leading general of the US Civil War and a two-term president is inevitably going to be fairly lengthy. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I look at it. We could use better data on this on how people use our articles, as it is, we are just guessing on length.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: – for what its worth I don't think there are any particular issues with length, by my count there are more than 115 currently featured articles that are longer than this one, so no where near "within the top half-dozen". Indeed the top ten largest FAs range from 190 kb to a rather large 248 kb. At approx 138 kb this isn't even close. You can run the script here for these stats [6]. Anotherclown (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The number of kb is a useless measure of length so far as the reader – or indeed the reviewer – is concerned. It is the number of words in the text, in this case 14,300+, that creates the burden. I'm not sure how many FAs have more than 14000 words, but I suspect the answer is not too many. It is a matter of concern whether these uber-articles get the depth of review treatment that they warrant – are potential reviewers put off by the length and time required, as I was? Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gday thanks for clarifying that. By my reading WP:SIZE seems to mainly talk in terms of kbs and I'll admit I don't have any stats readily at hand on regarding FAs and prose size, although you are probably right in saying that this would be at the higher end. I agree longish articles can struggle to attract reviewers due to the work required, although I don't see that that is a warstopper (for instance by my count this article was reviewed by no less than 7 editors during its A class review - where it is unfortunately now fairly rare to get more than the minimum three). Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Coemgenus has been trimming and has the count below 14,000 now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

I don't think that I'm qualified to comment on Grant's political career, so I'll limit my coverage to his military career.

  • "not in charge of any company" - would a brevet second lieutenant typically command a company? - the article later says that he commanded a sub-unit of this size only after he'd been promoted to be a captain.
    • You're right, and I deleted this clause.
  • "Grant participated in leading a cavalry charge " - could this be "Grant led a cavalry charge"?
    • Sure could. Fixed.
  • "Grant's mandatory service expired during the war, but he chose to remain a soldier" - do we know why he went from wanting to get out of the Army as soon as he could to deciding to stay on?
    • His memoirs don't say, and I don't recall his biographers giving a reason, either, though I'll recheck this evening.
  • "He grew unhappy separated from his family" - this wording is a bit awkward
    • Should be better now.
  • The material on 1862 doesn't really explain Grant's role and campaign strategy - he and his army simply move from battle to battle, meeting other friendly and enemy armies. It would be good to explain how Grant fitted into the Union war effort in the west at this time.
    • I'm not sure how much of Halleck's strategy we can add within the space constraints. I noted that Forts Henry and Donelson were important to control of the rubbers, so the reader should understand why the army went that way, I think.
  • "Before the attack on Fort Sumter, Grant had not reacted strongly to Southern secession.[46] The news of the attack came as a shock in Galena," - this para seems a bit out of place given that it breaks up the chronological order of the article. I'd suggest reallocating this material.
    • Yes, it should be more chronological now.
  • "the attack be conducted with oversight by navy Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote" - what's meant by 'oversight' here? Was Grant under Foote's command?
    • The chain of command isn't clear in the sources, but this, at p.97 in McFeely, explains better. Halleck didn't approve it when Grant suggested it, but relented when Grant and Foote jointly suggested it.
  • "Lincoln promoted Grant to major-general of volunteers while the Northern press treated Grant as a hero repeating his words "No terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender." - this is a bit confusing as the (fairly dramatic) circumstances in this Grant said this aren't explained
    • I reworded this to make it clearer.
  • "now numbered 48,894 troops" - this seems overly specific: I imagine that it's a point in time figure, but the strength of the army would have varied a bit.
    • You're right, it's far too specific. Changed to "nearly 50,000".
  • The start of the first para in the "Shiloh" section should explain what Grant was trying to do, and his relationship with Sherman
    • There used to be more about the Grant-Sherman relationship, but it was cut for brevity. There's still the part about Sherman convincing Grant to stay in the army. I think that's enough. Probably more could be explained in the sub-article.
  • "Grant's troops challenged the Confederate onslaught" - "challenged" is a bit vague, and misses the drama of the battle: the Union Army was largely taken by surprise, but survived as some of its units conducted a determined defensive action
    • I reworded it to better reflect that the Union troops were surprised and driven back.
  • "At dawn, Grant counterattacked, adding 20,000 fresh troops from Major General Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace's divisions" - "adding" isn't quite right: those units (or at least some of them) had arrived as reinforcements during the battle
    • Tweaked the language here.
  • "The battle was the costliest in American history to that point, with total casualties of 23,746, but Lincoln overruled Grant's critics, saying "I can't spare this man; he fights." - the second half of this sentence doesn't sit comfortably with the first (and it seems to relate to the sentence before it)
    • I rearranged it, but I'm still not satisfied completely with how it reads. Any suggestions are welcome.
  • "was the key to Union victory in the West" - you need to explain why (it was the final significant barrier to Union control of the Mississippi)
    • Done.
  • "Grant arrived in Chattanooga by horseback, implementing plans to relieve the siege and resume the offensive" - his development of these plans should be noted (this wording suggests that he was "implementing" someone else's plans)
    • Reworded, should be better now.
  • The para on Grant's assumption of command of all Union Armies should note that he seriously considered making his headquarters in the West
    • Done.
  • "his headquarters with Meade's army" - it would be better to specify that this was the famous Army of the Potomac
    • Done.
  • "Grant and Lincoln devised a strategy of coordinated Union offensives" - did Lincoln play a significant role in developing this strategy? My understanding is that he generally let Grant lead the war effort (you could note that Grant's appointment allowed Lincoln to surrender some of the day-to-day direction of the war effort, which he'd been wanting to do for some time but had been unwilling to do as he lacked confidence in Grant's predecessors)
    • I think you're right. I deleted "and Lincoln".
  • "Depending on Lee's actions, Grant would join forces with Butler's armies and be fed supplies from the James" - the first part of this sentence implies that Grant had several options planned to take into account Lee's different potential responses, but then the second part of the sentence specifies only one option
    • True. I reworded.
  • "The costly assault at Cold Harbor was the second of two battles in the war that Grant later said he regretted" - what was the other one?
    • An assault on the Vicksburg trenches. I added a parenthetical to that effect.
  • "Unbeknownst to Lee" - this is a bit confusing. "Without being detected by Lee" perhaps?
    • Done.
  • The "Commanding general" section is probably a bit over-long: the years of political manoeuvring could be covered in less detail Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've trimmed some where we could over the last few days, but I'll take another look this afternoon.
      • The para starting with 'When the Senate reinstated Stanton' could be trimmed considerably given that it provides a blow by blow account of events. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've tightened the language some, but I'm afraid that losing any more will obscure the reasons behind Johnson's impeachment and breach with Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nick-D, are these all resolved to your satisfaction? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nick-D:, is there anything else that needs fixing here? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for the delay - I'll follow up later today Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of Grant's military career now looks good. My only additional comment relates to Grant met with Brigadier General William T. Sherman, and the two readied their troops to attack a Confederate army of roughly equal strength at Corinth, Mississippi, a vital railroad junction" - this implies that Sherman held an position of equal seniority to Grant: this is not correct, as Sherman was one of the several divisional commanders in Grant's army. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great, thanks for your review. I tweaked the language in the Shiloh section to make clear that Grant was senior to Sherman. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:UlyssesSGrantSignature.svg: what's the original source for this?
    • I left a query on the original uploader's talk page. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • To follow up, User:Connormah replied "if I recall correctly this is a trace from a previously uploaded image here on Wikipedia from years ago." --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, we should include more details on the image description page, but even that is a bit...vague. Any idea what previous image was being traced? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Battle_of_Fort_Donelson.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:VicksburgBlockade.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, without which the copyright tag cannot be verified. Same problem with File:Senate-Johnson-Impeachment-Trials.jpg
  • File:Ely_S._Parker.jpg, File:Kalakaua_Grant_state_visit_1874.jpg: source link is dead
    • Fixed the first. I could find no good source info for the second, so I replaced it with File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg, which has better credentials (and is a better picture, in my opinion).
  • File:US-$50-GC-1928-Fr-2404.jpg: reproductions of 2D works don't garner a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you want here. Should I delete the CC 4.0 license? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria, these are all fixed except the last. What should I do with that one? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think so, but there's also an OTRS tag on it - any idea what that message says? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No idea. I left a note on the uploader's talk page, so hopefully he'll be able to help us sort it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed the CC 4.0 tag (which may have been part of the original template I was given). Any other questions please ping me.--Godot13 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gwillhickers[edit]

Resolved issues from Gwillhickers
Grant's funeral train

Grant's posthumous journey on his funeral train is a landmark event in Grant's biography. It was of course received at West Point and New York by many dignitaries, military and the general public and covered by newspapers across the country. Back in 2010 when I created the Funeral section I added an engraved image of the train rolling into West Point -- a fine hi'res image -- but it was removed after being in the article for several years. If it's not going to cause problems I'd recommend restoring the image to the lower portion of the Memoirs and death section, next (on the left) to the paragraph covering the event, as there's plenty of room for it there -- or at least link to that image, rather than to the generic article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's room for both images if I use the {{stack}} template. I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As Grant's journey on the funeral train is the final event in Grant's biography it seemed important to include this image, which, imo, speaks louder than words. I'm wondering if there are any photos in the PD taken of this funeral train. Seems such an event would have been photographed somewhere along the line. I'll poke around just for the fun of it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also
  • Since Grant was in numerous Civil War battles it might do well for the readers, i.e.esp students and Civil War buffs, to put List of American Civil War battles under See also. Grant is mentioned 17 times in the list.
  • Is the link to History of the United States (1865–1918) in that section perhaps too broad an article, with topics that are, at best, very tangential to Grant, while most of its topics have nothing at all to do with Grant.? e.g. It covers the Progressive Era, Women's Suffrage, the Spanish American War, World War I, etc? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just as soon get rid of the whole section. "See also" topics, if they're relevant, tend to be linked already in the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thst's generally true, but certainly not always. Numerous FAs have See also sections. The list is quite relevant, yet not linked. I'd recommend replacing the History of the United States (1865–1918) link with List of American Civil War battles. I'm sure most Civil War enthusiasts would welcome it as well as many of the general readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support

The content overall is great, very well sourced, but its placement could use a little management as sections go. Also one of the sections should be renamed. See Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

The article has made several improvements. While there's always room for more improvement, the article is well written and covers the subject more than adequately. Page length is not an issue for me here, as the article is about an individual who was very involved with U.S. history. i.e. a soldier who fought in two wars, a Lieutenant, then a General, not to mention a two term president who had to deal with the south after the Civil War. Again, a well covered and comprehensive article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

Here's my review:

  • It is mentioned that Grant was not officially baptized unlike his siblings. Any particular reason he wasn't?
    • One biographer, Longacre, suggests his parents didn't make him go to church because he hated music. That's as close to an explanation as I can find. McFeely, Smith, Hesseltine, and Simpson don't mention it. I don't think Brands does either. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd include how many siblings he had and their names
  • "The book, entitled Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, was a success"..... a bit vague, critically or commercially successful?
  • His death location and burial location should be mentioned in prose
  • "General Grant National Memorial" should link to Grant's Tomb
  • "H.W. Brands" → H. W. Brands
  • "Today his military reputation has recovered, while experts rank his presidential achievements well below average"..... see WP:RELTIME regarding "today", and I'm not sure "experts" is the best word choice
    • Changed to "By the 21st century..." Maybe "scholars" is better than "experts"? I'm open to suggestions. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did the English, French, and Scottish descent categories come from? I don't see any discussion of Grant's heritage within the article.
    • There are editors who add this sort of thing and are very concerned about it. I don't know where it crept in, but I've taken it out. --14:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall, a very well written article. Good luck improving it! Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're quite welcome, just a couple more things I noticed:
        • The "S" stands for Simpson, as noted in most (if not all) of Presidential books I've read talking about Grant
          • This was partly explained in a note already. I made it more clear. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Grant was a shrewd and effective writer" isn't really neutral
          • It is a bit florid. I trimmed that part, should be good now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • After these, should be good to go :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support a well-compiled piece Grant himself would be quite proud of! Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and support! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Karanacs[edit]

I think the article is very well-written, but I share the concern above that this is just too long. The events are important, yes, but there's detail here and there that, IMO, doesn't need to be included in this parent article. Just as examples:

a) The information about his order for Jewish expulsion is presented twice - one when it happened, once for the political campaign. Seems like this could be consolidated and just referenced once.
b) I don't really care who he appointed Postmaster General, etc. I would expect most of the information on his appointments to be in the child article on his presidency, and not here.
c) The paragraph that quotes from his memoirs about the Mexican-American War is, IMO, too long and detailed for this article.

Even in places where the content needs to stay, I think there is room for significant tightening of the prose. I really hate to say this, because it is beautifully written, it's just too much. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Karanacs:: Thanks for your comments. There's not much I can say about length that I didn't already say to Brianboulton after his comments above. I'd only add that it's been trimmed some since then, and that if it's a constant battle to keep the article as small as it is. With a figure as written-about as Grant, there is a massive trove of information to choose from that, somewhat counterintuitively, makes it harder to write a high-quality article. I'm sure there's language that can be tightened (I've acted on your first example, in fact) but trimming too much is difficult. But I'll take another pass and see where the prose could be more economical. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really do sympathize. I just nominated Texas Revolution. After my first draft, it was 12.5k words. I eventually managed to cut 20% to get it down around 10k (and I still worry it is too long). I'd expect an article like this to be 10-12k. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each sub-section for the individual Civil War battles are much more lengthy and detailed than is the coverage for the Mexican-American War and Early life and marriage, yet I don't see any significant reductions being made in those sections. Every one of these battles has a dedicated article for it. There is no dedicated article for Grant's, family and marriage, so it would seem these topics should get more priority than they are presently getting. After all, this is Grant's Biography. Also, there are other FA (Reagan, Obama, etc) that exceed the guideline for page length and there were no issues because it was warranted, per all the important content involved, so we need to stop holding 'page length' up as the most important consideration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Karanacs: I take your point, and I won't argue with you about how long is too long; reasonable minds may disagree. But the consensus among my co-editors is against any large-scale reductions, and I agree with them. Since this version, we've cut more than a thousand words. I think that's all we can do. Thanks again for reading, and good luck with your own nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm alone on this matter, but I personally determine things to be "too short" or "too long" by detail on key aspects rather than prose size/raw size alone. FA criterion 1b is comprehensiveness (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context) while criterion 4 is length (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style). I understand not including certain pieces, and would encourage to address specific parts that seem extra. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS, Coemgenus, Cmguy777, and Rjensen: Snuggums hits the nail on the head. Comprehensiveness should be our major concern. While the major contributing editors on the Grant page have done wonderful work, they seem to have become overly weary of page length, which is not completely unreasonable. However, in the process comprehensiveness seems to have been neglected from time to time. You can read my comments to that effect, with examples, on the Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Karanacs: If the article were reduced anymore then content and clarification would be lost too...Presidents have Cabinets who can either impact an administration positively or negatively...Grant's Cabinet goes back and forth...I would not reduce the article size. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sturmvogel 66[edit]

  • I think that most of the battle sections could be usefully compressed to some degree without loss of significant detail. Forex, all the information on McClernand in the Vicksburg section isn't of particular importance here, IMO. And the bit about meeting his brigade commanders before Corinth isn't particularly notable as it's a common occurrence.
  • The ship that captured Virginius was a cruiser, not a destroyer. (fixed)
  • Link monitor. (Done)
  • I see some references that use the year of publication and others that don't. Standardize on one or the other.
    • After today's changes, the only ones with dates should be those where the same author is cited in two different works. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, and thanks for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace's Are they both major generals?
    • Yes, Buell had been for some time, Wallace was promoted just before Shiloh. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Army of the Ohio, and move the links for the Army of the Cumberland and Army of the Potomac to the first occurrences.
  • I'm otherwise satisfied with the battle sections.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, thanks for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mkativerata[edit]

I am with Karanacs, I'm afraid. It is just too long. I think one of the causes has been the breaking of particular aspects of his military and presidential tenures up into subject-based sections (Gold standard; judicial appointments; etc), which lends itself to a manner of writing that focuses on subject matter detail (which is often dealt with in split articles) rather than the biographical overview. Further, on a more micro level, even if that structure were retained there are numerous examples where two sentences could be slashed down to one, two paragraphs to one, etc. In Brianboulton's words, which I can only echo: "The art of encyclopedia writing encompasses selection, summary, and succinct expression" The prose is very good, but it's not as selective, summary-oriented or succinct as it needs to be. These length issues can certainly be fixed; that's why I haven't said "oppose". Though I reckon a completely independent editor might be the best person to do it - it is tough for those who have spent such significant effort writing the article to then cull it. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget though that FA criterion 4 is "Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style", criterion 1b is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". It would help to state what specifically should be removed in order to maintain comprehensiveness. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved most likely. There are a number of existing daughter articles. pbp 23:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, Purplebackpack89. The question is simply which subarticles to move information to. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkativerata:, @Karanacs:: I reduced the length quite a bit yesterday, along with my co-editor, Alanscottwalker. The article now weighs in at 13,446 words, the shortest it's been in years. The cuts were needed, and I don't think we lost anything vital. I don't know if that's enough to satisfy your concerns, but it does out the article more in the mainstream of Featured Articles. Thank you for your comments, I hope you enjoyed reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. 14,300 down to 13,400 is certainly an improvement, and I think you've hit the correct spot with the biggest cull (judicial appointments). I'd like to see it down further, but nor am I opposing the article's promotion (just emphasising for an FA delegate). --Mkativerata (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Purplebackpack89[edit]

I generally believe the content in the article to be worthy of being an FA. If people are concerned about the length, perhaps we should reduce sections that are covered in daughter articles (such as Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War). pbp 22:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we all agree that the article is generally well written, so in that event, it would seem that the page length guideline take a backseat to the FA requirement that a FAC be a well covered and comprehensive piece of work. This is not to say we can't condense some of the text in any redundant topics or omit some of the very minor details. Given Grant's very involved life it would seem that page length concerns should be relaxed a bit. It would be almost robotic to not pass this article on the basis of page length alone. The article is rich with information. Btw, most readers don't bother to go to lesser articles, as page view statistics will bear out. If the readers can't find what they're looking for in the main article then they're very likely going to click on something else in their google hit list. Lesser articles don't show up in search results like the plain ol' Ulysses S. Grant biography does. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Inconsistent "Retrieved by" dates (c.f. fn 141, fn 247)
    • These should now be formatted the same way. I'm inclined to just delete them--are access dates still required?
  • Unsure about the reliability of Ackerman. Looks self-published, as Ackerman owns "Viral History Press" which publishes his work exclusively.
    • I just removed that cite, since the material there is already cited to Smith. I'm not sure why the double cite was even there.
  • Longacre: check name/spelling of publisher.
    • Fixed.

Otherwise, everything looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Good patronage at this review, a fair level of support, and necessary checks complete -- but is it stable? There still seem to be daily edits to the article, and a lot of discussion on its talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is busy. With an article of this stature and length, it probably always will be. But most of the regular editors seem to bring things there first for discussion, rather than edit-warring on the article page itself, so I think the stability of the actual article is good. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco seems to be on board with swapping in Grant for the currently scheduled TFA on the anniversary of Appomattox, April 9. To no one in particular and everyone in general: please don't put the TFA coords and community in an awkward position by giving us very little time to evaluate and prep this one. The sesquicentennial of the end of the American Civil War is a big deal for some people, and we like to give people what they want. We don't have any other suitable FAs that I'm aware of. If it's determined that the article isn't ready, that's fine of course and can't be helped (at this late date), but my sense is that opinions are converging. Converge faster, please :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review of the "unstable" criteria will show that the article is NOT unstable - edit wars are non-existent and edits taken in response to the review (which almost all the edits have been - in the last two months) do not count as instability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Coemgenus and Alanscottwalker. The article itself was never really unstable, with no edit wars in recent memory, if ever. Most recent edits involving content were preceded by discussion. While there were a couple of debates recently over some minor points the discussion was not heated and matters are generally resolved, while the article has made improvements all along. A great piece of work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stability isn't an issue; all edits have been in accordance with FAC input per critertion 1e of WIAFA: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Nothing to worry about here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad that brought everyone out of the woodwork (or the talk page!) -- it's not always clear when there's a lot of talk page activity as to whether changes are in response to the FAC process, plus I wanted to be sure we'd completed the reductions in text that were mooted earlier. If that's the case, we can probably proceed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2015 (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) 11:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Edward II of England[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Edward II, an ill-fated English monarch who remains a famous figure in modern films, plays and art. The article reflects the current academic scholarship on Edward, and has been through Good and A Class reviews; I believe that it also meets the criteria for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class ... and I noticed that I missed some misspellings, so take this support with a grain of salt. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Support: All my concerns have been addressed. Really like this article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article, both in terms of general interest and the prose itself. I'm finishing A Distant Mirror, which dovetails nicely into this article. But there are minor prose issues, a little missing info, and one very confusing passage. I'm opposing only on that last one, the rest are merely comments.

    • "to help secure peace with France, but war broke out"... what war?
      • I've added an explanation. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • But does the war in question have a name? Maybe a page here on the wiki? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this might be the one. May I offer an assist for some copy editing? auntieruth (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, and yes. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation", do we know what sort of engine?
      • I don't think so, but will check further. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he was knighted in a ceremony at Westminster Abbey", this confuses me. Was it not the case that a knight was a rung in the feudal ladder that he would have been part of by birthright? Is this knighting not redundant? I may just misunderstand the role of knighthood, but if that's the case I suspect I'm not alone and little expansion here would help.
      • Knighting ceremonies were a major event in the medieval period; I've added a bit to the article on knights, and wikilinked to that. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "before then permanently exiling Gaveston", "then" is redundant and reads oddly to my eyes.
    • "same way that it might do in the 21st century", ditto for "do".
    • "Edward gave Isabella a psalter as a wedding gift", tricky link in here, which I always get annoyed at - I wanted to know what a psalter was, not the details of this particular one. Suggest something along the lines of "Edward gave Isabella a psalter, now known as the Isabella Psalter, as a wedding gift"
  • I'd be keen to avoid repeating psalter twice in the same sentence; the article now explains what a salter is in the first sentence, which should help. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gaveston that he had stolen royal funds and had purloined Isabella's wedding presents", simply "stolen royal funds and Isabella's wedding presents". "purloined" is not a common term, and given the context it seems to suggest it means something different than stolen, which it doesn't.
      • Purloin isn't quite the same as stolen; it carries meaning of misappropriation, which is a wider concept than simple theft. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, under threat of excommunication should he return, where he would be given estates to support himself". This is a confusing statement, and I believe it should be broken into two sentences. But which is it... "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, where he would be given estates to support himself. He was threatened with excommunication should he return." OR "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, and was threatened with excommunication should he return. However, Edward said he would be given estates to support himself if he did."
    • " but which offered to grant Edward", remove "which"?
    • "The Pope agreed to annul Gaveston's sentence of excommunication"... Ok here's the item I think needs to be addressed one way or the other. The statement above suggests this was threatened, but not carried out ("instead sent Gaveston to Dublin") seems to be at odds with the statement only a few lines above, which say it was threatened but never carried out. The next mention of the topic is later in the article and appears unrelated? This is the only problem I think needs to be corrected.
      • I've tweaked the wording - see if it makes more sense now. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still confused about this, but it's more than just the wording. Apparently the Pope actually did threaten to excommunicate Galveston. Is that correct? If so, why? What does this purely internal matter have to do with the pope at all? And why would this be an excommunication-able (??) offence? It has nothing to do with the church. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified a bit more. The article probably isn't the place for a longer discussion of the role of the Church in the Middle Ages, but in brief, the Church and the medieval state were typically closely entwined. Kings of England typically depended closely on their senior clergy as administrators and government officials, while appointments and many clerical matters were of interest to, and influence by, lay rulers. Events such as the fate of Gaveston would not have been seen as an "internal" matter, but rather something the Church had a valid interest in. Excommunications could be made for various reasons, including as a tool to encourage good behaviour or to enforce peace agreements, as in this case. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That small edit is a great improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley, and Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders", suggest splitting in two, "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley. Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders"
      • I've gone for a semi-colon, see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • stopping at Famine and criticism for now, getting on a plane back to the GWN.Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maury, thanks for this. I'll get on and action tomorrow morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, all finished. It's a great article BTW! Only two last items and they're minor:
    • "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may have been hastened by depression following his imprisonment." - is this anything more than idle speculation? I suspect not, and if that is the case, I'd recommend simply removing this statement.It doesn't really add anything to the content unless we its something that is widely commented on and argued in historical circles, at which point that is the notable point. It doesn't appear to be that, though.
      • It's an argument put forward by one of his two major biographers, so I think it's worth keeping in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • As there is no way that a biographer could ever know one way or the other, I suggest adding that caveat - "According to one of his biographers, it is possible that...". Or am I incorrect, is there some sort of physical evidence they offer for this opinion? 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Phillips puts forward his reasoning in the peer-reviewed biography, partially drawing on the Brut source, and partially on modern psychology; we're already putting forward the statement in the conditional tense, so I'm not personally convinced we need to caveat it further. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, striken. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image in the Battle of Boroughbridge appears to show the opening dispositions of the forces? In any event, it conveys very little information to the reader. I poked about a bit looking for something more suitable but failed. I'll keep looking. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the image in question. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should be able to dig into the content and sourcing on this over the weekend, I hope. Hold this spot. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdyth. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Do you have some time for this now? We'd really appreciate a source review from you as well as any other comments you can make... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'm going to be snowed in tomorrow so I'll try. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Battle-of-Boroughbridge-en.jpg: what is the source of the information presented in this map?
  • File:Philippe4_eduard2_ludvikNavarra.jpg: source link is dead, and life+70 is redundant to life+100
  • The jewellery is PD, but we should say so explicitly
  • File:Seal_of_Edward_II-2.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Oriel_College_Charter.jpg: the uploader is not the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find the source of the information in the Boroughbridge image on the file; will check further.
  • I've still can't find it, so have removed the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original sources of the Phillip4 file has now been given (the Bibliotheque de Nationale archives)
  • PD element of jewellery given, plus right of panorama tag added
  • Seal's US PD tage added
  • Oriel charter tag corrected.
  • Thanks Nikki! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose (with 2 points to make)

  • per above, I did an extensive copy review. I made some changes, all noted by section labeled "tweaks". Mostly they were related to wordiness, verb tense, clarity, or a few minor issues. I also added some dates and a couple of links for clarity, and I did move a paragraph within a section (Isabella and Mortimer).
  • Point One: Parliament or parliament. You've referred to it both ways, and given that his father relied on the institution, and its regular meetings, I suggest Parliament (with a link). But this is up to you. You can do the article-wide search and replace. But it should be consistent. And you might explain why it is only small p parliament, if that's the option you select.
  • Point Two: You refer variously to "the earls" and "the barons". Well, I know what you mean, and amazingly Wikipedia doesn't have an article defining these, but we could perhaps use some clarity on that.

Well done on this. Very well done. If you want me to look again I'll be happy to do so.auntieruth (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers AuntieRuth. Parliament is now sorted, and I'll see what we can do about a link for earls and barons... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009:, would you mind posting bits from the relevant section from Philips on depression? I tried to find this source locally but failed, the nearest copy appears to be about 75 km from here, and it is not available in any online form that I could find. None of the sources I did find mention this, although one apparently quotes Philips as saying "that he was murdered or helped on his way to death, either from a pre-existing illness or from physical decline and depression" If this is an accurate summation of the original, I reiterate my concern that this is simply one person's speculation based on nothing. None of what I could find were in anything that might be considered peer reviewed, and as Philips appears to have no medical background and I can't find any trace of publications of a medical or scientific nature, I am again growing concerned about undue weight being given to what appears to be an idle claim. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His "mental condition...is likely to have been very poor. It is easy to believe that Edward was deeply depressed...this might have been enough to bring about or accelerate his death". Phillips is of the two major modern biographers of Edward, and the Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at Dublin, with the book in question published by the Yale University Press, so I would personally consider it a reliable source for the statement in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (NB: Yale has an internal and external academic review process for manuscripts for publication). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this is simply Phillips' speculation. It doesn't even try to hide this, it is clearly expressed as such - "is likely", "easy to believe", "this might have been". Lots of other things might have been too, given the same inputs. "It is easy to believe" he suffered from exposure and "this might have been enough to bring about or accelerate his death". Both of those claims have exactly the same amount of factual data to back them up - none whatsoever. If you wish to include Philips statement in the article, fine, but it needs to be clearly stated that "Philips speculates...". The article spends the right amount of time saying that other stories about the cause of death are speculation, and I see reason to do the same here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on this one. It is an opinion of a leading historian, and the article text makes clear that this is not a straightforward fact but a "maybe": "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may...". The argument that Edward could have been depressed having been overthrown by his wife and her lover, chased across Britain, having lost his best friend in a gruesome execution, then being removed as king by the nobility and church and locked in a cell in Berkeley Castle, is not exactly an extraordinary or contentious claim (if anything one might argue that it verges on the obvious!) - and Phillips notes the Brut chronicle's statements about Edward's state of mind as part of his argument. I'm not aware of any other historian that has argued against Phillips' position here. It is acceptable for professional historians to interpret evidence (although not for ourselves to do so as Wikipedians!) and for those interpretations to be used in articles, provided that our text reflects the cited source. If we disagree with a professional specialist opinion, the place to argue the case is in academia, rather than on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you outline the evidence from Brut that you refer to? Perhaps this is what I am looking for. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be after Brut, section i, 252-3 as per the 1906 edition according to the footnote. Not the easiest document to interpret though, but at least it's not in Latin!:) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a copy at Robarts online (those aren't sections but page numbers). It's in English BTW, not latin, which is handy. So if this is the source of Phillips' suggestion, there is absolutely nothing that one might take to be any sort of evidence of any medical condition, especially when you consider the lengthy discussions of Merlin, clearly invented dialog, and other issues. If this is the source, I reiterate my original point: I strongly recommend this section be stated with something to the effect that "Philips has speculated that..." to make it clear that there is no physical evidence for this point, and that Philips himself makes no such claims. It's speculation, and as such, should be given the same disclaimers as the other bits of speculation, like red hot anal pokers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, I know it's not in Latin (as per my previous commment!) As I've noted above, interpreting Brut is difficult (people do whole university courses on interpreting this sort of document), which is why we don't interpret or work with primary medieval sources on Wikipedia. You need to understand which component of the narrative came from which source (both human and documentary), the influence of medieval symbolism and mysticism, the translation of Middle English etc. - which is why we use reliable secondary sources, not primary ones. Personally, I thought that the references to Edward's state of mind and health were fairly clear in this part of the Brut text though - on. p.252, he complains to his gaolers about his mental suffering and ill-health, and goes on to make a rather depressing declaration that he is a nothing in prison, beaten down by God etc. the start of page 253, for example. I think we may may need to agree to disagree though; I think that the wiki text summarises Phillips' argument accurately, and isn't contentious with other historians - you clearly don't. If you disagree with Phillips' use of chronicler sources per se though, then that's probably something you need to raise off-wiki in academic circles. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the passage does summarize Philip's opinion. What it doesn't do is state that this is his opinion. Why are you so reticent to add the two words "Philip's suggests" after the comma? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Really a very impressive article which I thoroughly enjoyed. Happy to support once the minor issues below are addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The King probably deliberately chose the castle as the location for Edward's birit was an important symbolic location for the native Welsh, associated with Roman imperial history, and formed the centre of the new royal administration of North Wales." - aside from the spelling error, this sentance doesn't make sense - I think there is a word missing.
  • Not really "the location for Edward's birth was an important symbolic location" still feels like it should be "the location for Edward's birth as it was an important symbolic location" instead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, with you. See if it's right now. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfonso is spelled differently in the lead and the main text - be consistent.
  • "but war broke out again in 1294" - when was there war with France before? I don't think its been mentioned.
  • "The earls of Pembroke and Surrey were embarrassed" - Link Surrey as he hasn't been mentioned before.
  • "and his decapitated head was sent back to Edward" - this reads like its Butler's head you're talking about. Rephrase please
  • "Edward ordered the arrest of any French in England" - any French citizens or any French people read better.
  • "When granting Gascony to Isabella, Phillip IV appeared to have been divided up his lands" - dividing?
  • "not least because of his abuse of high-status women" - in what way did he abuse them?
  • He was alleged to have had forced sex with them, I think, and had a bad habit of taking illicit advantage of their property as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Sorry for the slowness... life off wiki has been very hectic. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources:
    • Childs source - is the title really "'Welcome My Brother': Edwards II, John of Powderham and the Chronicles, 1318"? (the plural Edwards is what is sticking out at me)
    • Otherwise, the sources look fine to me. I see you're leaning heavily on Phillips, which is as it should be - it's the most recent scholarly biography. Since the ODNB entry for Edward was written by Phillips, not much use in using it.
    • I spot checked some information against Phillips - footnote 59 (pp. 111-115), footnote 81 (Phillips p. 102), footnote 122 (p. 161) and footnote 199 (pp. 374-375) - all were correct summaries of the pages but without close paraphrasing concerns. I also checked footnote 252 to Doherty pp. 74-75, which was also correctly paraphrased without being too close.
  • Childhood:
    • "but he was certainly supportive of the sport." - examples?
  • He arranged tournaments, for example. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early campaigns:
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation" - does this mean one he built or just one under his control?
  • I don't think the original text was clear; I'm presuming it would have had to be constructed on site, with with some parts pre-built off site and potentially some local timbers used for major framework etc. How far he got involved this I'm not sure. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piers:
    • Do we have an article for the Meaux Chronicle?
  • No, but I've just created a redirect and linked. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tensions:
    • "in a febrile atmosphere" - maybe "heated atmosphere"?
    • link for "the marshal of the royal household"?
  • Linked, although the target isn't ideal. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinances:
    • Shouldn't "parliament" be "Parliament"?
  • I'd followed some other writers on this period by lower casing it; I think they prefer it to emphasis the process, rather than as a fixed institution in the sense of the later "Houses of Parliament". Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "cutting out the Frescobaldi bankers"? Slangish, since I assume you mean that they stiffed the Italians...
  • Death:
    • "he led a powerful faction in England" - I assume we mean Lancaster here? It's a bit ... twisty though.
    • I really do not agree with the link to "show trial" in "At a show trial Gaveston was declared ..." The concept of a show trial is very definitely a modern one, very much tied to modern propaganda. Phillips just says "A semblence of a trial may even have been held before two royal justices..." which seems to make it unclear whether or not a trial was even held. I don't have Chaplais, but my copy of The Three Edwards by Prestwich (first edition), does have a trial taking place, but he doesn't appear to consider it a show trial either. Prestwich does say the grounds for the trial were questionable. Prestwich in Plantagenet England says "It seems that a trial of sorts was held, and that Gaveston was sentenced to death on the basis of the Ordinances. His death, however, had little of the character of a judicial execution and more of a public lynching." Even Doherty, much more of a sensationalist writer, just says that Gaveston "was put on trial before hastily assembled royal justices and condemned to death as a traitor."
  • I've changed the wording accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tensions:
    • Shouldn't it be "Parliament" in "thanks to parliament" (And elsewhere in the article)
  • Despenser War:
    • "the recently elevated Hugh Audley and Roger Damory." Wasn't one reason these two opposed the Despensers was that they thought Hugh the younger had gotten more of hte Clare lands than he deserved?
  • War with France:
    • NOt fond of the easter egg link in "Duchy of Gascony flared into open war in 1324" .. can we reword to actually use the name?
    • "In 1323, he insisted that Edward come to Paris to give homage for Gascony, and insisted.." repetition
    • Why the sudden name here: "sending instead John de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey." we've been discussing him previously, right? Link/etc should go with first mention.
  • Abdication:
    • "sentenced to be drawn, disembowelled, castrated and quartered" link?
  • I may be misremembering, but I think it was linked to hung drawn and quartered at one point, and another editor disagreed and removed it, on the basis that the article wasn't on that specific topic; I don't think I could find a better one though. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burial:
    • "existing pilgrim attraction" - I think "existing pilgrimage attraction" would be slightly less jarring.
    • "The tomb was opened by officials in 1855, uncovering a wooden coffin, still in good condition, and a sealed lead coffin inside it." Did they not open the lead coffin?
  • No, the inner coffin was left undisturbed apparently. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "cost of over £100,000" - conversion?
  • The RPI won't cut it, so I could go for a project based alternative costing, although since it is only 8-9 years ago, I don't think its necessary, as the typical reader will have a decent sense of what that sort of sum is worth. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingship:
    • Need a cite directly on "was lazy and incompetent, liable to outbursts of temper over unimportant issues, yet indecisive when it came to major issues"
    • Need a cite directly on "was not so much an incompetent king as a reluctant one"
  • Are you sure? There are citations for both at the end of each sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historiography:
    • "Views on Edward's sexuality have continued to develop over the years." Develop how though?
  • Note 9 "Edward's chancery" ... link chancery?
  • Note 14: I had to laugh at "While agreeing that there is no documentary evidence available, Ian Mortimer takes a more radical perspective..." isn't that a pocket description of Mortimer - radical perspective?
  • Note 22: "see David Carpenter's review, and Roy Haines's analysis" ... can we have a bit more of the actual location in the note, rather than the citations?
  • Note 25: Need a direct citation on "a decadent extravagance, fitting the familiar stereotype of the king" and "conventional, and perhaps even rather dull"
  • As per the above - there is a citation at the end of the sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close to supporting, but a few things need fixing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—At 115kb almost certainly WP:TOOBIGNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies - my mistake in including HTML (see below), please ignore Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments[edit]

  • Actual prose count is 72K which more than ideal, but still pretty reasonable for such a well-documented individual. I did a quick read through in light of this comment and didn't see any readily available savings that could be made by splitting out sections into subpages. I would ask the delegates to disregard Norfolkbigfish's comment.
  • All of your article titles are in title case, but what about those in your cites like the DNB and Carpenter?
  • I don't see any other issues with cite and bibliography formatting.
  • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS is firm in terms of how book titles should be capitalised, but I think the preferred convention on web-titles is to leave them unaltered from the original online publication, except for moving to lower-caps if they are all capitalised. Happy to be corrected though (in which case I'll alter accordingly!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS actually talks only about "composition" titles, not just book titles, although some people have argued that it only applies to books. To my mind a composition means a book or article, regardless of publishing format or mode, but read it for yourself: MOS:CT--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that they're compositions as well and should be in title case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Reading now...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Quite a gap between 1314 and 1321, nothing worth mentioning in late 1310s period?
  • Nothing was jumping out at me, but open to ideas! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to negotiate a peace treaty in 1325" -is there an article to link here?
  • Not a great one, but I've found one relating to the war. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "invaded England with a small army in 1326" -and for that invasion?
  • "Many of these have focused on the possible sexual relationship between the two men. " -do you think perhaps you should move down your initial mention of their relationship earlier in the lede to here to avoid repetition and revisiting it? Or is it really of vital importance to discuss twice?
  • I think its important as it explains what the plays, films etc. typically focus on, which isn't necessarily the same as the focus from an historical perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Childhood, personality and appearance
  • "Probably" is repeated twice in one paragraph, perhaps one you could reword to the author claiming it likely or something
  • "as well as musical organs" - playing the musical organ or just interested in them generally as pieces?
  • As per the other types of music, I don't think there's any evidence of him playing them. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything more about his education and academic strengths and weaknesses?
Piers
  • "The two got on well. Gaveston became a squire and was soon being referred to as a close companion of Edward, before being knighted by the King during the Feast of Swans in 1306.[64] The King then exiled Gaveston to Gascony in 1307 for reasons that remain unclear.[65] According to one chronicler, Edward had asked his father to allow him to give Gaveston the County of Ponthieu, and the King responded furiously, pulling his son's hair out in great handfuls, before exiling Gaveston.[66] The official court records, however, show Gaveston being only temporarily exiled, supported by a comfortable stipend; no reason is given for the order, suggesting that it may have been an act aimed at punishing the prince in some way." -this reads a tad too much like a narrative,and I find the short sentence and short phrasing before the commas affect the flow a bit here. Is it possible you could find a way to rephrase it?
  • " close working relationship.[75] Contemporary chronicler comments are vaguely worded; Orleton's allegations were at least in part politically motivated, and closely" -rep of close/ly
  • "Such historians as Michael Prestwich and Seymour Phillips have argued that the very" -are both "such" and "very" essential here?
  • I think the such adds meaning; I've removed the very (although it was pretty much transparently so!). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A more recent theory suggests that Edward and Gaveston entered into a bond of adoptive brotherhood" -can you be more specific on who propagated that theory and and indication of when?
Coronation
  • "involved unprecedented powers being delegated to Gaveston" -such as? Oh I see, basically he was substituted as ruler, right?
  • Sort of - he could do some things, although not all. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edward probably had sexual relations with mistresses during their first few years together." -quite a strong claim, perhaps state "According to the author xx".
  • Not really - his main biographers all agree on it. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tension
  • "Accusations, probably untrue, " -according to whom?
  • Hamilton, Chaplais, Phillips etc. - modern historians can't be sure at this distance, but there's no strong evidence to support the contemporary allegation. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mid reign
  • Have you already linked Scarborough?
  • "Edward probably hoped both to resolve the problems in the south of France and to win Philip's support" -who surmises this?
  • I think the argument originated with Maddicott, but its been used by a range of historians since. There is no firm documentary evidence, but it's not been disputed as an explanation that I'm aware of. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Famine
  • "food rose, despite attempts by Edward II's government to control prices.[177] Edward called for hoarders to release food, and tried to encourage both internal trade and the importation of grain, but with little success.[178] The requisitioning of food for the royal court during the famine years only added to tensions.[179]" -rep of food, Perhaps change the last one to provisions?
Later reign
  • Welsh Marches -a footnote or rough description of where this is today might be useful here for reference purposes, the Severn estuary?
  • It's linked already, the name sort of gives it away, and I'm not sure it needs a footnote. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • " Polychronicon, Vita Edwardi Secundi, Vita et Mors Edwardi Secundi and the Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvon "- can you date these works in brackets?
  • Not easily; the dating of some of these is a bit complex if memory serves. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The filmmaker Derek Jarman adapted the Marlowe play into a film in 1992, " -it was 1991 it seems.
Sourcing

Some minor concerns on the heavy reliance of the Phillips source in the first half. Does he have an article? What are his credentials? One Oxford journal does say "begins his authoritative biography of Edward II ", so I guess it's the most update to date and most respected source on him currently? Perhaps it has a lot of details on his earlier life which aren't well documented. It is otherwise broadly researched and written so not really an issue.

  • Yes, Phillips is the best current biography. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling piece of work, some might find it a tad too long, but I personally prefer articles on subjects like this to be as thorough. In fact I could find very little fault in it! Await your replies, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Dr B. I'll get on and deal with these (and the ones above I haven't dealt with yet!) over the weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009: Have you addressed any of these yet? I'll give my full support once done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- looks to me like we're almost there, except:

  • @Ealdgyth: Have your comments been addressed satisfactorily?
  • @Hchc2009: Have you actioned DrB's comments?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: It's a clear support from me, but I was hoping Hchc would have responded sooner to all of the points.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 30 March 2015 (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) 05:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Paul Kruger[edit]

Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncle Paul" Kruger never read any book apart from the Bible and thought the Earth was flat, but nevertheless rose to be the four-time president of a republic that defied the British Empire. He encapsulated in his person the 19th-century history of the Boer people, from the Great Trek he took part in as a boy to the Second Boer War that ended his country's independence and sent him into exile. Personifying the Boers as he did, opinions on him correspond closely with opinions on the Boers in general. In some accounts he is a tragic folk hero who gave his all to defend his people, while in others he was an oppressive despot who ultimately brought disaster on himself and his country. The truth is in my view somewhere between these two extremes, though you will do well to find a book telling you that. Emotions run high to this day and even literature published recently often has an agenda.

This recently passed GA and then underwent a peer review from five editors, including the GA reviewer Timothy Riley Esq. In my nomination statement at PR I highlighted the article's length—just under 14,600 words, as of 16 March—and requested input on whether cuts should be made and if so, where. Consensus from the peer reviewers seemed to be that despite its high word count the article was engaging, tightly-written and well-organised, with "no need to soldier through it". I therefore have not attempted any major pruning. I think the article is at least close to FA standards and look forward to your feedback. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The suggestion that the article might be too long was my fault, and I wholly withdraw and repudiate it. It struck me at GAN that the word-count might attract flak at FAC, but when I actually came to give the article a close reading against FA standards at the peer review stage I found the length was not a problem at all. There is no padding, no digression and the narrative canters along briskly. In writing about this controversial figure Cliftonian has consistently maintained an impeccable neutrality – a tightrope walk that can't have been easy. The peer review was thorough and beneficial, and on a third reading the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 15:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tim for all your help, your kind words and your support. I hope you're having a great week. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Tim Riley. My comments, minor at that, have been dealt with in the Peer Review. While a bit long, I really feel that this article embodies more of what we need on Wikipedia - good articles on important subjects. The fact that it is falls within the under-covered scope of African history is, in my view, even better. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brigade Piron for the support and the extremely kind words. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image review from Crisco 1492
**File:KrugerPaulusJohannes.jpg - Impossible for this to be PD-70 if we don't know who the creator was. There are several possible templates available for anonymous creators, though you need to show publication. Also, where's this digitization from?
      • Don't know re: digitisation. Have changed tags around a bit. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any word on if it was published before 1923? That's one of the criterion for PD-1923. Not a pre-1923 creation, but a pre-1923 publication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is this still necessary if we switch to PD-1996? I have done so. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Paul Kruger's signature.png - Fine (though I'd update the copyright tag, as this is PD-100 now)
    • File:Cape Colony before & after the Great Trek.jpg - When did Messrs. Muir and Philip die? Can't claim PD-70 if we don't have their years of death. The US copyright status needs to be included. Also, the link does not go directly to the page with the image, but redirects to the Heritage History cover page.
    • File:G.S. Smithard; J.S. Skelton (1909) - The Voortrekkers.jpg - Same issue with PD-70 here. Also, I'm fairly certain that the direct source is the Internet Archive. (Should also note the page number and original information on the book)
      • OK, done. Thanks for this. Judging from the signature at the bottom the artist seems to be J R Skelton ("J S Skelton" seems to be an error), who didn't die until 1927. Is the picture still PD as this wouldn't have entered PD in the source country (the UK) until 1997/98, if my understanding is correct? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is again, sadly, correct. Commons position on the URAA is now a bit more ambiguous. For now, I'd recommend removing it from the article and tagging the image with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've done so, but now I see in the template it says "In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published." Since it was published in 1909 (or perhaps earlier) doesn't this mean it can actually stay? —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm being a tool. I must have missed the 1909 publication date. {{PD-1923}} is fine, with the correct source country tag. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Andries Pretorius.jpg - Very much lacking in information. Who created this image? When was it first published? Where is this digitization from? Needs a US copyright tag too.
    • File:Kruger c1852.jpg - Fine (though to be safe I'd archive a copy of the Ebay listing)
    • File:M W Pretorius.jpg - US copyright tag needed. Also, I'd note that this is a scan from Dispereert niet, twintig eeuwen historie van de Nederlanden (1978)
    • File:Stephanus Schoeman.jpg - How can you claim PD-70 or PD-100 off an anonymous picture? Needs a proper tag, and an American PD tag (may be difficult if we can't trace publication to before 1923; family pictures were often not published). Where's this digitization from?
      • Schoeman died in 1890. Don't know where the digitisation's from. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • His date of death is irrelevant if we're looking for PD-70/PD-100 (as that depends on the photographer's date of death). I could be 25 when I take his picture, then died at the age of 100 in the 1960s, hence why we have to be careful with anonymous creators from the late 19th century. If this is a South African picture, PD-1996 and the South African PD tag would be enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Paul Kruger c1865.jpg - South African copyright tag may be needed.
    • File:ThFBurgers CHM VA0897.jpg - No individually claimed author, but rather a company. This would generally be treated as anonymous, so PD-70 is not appropriate. Source for the digitization? US tag?
    • File:The Cape Colony - 1878.jpg - Should be fine to copy to Commons with a South African PD tag.
    • File:Jorissen, E J P.jpg Though this was certainly taken before 1923, do we have prove of publication?
      • Is this still necessary if we switch to PD-1996? I haven't yet found evidence of publication. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not if we have the author and s/he died 70 years before 1996, no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:The new Home and Colonial Offices, Westminster, 1875. Wellcome L0004550.jpg - Fine
    • File:Pjjoubert.jpg - I'd note the PD-1923 as well, as it gives the image a bit more of a solid PD-claim. Perhaps not necessary, but good to have.
    • File:Garnet Joseph Wolseley, 1874.png - There's vandalism or something in the information template. Should be fixed. Proof of publication for the PD-1923 claim?
      • It says it was published in 1874 in the Illustrated London News. This was obscured by the puerile vandalism in the description (that had been there two years!) —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:PACronje CHM VA2863.jpg - US copyright status (may require proof of publication)? Digitization taken from...?
      • Don't know about digitisation. Have added PD-1996. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Kruger c 1880.jpg - Proof of publication for the PD-anon claim?
    • File:Stanley, Edward Henry.jpg - Same PD-70 issues (anonymous work means PD-70 is impossible to verify). Was this image directly scanned from the book or taken from a scan online? (I'd bet $10 it's from a Google Books scan of the book)
      • I don't know, I took this from Commons. I've added Anon-1923 and PD-1996 tags. Is this okay? —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Graf v. Bismarck.JPG - Needs a US PD tag.
    • File:Ferreira's Gold Mine in 1886.jpg - Link should not go directly to the picture, but to a page with information about the work (or, barring that, the page using the work). Needs a US PD tag.
    • File:FWReitz VA0947.jpg - Proof of publication for the US PD claim? Source of digitization?
      • According to the description page this was digitised by m.r.doortmont@rug.nl. Described as a "Private portrait" so perhaps was not published? In any case seems to me this should be far out of copyright as S.B. Barnard died in 1916. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:No-nb bldsa 1c031.jpg - Needs a US PD tag (PD-100 will work fine)
    • File:The National Archives UK - CO 1069-214-183.jpg - Fine
    • File:Joseph Chamberlain.jpg - Fine.
    • File:Dr. Leander Starr Jameson.jpg - Fine
    • File:Marthinus Theunis Steyn.jpg - US PD claim? Source of digitization?
      • Another from m.r.doortmont@rug.nl. Described as an "Official portrait" so was presumably publicly exhibited while he was in office. Added PD-1996. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Jan Smuts 1895.jpg - US PD claim? Source of this digitization (i.e. before Wikipedia?)
      • Don't know re: digitisation, probably scanned by "Morne" on the Afrikaans Wikipedia? Source given as 1941 book of speeches by Smuts, published in South Africa. PD-1996 added. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Lord Milner.jpg - Almost certainly a British book, so a British PD claim may be needed.
      • Added PD-1923. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • PD-1923 is for the US. The Brits use the death date of the author, so many pre-1923 works are not PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you expand the Elliot & Fry thing it says they died in 1903 and 1897 respectively. So switched to PD-100. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Mafikeng Second Boer War.jpg - Source of image (before Wikipedia?) Information on author, for PD-70?
      • Seems to be a better version of File:Boer War Q101768.jpg, which is described as a British government creation? —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd use the same information regarding the copyright owners and templates, so that we have a more solid position for PD. Yes, should be a British government creation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Kruger's Last View of Africa.jpg - US PD claim?
    • File:Kruger and family at Oranjelust, Utrecht, October 1902.jpg - Proof this was published before 1923?
      • I don't have any. The image is also here (in poorer quality). —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm... I'll look into that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still doesn't look like enough. Without a publication date, we cannot measure the 70 or 90 or however many years since publication required for a PD-anon claim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmmm. I would really like to be able to keep this, but I will start looking for a picture of the house itself in case we have to lose this one. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Krugerstandbeeld, Kerkplein, a, Pretoria.jpg - There is no freedom of panorama in South Africa (according to Commons). As such, we need copyright information on the statue as well.
      • OK, have done. The sculptor, Anton van Wouw, died in 1945 so this is (just!) public domain in the US. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Krugerrand 1968 82001367.jpg - What's the copyright in South Africa on currency? Commons does not say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Says here: "The reproduction of images depicting South African banknotes and coin or any part thereof is prohibited by the South African Reserve Bank Act No 90 of 1989 in order to protect users of banknotes and coin against counterfeits." I can't find this actual wording in the original act (here), but I think the relevant section is 34c, which prohibits "any words, figures, letters, marks, lines or devices the print whereof resembles in whole or in part any words, figures, letters, marks, lines or devices peculiar to and used in or upon any note of the Bank or any coin which is legal tender". So I am fairly sure this has to come out. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that we definitely need evidence an image was published before 1923 to use PD-1923, as the public domain status depends on publication. For images that had expired in the source country before the URAA, Template:PD-1996 may work better. (Sorry I forgot to mention this earlier). That should help with most of the South African images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the extremely swift and thorough image review, Crisco! Please see all my replies above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this Crisco. I hope you don't mind me capping the image review above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I was thinking of doing the same thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • ... "but they must not touch my independence," he said. "They must be reasonable in their demands.": If the comma isn't in the quote, move it outside the quote marks per WP:LQ. This is probably an issue throughout; search for ,"
  • "he was one of the most famous people in the world": the tone is not encyclopedic.
  • The source wording is almost identical: "Kruger was already one of the most famous men in the world". —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wasn't writing an encyclopedia. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's lose it. We've already said he was a household name and "The outbreak of war raised Kruger's international profile even further." So we probably don't need it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " thereafter, after": This jangles.
  • Thank you for this Dan. I hope my replies and tweaks are to your liking. Hope you're well and having a pleasant week. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I originally participated in this article's peer review and have taken another look see to make sure everything looks to be in order (it is). The referencing and footnotes are good, there is sufficient visual aid, and the text is adequately engaging. I was aware of prior comments made regarding the article's length and language but have found no grounds to question either in the current revision. As a biographical article - especially one correlating to WikiProject South Africa - it's an exemplary work. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Baie dankie Katangais for the very kind words and the support. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Happy St Patrick's Day to everybody watching this page. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review
  • The ODNB entry (Davenport) should not be listed under "Newspaper and journal articles". ODNB is neither a newspaper nor a journal. The article is actually from the online edition of ODNB – not the same as the print edition. It should appear under "Online sources", and should be marked "online edition".
  • Similarly, Reuters is not a newspaper or journal. If and where this article appeared in print is indeterminable. It should be treated as an online source and listed accordingly.
  • The 13-digit ISBNs should be in a standard format – at the moment, some have hyphens and some don't. Also, I understand there is a formula for converting 10-digit ISNBs to 13; I don't know what it is, but SchroCat certainly does.
  • Kaplan should precede Knight in the bibliography
  • In the citations, I noticed quite a few duplicated or overlapping page ranges: see, for example, the Meintjes refs 134 to 139. There may be a reason for this, otherwise it might be tidier to combine some of these.

Apart from these small concerns, sources look good, of appropriate quality and properly formatted. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: A deeply impressive biography of a deeply unprepossessing man. I was involved at the peer review stage and made my points there – I have nothing significant to add here. If it were my choice I might cut a few of the more marginal images, e.g. Bismarck, the Colonial Office Building – but that's a matter for you. Excellent work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much Brian for all your help and the extremely kind words. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I cannot find the ref. Picton-Seymour 1989, p. 164 in the bibliography. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch Mr Burton! Have fixed this. Thank you also for your tidying and copy-editing. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note -- this review has been well patronised and had the necessary checks but given it's been around less than two weeks I might leave it open till the weekend in case there are any late-comers... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2015 (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) 06:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) [9].[reply]

The Sirens and Ulysses[edit]

Nominator(s): – iridescent 16:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sirens and Ulysses is a enormous William Etty painting which currently takes up almost an entire wall of Manchester Art Gallery, and depending on your point of view is either a technical tour-de-force and a predecessor to later attempts to combine realism and aesthetics, or the nadir of early 19th-century tasteless kitsch. It still retains a surprising ability to startle unsuspecting gallery visitors coming across its life-size naked women/rotting corpses/oiled-up musclemen combination for the first time.

This is slightly unusual for a painting article, as many of the elements one usually finds on visual arts articles don't apply. TS&U was painted 178 years ago but spent 155 of those years out of public view, and the period in which it was on display (1839—1857) overlapped with the ascendancy of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, whose painting style was diametrically opposed to Etty's, and Etty has never come back into fashion. Thus, there's no "legacy" section to speak of, since there's only one other work any art historian considers inspired or influenced by TS&U. (This is the work in question, which I don't consider remotely similar, but we need to reflect the sources etc etc.) In addition to this, Etty had a very literal does-exactly-what-it-says-on-the-tin style—his works tend to have titles like Male Nude with Arms Upstretched or Female Nude in an Landscape—so there's no symbolism to explain other than a brief explanation of the myth of Odysseus and the Sirens for people who aren't familiar with it.

The article is quite short, but I'm fairly confident it covers everything significant that's been written about this piece. Because of its fifteen decades hidden from view, and because it's too fragile to move so hasn't left Manchester since 1849 (Manchester has superb universities, but historically they've always been weak in art history, so works in the MAG tend not to get the attention they'd get in London, Birmingham, Liverpool or Glasgow), very little has been written about it. There have only been two significant publications on Etty since the 1850s, one of which was written before TS&U was returned to display and the other was to accompany an exhibition in which this painting didn't appear so barely mentions it. – iridescent 16:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "prevent themselves hearing": I'm not insisting on "prevent themselves from hearing", I'm just asking you to consider the advantages in reduced parsing time (particularly in AmEng, but also probably for Brits).
  • More coming if Curly leaves anything for me to do. - Dank (push to talk) 00:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "wealthy Manchester cotton merchant Daniel Grant": It isn't my fight, but quite a few British and Australian writers who I've copyedited for think this is fine without a "the" in front ... including a lot of people at Milhist, and apparently you and the reviewers here. Some Brits say that not sticking a "the" in front puts the tone on a par with The Sun. It would help me out if you guys could come to some agreement.
    • In case you don't know what Dan's talking about, check out false title—or the "anarthrous nominal premodifier" if you're really intent on making it look sinister. Loads of British prescriptionists in have a stick up their rumps about it, but most NAmEng speakers who've heard of it roll their eyes at its supposed unacceptibility. As a NAmEng speaker writing in BrEng it's easy to miss. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • and yet I don't think a passage would make it into print with say Yale University Press or the New Yorker without it. I'm a firm supporter. I don't see how anyone can say it's wrong to have it in AE, never mind BE. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The New Yorker and The New York Times adhere to such a style, and it comes off as an affectation. Here's an interesting article on it, where we see the "solution" of adding "the" to a "false title" has gotten on the nerves of even a NYT writer. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • "False title" has nothing to do with it really. Fame only comes into it in choosing between "the" and "a". Those who think this is somehow new in American prose are simply wrong. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I've made some copyedits. Feel free to revert them.
  • was painted using an experimental technique, and it began to deteriorate as soon as it was complete: in the body it says it was the technique itself that "caused the paint to flake off once dry". I might reword "and it began" to "that caused it".
    • To be strictly accurate, it wasn't the paint itself that was the problem, it was an experimental size (undercoat) Etty used, which once dried didn't adhere to the canvas properly. I don't have a strong preference either way. The "and it began" is more an effort to prevent the lead repeating the body verbatim, I don't have any issue if anyone wants to change it. – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the word is "technique" rather than "paint", right? So "technique that caused it" would still be appropriate, wouldn't it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • had originally been an apprentice printer: "apprentice" is inevitably a transient thing, so that he was "originally an apprentice" reads strangley to me; I might reword this to something like "William Etty (1787–1849) left a printing apprenticeship in York at 18 to move to London to become an artist."
    • I've fixed this as while he was from York, the apprenticeship was actually up the road in Hull. Etty didn't leave the apprenticeship; he saw out his time, although he left printing the moment his apprenticeship expired. (It's safe to say he didn't enjoy printing; his diary has "Anniversary of my Emancipation from Slavery" every October 23 for the rest of his life.) The wording here is an artefact of the Victorian class system. "Apprentice printer" is a lower-class job, while "trainee painter at the Royal Academy" is on a much more rarefied level—I'm trying to make it clear without slipping over the line into OR that Etty hauled himself up through the ranks. The "poor boy made good" element is important as regards TS&U, as Etty's lack of education explains why he was so willing to accept suggestions from the obviously-crazy-but-classically-educated Myers, even when they were patently loopy ideas like "what the world is waiting for is a fifteen-foot long painting of three naked women and a mound of rotting corpses". – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, to those of us who don't know this background, that's not what the sentence appears to be saying—to most of us "apprentice anything" isn't a profession. Can you work some of this into the text perhaps? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've reworded to make it clear he completed the apprenticeship, then moved to London. – iridescent 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout his early career Etty was highly regarded by wealthy lawyer Thomas Myers, who had been educated at Eton College and thus had a good knowledge of classical mythology, and who from 1832 onwards regularly wrote to Etty to suggest potential subjects for paintings.: Pretty long sentence—could it be cut in two?
  • in which the hero Ulysses (Odysseus in the original Greek): this reads almost as if they were different characters, rather than different names. I'd suggest either "called Odysseus", or put "Odysseus" in quotes. I might even shunt it into a footnote, or remove it entirely.
    • I toyed with various ways to approach this, but couldn't find a satisfactory one. The trouble is, in modern use (including on all Wikipedia's pages about the myth) "Odysseus" is used almost exclusively and "Ulysses" is almost obsolete, so it's not reasonable to assume the reader will know that "Ulysses" is a reference to the Odyssey and not to Tennyson's 1833 Ulysses or even to James Joyce's later novel. – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Putting "Odysseus" in quotes would solve the problem, would it not? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not convinced of the need, but there's no reason not to so have done so. – iridescent 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • which would lure sailors to their deaths: by shipwrecking them, right? I'd say so, rather than leaving it to readers' imaginations that the sirens would, say, catch and eat them.
    • Depends which version of the myth you follow—the Odyssey just says "their song is death". The story of the Sirens is one of those stories like Noah's Ark and Jonah & the Whale in which the source text is only a few lines long, but a whole mythology has build up over the years based on the original. In some versions the song hypnotises sailors so they crash their ships on the shore; in others it's the song itself that's fatal. In the Alexander Pope version from which Etty was probably working, the Sirens are so intelligent that passing sailors voluntarily choose to land on their island to learn from them, and never leave; in Ulysses's case they promise to tell him the true history of Troy if he stays with them. Neither Homer nor Pope ever spells out just what the sirens do with the sailors once they've caught them—"The ground polluted floats with human gore / and human carnage taints the dreadful shore" leaves it open as to whether they ate them or just left them to rot. – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • former curator of York Art Gallery Richard Green (2011): was he "former" at the time of writing (2011)?
    • Yes, he left in 2003. "Former curator of York Art Gallery" is a bigger deal in this context than it sounds, as YAG holds Etty's papers. – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a colon (or period) would be more appropriate than a semicolon in some cases: was well suited to Etty's taste; as he wrote at the time—The work, and Etty's methods in making it, divided opinion; The Gentleman's Magazine considered it
    • I've no strong opinion on punctuation provided it doesn't affect the meaning—change as you see fit. – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On leaving at the end of the evening, Grant suddenly said, "Will you take the money?", startling Etty who in his surprise agreed.: this means Etty initally refused the £250 but at the end of the evening accepted it?
    • Grant offered Etty the money and was refused, then as Etty was leaving offered it again out of the blue and Etty said yes before having the chance to think about it. This is a hard one to write clearly, as the situation only makes sense when you take into account the "a gentleman never takes an agreement back" code of honour, which meant Etty would have felt unable to retract the agreement even though he'd agreed without thinking it through. – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old canvas was replaced: I think this will come as a shock to most readers, who will imagine this as like removing a drawing from its paper—could this be elaborated?
    • Oil paintings aren't painted directly onto canvas (or wood, plaster, brick etc). The surface is coated with a thick layer of goop known as the "size" (traditionally rabbit-skin glue), and the painting is painted onto the size. Once the whole thing is dry, the size containing the painting can be transferred between panels/canvases (a number of paintings which are now on canvas started off painted onto wooden panels in churches), in a process known as 'relining' in the US and 'lining' in the UK. Normally, when covering something technical and unintuitive like this, I'd include a wikilink to the Wikipedia page explaining the process—however Painting restoration has a reasonable claim to be the single worst page on the whole of Wikipedia* so I'm reluctant to direct anyone there. If you think it's worthwhile, I can include a footnote explaining the process. (The trouble is, sources on the restoration of TS&U are either specialist sources which will assume the reader already knows the technicalities of lining a painting, or newspaper coverage which doesn't go into detail of exactly what was done.) – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      *Actually, the single worst page on the whole of Wikipedia is Religious and mythological references in Battlestar Galactica, but I live in hope that someone will one day be brave enough to AFD that.
    • Wow, that's not even hyperbole about Painting restoration (and after 62 edits!). This is unfortunate, as this statement will sound nigh-impossible to most readers. Perhaps "It was transferred to a new canvas" sounds at least more likely? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've found an alternative link at Marouflage, which is still a fairly awful article but does at least explain what the process entails. I've reworded to "The painting was transferred to a replacement canvas", which at least allows people who think "huh?" to see an rough explanation of the process. I considered a big footnote along the line of my reply above, but I'm a bit reluctant to go down the whole "how an oil painting is made" route. – iridescent 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now a new Lining of paintings, thanks to User:Ruskinmonkey. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the restoration section slightly, to make it clearer what was done and to mention the earlier vague attempts at restoration. Per my comment on your talkpage, although this means citing a YouTube video I think it's legitimate in this case, as it's an official video with commentary from the restorers. – iridescent 17:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gallery Nine of the Manchester Art Gallery, which had been the location of the temporary restoration studio: Was Gallery Nine converted to the studio, or did it become Gallery Nine after the studio work was complete?
    • The end of the gallery was turned into a temporary studio, so visitors could watch the restoration work. Once the restoration was complete, the painting went up on the wall and the room went back to being a normal display room. – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what I was trying to get at was I nearly combined this sentence with "In 2006 a section of the gallery was converted into a temporary studio." I can't do that unless I'm sure the section was called Gallery Nine before it was set up as a studio. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would have been Gallery Nine before, during and after. – iridescent 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've reworked that final paragraph. Let me know if you have any issues with it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all of that. I've replied inline, even though I know the delegates don't like it, as there are so many different threads to reply to it would get confusing to have all the replies as a single wall-of-text. – iridescent 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually prefer inline replies, and I've never understood why some hate it so much. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per a suggestion from Eric Corbett, have changed to "probably depicts". – iridescent 17:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments and image review

Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead should not be this long
    • I disagree. WP:LEADLENGTH is a vague suggestion, not a set-in-stone rule; there's nothing obvious to cut from the lead, and there's no point cutting-for-the-sake-of-cutting just to comply with it. Halkett boat, Abuwtiyuw, Manchester Mummy, ROT13, Double Seven Day scuffle, Thomcord, Action of 1 August 1801, New York State Route 373, Interactions and How a Mosquito Operates are all current FAs shorter than this one with three-paragraph leads—if it passes, it's not going to be some kind of bizarre outrider. – iridescent 18:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Couple counterpoints: first, some of those three-paragraph leads are considerably shorter (How a Mosquito Operates is 179 words in the lead, to the 268 here). Second, you've not touched on the many, many short articles which follow WP:LEAD's advice (MissingNo., for instance). At the very least the lead should be trimmed. If you want three paragraphs, that's fine, but having over 15% of the article's length in the lead (18%, by my count) strikes me as a bit much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not seeing it. At present the body text is roughly 8500 characters, and the lead is 1571 characters, which doesn't seem wildly unbalanced. There doesn't appear to be anything that can obviously be removed from the lead; it says that TS&U is a painting, what it's a painting of, why it's significant, where it is, and why it was hidden for so long. The only things I can see that could potentially be cut are "While traditionally the Sirens had been depicted as human-animal chimeras" and "Possibly owing to its unusually large size, 442.5 cm by 297 cm (14 ft 6 in by 9 ft 9 in)". It could be re-divided into two rather than three paragraphs, with a split after "tasteless and unpleasant", if it's just the number of paragraphs that's the issue. – iridescent 17:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sirens are similar in appearance, and likely to depict the same model in three different poses." - I get the feeling "to" should be dropped
    • Fixed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfixed—in American English, "likely" is both an adjective ("it is likely to depict") and an adverb ("it likely depicts"), but in British English it's only an adjective. The Cambridge University Press explanation of the difference is here if you want a source. – iridescent 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • To a NAmEng speaker, the adverb reading (in this wording) would be the default, and so it'll come off on first reading as a "error", and thus prey to "correction". You could avoid this by wording it "and are likely to depict", or by recasting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do feel the need to point out at this point that I am a NAmEng speaker... Per Eric Corbett's suggestion, I've changed it to "probably depicts", which AFAIK is universal. – iridescent 17:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • market for very large paintings, and encouraged Etty to work on large canvasses. - can we avoid the repetition of large
    • I thought so, too, when I was copyediting, but was unsatisfied with my attempted fixes. I've taken another stab at it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ulysses encountering the Sirens, a scene from the Odyssey in which the hero Ulysses (Odysseus in the original Greek) - avoid repeating his name?
    • I can't see an obvious way to avoid it, without making it sound like "Ulysses" and "the hero Odysseus" are two different people. Even "hero" without further explanation is cutting it fine, since there's a vocal school of thought among classicists that Odysseus is actually the villain of the story. (Explanation at Odysseus#"Cruel Odysseus", should anyone care.) – iridescent 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leonard Robinson (2007) and Richard Green (2011) - year's not really that pertinent here. I'd leave these for the ref
    • In this particular case, I disagree. The dates are (slightly) significant, since Robinson was writing pre-restoration so probably wouldn't have had that good an idea of what the painting actually looked like. – iridescent 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might be worth making it a bit more explicit. The connection didn't jump out at me, and I doubt many of our readers will get it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • On reflection, I think you're right. It's not something a reader is likely to care about. – iridescent 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etty was hoping for £400 for the pair, but on being told by Grant that his firm had lost £100,000 that year offered a price of £300 for the pair - The pair / the pair
  • release it for the exhibition until Etty, and a number of influential friends, visited Manchester to beg them to release it - release it ... release it
    • Not an obvious way around this, without using an awkward phrasing like "beg them to grant permission for it to be exhibited in London". 'Release" in this context doesn't have any obvious synonym I can think of. – iridescent 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about "include it in the exhibition"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've changed one of the "release"s to "allow it to be used", which should sort it. – iridescent 17:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any critical reception since the painting was put on display again? Comments whether or not the funds used were worth it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I can find. There are a few "Painting goes back on display" type stuff in the local papers along these lines, but no national coverage and nothing obviously pro or anti. (Because the restoration was privately funded, it wouldn't have generated "why are you spending money one this when children are dying" faux-outrage in the Daily Mail, and the Manchester local papers aren't what you'd call critical—if you sent out a press release saying you were going to sacrifice a goat in Spinningfields, the Manchester Evening News would run with "Manchester Leads Way In Goat Sacrifice".) In 2014 an artist temporarily exhibited a giant crocheted breast next to it, which got some coverage in the national press [10], [11], but that seems too ephemeral to mention in the context of an article on the painting (although it would be worth mentioning the link if someone ever writes Big Booby #2). The conservation team obviously did a good enough job that the lead conservator is now doing the same for another painting, but again that doesn't seem relevant enough to this particular article to warrant including. – iridescent 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, reading the Evening News source, I agree there doesn't seem to be any critical commentary on the painting itself. I still consider local papers of some value, but in this case it doesn't matter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note: from the 20th to 25th I'll be in Purwokerto and may not have access to the internet. I'll continue reviewing when I return. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I still have my reservations on the lead size, but I can hold my peace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I'm not sure it makes sense to include the location for every citation in which the publisher includes that location (Manchester), but then not include location for PCF - would suggest just dropping location. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I semi-agree, and have removed the location fields for all citations in which the location is obvious (Manchester Evening News, Manchester Art Gallery). For the books, I think they need to remain. I wouldn't add a location for the PCF, as that would mean needing to add a location for the BBC (mentioned in the same ref), which is a political hot potato. – iridescent 17:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fine article, though I have a couple of points:
  • I did wonder what was "traditional" in "while the Sirens hold out their arms in traditional dramatic poses". I suspect the poses owe at least as much to contemporary theatre (which often included ballet) as Rubens or any other artistic predecessors.
  • "hung in the Academy's new building at Trafalgar Square (now the National Gallery)" could be rephrased - the building was built as the National Gallery, but had just started housing the RA (as paying tenants?) in one wing.
  • Presumably there were no contemporary prints? If we know that it is worth saying, both in terms of influence and money.

Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! See the GA review for a bit more on the "traditional poses". The original wording of the source is '…but as usual they are studio poses […] and also as usual Etty presents them holding out their arms in conventional "artistic" attitudes. It is very likely that Etty's work was always affected, and adversely, by his regular attendance at the Academy Life Classes where models were "set" in a traditional manner. [At the Academy] if the human figure was presented it had to be heroic, classical and "artistic"', and the wording in this article is my attempt to preserve the gist of this while avoiding the word "heroic"—it's a technically correct term, but will look very odd to casual readers. (If one doesn't know what is meant by "heroic pose", the sentence reads as "they heroically ambushed and killed passing travellers.") I've no particular doubt that Robinson is correct here—Etty was chronically insecure about his ability, and even when he was a full Royal Academician continued to take their life drawing classes. His female figures tend to be either in standard theatrical dramatic poses, or in poses directly lifted from other works.
  • I'm reluctant to go into tangential detail about the RA's location unless you feel it's really necessary—for 99.9% of readers "in London" is all they want to know. From the opening of the current National Gallery building until 1868 the RA was in the east wing and the NG in the west. (I don't think the RA paid rent to the NG; as far as I'm aware, the building was granted to both by the Government, and when it got overcrowded the RA was paid off with the choice of either Burlington House or a new building in Kensington as an enticement to move out. From the original Hansard debate, the original proposal was that the RA take over the whole of the present-day National Gallery building, and the National Gallery be sent off to Burlington House.) The only reason I mention that the RA was then in the NG building is to make it clear that despite its supposed obscenity TS&U was shown off in their spanking new building, not hidden in an outpost somewhere; once that's done we then need to explain that the RA later moved as otherwise well-intentioned people will correct "Trafalgar Square" to "Burlington House".
All I had in mind was something like "hung in the new building on Trafalgar Square then shared by the National Gallery and the Academy", avoiding the present implication that the NG was somewhere else, or didn't yet exist. It should be clear enough which new building is meant, I think, or that could maybe be clarified in a note. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see an obvious way to word it that isn't going to look very clumsy—it needs to say "it was hung in the Royal Academy section of the building which was then shared between the Royal Academy and the National Gallery, and since 1868 has been exclusively the National Gallery". How about leaving it as it stands ("…and hung in the Academy's new building at Trafalgar Square (now the National Gallery)"), but with a footnote explaining that they were two unrelated institutions which shared an building until 1868 and the whole thing is now the National Gallery? – iridescent 18:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unaware of any contemporary (or indeed modern-day) prints. Given the difficulty he had shifting the original, I'd be surprised if there were—"naked women sitting on a pile of decaying cadavers" was always going to be something of a niche market. A skim through those auction house records which are searchable doesn't show a print of it ever selling. Because it was lost so soon for so long, it vanished from popular culture to the extent that even today the print-on-demand outfits don't even list it (even the Manchester Art Gallery's own shop doesn't sell it as a print). – iridescent 17:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that a single reproductive print makes up a lot - I think you normally get a bundle of some sort. There's nothing in the 86 Etty items in the BM online catalogue, which includes many duplicates, & I think pretty firmly means no print was done of this, unlike many other Etty paintings (& showing no reluctance to reproduce nudity). Maybe one could mention that absence. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the V&A either, which has pretty much every significant print of the 19th century, which makes me virtually certain no prints exist. (It's not the nudity that people had a problem with—by 1837, anyone with an interest in art knew to avoid Etty if they had a problem with nudity—but the photorealistic corpses, which it's reasonable to assume not many people wanted on their dining-room wall, and in particular the juxtaposition of the nudes and the cadavers.) However, without a source that says "no print was made of this", I'm reluctant to mention it, since it's well over the WP:OR line to infer that because none exists, none was made. – iridescent 18:47, 27 March 2015 (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) 02:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC) [12].[reply]

1804 dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Fantastic 1804 Dollar (as it was described in the title of the landmark work by Eric P. Newman and Kenneth Bressett). Also famously lauded as the "king of American coins," the 1804 dollar is among the most famous and controversial coins in American history. Although they were dated 1804, they were actually first struck some thirty years after that date. Although it was widely believed at one time that the coins were struck in 1804, numismatists began questioning that by the late nineteenth century. In truth, they were initially created in 1834 for inclusion in diplomatic gift sets for the Sultan of Muscat and Oman and the King of Siam at the behest of a diplomat named Edmund Roberts. Two additional sets were created for officials in Cochinchina and Japan (twenty years before Matthew Perry's forced entry into that nation), but they remained ungifted due to Roberts' death in Macau. Later, clandestine restrikes were created to satisfy collector demand, and those too are very valuable today. In 1999, one example (probably the one presented to the Sultan) sold for over $4 million at auction, which was the highest price ever paid for any coin at the time. In total, fifteen specimens are known today. The contributions of Godot13 are hard to overstate, both for this article and for coins in general, as most of the images in this article as well as some of the formatting are due to his hard work. Wehwalt's assistance was also vital, both as a set of skilled eyes to look over the article and for his help in supplying sources. I believe the article meets all FA criteria, and I thank you in advance for reading, and for any comments or suggestions you might be willing to offer.-RHM22 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did some tweaking of the article. It is comprehensive, thorough, and well-written. And well-illustrated :) --Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

  • File:King Nangklao.jpg requires a US copyright tag in addition to what it has.
  • File:1804 dollar edge.jpg If this is your own graphic creation, it is a derivative work of the edge of the original coin. The copyright tag for that, no doubt the US money one should probably be included.
  • File:1804 dollar comparison.jpg should probably have a money copyright tag in addition to what it has, as well.
    Aside from those, all images are appropriately licensed. Great work!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support and image review! I've added all of the appropriate licensing templates.-RHM22 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Blockquotes shouldn't include quote marks
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria: Thanks for SR! I fixed the blockquotes, and I'm very glad you alerted me to that, because I had forgotten that they shouldn't use quotation marks. I'll also remove them from my other articles. The sources are also fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld[edit]

  • "Though dated 1804, none were struck in that year; all were minted in the 1830s or later. They were first struck for use in special proof coin sets used as diplomatic gifts during Edmund Roberts's trips to Siam and Muscat. Some silver dollars were struck " -rep of struck x 3 Years of production also the same problem " 1804 dollars were struck in 1804 was not widely accepted by numismatists until the early twentieth century.[56] Before such time, the actual year in which they were struck remained contentious among numismatists. Early on, collectors assumed that the 1804 dollars were struck " -can you find a way to reword one or two?
That's a good catch. I've reworded it to cut through that redundancy a bit. Do you think the current wording is acceptable?-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was passed down from the King of Siam " -which particular king was this? Also Siam should probably be linked if you're going to link Macau and the others,
I added the King's name, but I already have Siam linked in the first paragraph of the lede.-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specimens of pattern pieces of coin, and rare types" -why the quote, and by whom?
Hmm, I see what you mean there. The quote was by Patterson, but it's not really necessary, so I removed and paraphrased.-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • William T.R. -no gap?
  • "Newman & Bressett " -why are these historians referred to as if they're a coin company or something? I think it should be written in as "and".
I'm very glad that you noticed that. It definitely should not have been written with an ampersand, so I've corrected that. What a hideous mistake! I always judiciously correct that in other articles, but it managed to sneak into mine!-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sale prices -it would be good if you could be more specific with some of the auctions and find where they were.
I added the auction galleries, but I don't know the precise locations of the sales in most cases.-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was sold at auction for $4,140,000." -again it would be useful to know if this was at Sotherby's or whatever..
  • "More modern replicas were commonly offered as original at low prices to American soldiers on rest and recuperation leave in Thailand during the Vietnam War.[" -interesting, anything to elaborate on here?
Unfortunately, I don't have anything else to add there. I've seen fake 1804 dollar hailing from the Orient myself, but there's not a lot of good information available to me about the recent fakes. They can sometimes be had at various markets, and will often stick to a magnet.-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a more detailed description of the coins in the prose? I'd have expected a deeper description.
I think that's a good idea. I've added a description of the design to the body of the article. They utilized the Draped Bust design, but people who aren't numismatists would probably not be familiar with that.-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All good, interesting article. The sourcing is as a sound as a pound if you'll pardon the pun :-) Await your response.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for adding your two cents worth, Dr. Blofeld! I've implemented all of your suggestions, and I've also added some responses above.-RHM22 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, that's all from me. Meets all of the FA criteria, most interesting learning about its Thai connections. Good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr. B! I appreciate your thoughtful review and support.-RHM22 (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As a non-numismatist I have resisted the natural temptation to assume that the Wehwalt seal of approval says all that needs to be said, and have scrutinised the article as objectively as I can. It meets all the FA criteria, in my view. A fine piece of work – full marks! Tim riley talk 01:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim, for your support and kind words. I only wish that I had gotten to yours in time!-RHM22 (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The page meets the FA criteria, it is well-written and well-illustrated. --Carioca (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Carioca!-RHM22 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2015 (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) 02:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Deinocheirus[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) IJReid (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dinosaur which was only known from a pair of giant arms since 1965, and remained a scientific mystery until more fossils were described just last year. This setup was greatly paid off by just how bizarre the animal turned out to be; a humpbacked, duckbilled, ostrich-dinosaur... With enormous hands. Since only three specimens are known, their history is described in detail, and all important sources about the animal have been cited. Since the true nature of this dinosaur was revealed so recently, most available images only show the original pair of arms, spiced up with a few additional images created in the last few months. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The articles is pretty good, but it needs to be clarified a little bit. A few of the terms may be confusing by some peoples standards. Also, the article does not make clear whether Deinocheirus is an herbivore or a carnivore, though it implies Deinocheirus might be an herbivore. I think that that information should be added. Gug01 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for comment, could you list which terms that need clarification? And the article mentions several times that the animal was an omnivore, therefore neither. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Hypothetical_Deinocheirus.jpg: what is the basis of this image? Same with File:Map_mn_umnugobi_aimag.png, File:TarbosaurusDB.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one is based on a skeletal restoration in a 2014 scientific paper, I'll reference it in the file description. The Tarbosaurus image should be based on a skeletal restoration of that animal, but I'm not the author of the image, so cannot point to the exact publication. What do you mean about what the map is based on? FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the creator know where to put the borders? Was it based on a previously existing map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, IJReid could you take a look at adding the 2014 ref to the restoeration, then I'll see if I can find a more "official" source for map location. Perhaps even a map form a scientific paper... FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although commons doesn't seem to have any more than a single author parameter. IJReid discuss 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a much more relevant map in this free scientific paper[14], showing the location of the formation itself, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I have made some copy edits. Change any you are not happy with.
My only concern if whether or not "understorey" is canadian/british english, as the rest of the article is this. IJReid discuss
Thanks for copy edits! FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • It appears that Deinocheirus mirificus is the only species in the genus. If so, the lead should says so.
Mentioned.
  • Why is the article about the genus and not the species? The infobox gives the species binomial name, implying that this is the subject of the article.
Well, the genus only has one species so all info about the species is also about the genus and vice versa which is why monotypic genera have a genus not species article. I believe this was decided somewhere. IJReid discuss 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an old Wiki Project dinosaurs convention, but dinosaurs are also more commonly referred to by their generic names in the scientific literature, so it make sense here as well. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my ignorance, but what do the daggers in the infobox mean? Classifications not officially recognised?
It means extinct. IJReid discuss 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's currently a very slow moving discussion about those daggers: [15] In short, we don't know what to do with them. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1965, a pair of large arms, shoulder girdles, and a few other bones were first discovered" This is unclear. Presumably the point is that the genus not the bones was first discovered at that time.
Added "of a new dinosaur", as it was only declared anew genus later.
  • "Deinocheirus was an unusual ornithomimosaur, the largest of the group" I think clade would be better than group.
Reworded as well.
  • "its skull shape indicates a diet of plants, whereas fish scales and gastroliths were found" Why diet of plants whereas gastroliths? They can be for grinding rough plant matter.
Reworded.
Reworded further, gastroliths are not only used for grinding plants.
  • " have been attributed to Tarbosaurus" A bit more info would be helpful - e.g. "the predatory therapod dinosaur Tarbosaurus."
Mentioned tyrannosauridae, which should be good enough.
  • "The two other known specimens are smaller, the holotype by 6%, and the smallest by 74%" Does this mean that the smallest was an infant? (I see you say below it was sub-adult.)
Mentioned.
  • "The 2014 cladogram suggested that ornithomimosaurians diverged into two lineages in the Early Cretaceous; Deinocheiridae and Ornithomimidae." It may be my ignorance, but I do not understand this. The cladogram appears to show four divisions of the ornithomimosaurians before the Deinocheiridae/Ornithomimidae one. Also why is ornithomimosaurians not capitalised?
added "major", ornithomimosaurians is not capitalized because groups above genus rank are only capitalized when the original Linnaean name is written, such as Ornithomimosauria. IJReid discuss 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deinocheirus is thought to have been widely distributed, as specimens have been found 50 km apart." I do not understand this. Surely 50 km would be an absurdly small range for such a large animal?
For three specimens, might want to ask FunkMonk on this one. IJReid discuss 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "These new specimens suggest that Deinocheirus was widely distributed in the Nemegt Formation (Bugiin Tsav is 50 km from the holotype locality at Altan Uul III". So will add "within the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It may have competed for trees with other large herbivorous dinosaurs" Why particularly trees and not other plants? Also this comment is repeated below.
Reworded
  • The last paragraph in the article is not about Deinocheirus. I would make it a shorter introductory paragraph in the palaeocology section. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it discusses contemporaries of Deinocheirus, which is of some importance to the article. IJReid discuss 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is there to put the animal in its ecological context. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and one quibble. "This specimen became the holotype of the currently only species Deinocheirus mirificus in 1970." This is clumsy and "currently" is WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps "In 1970, this specimen became the holotype of the genus's only species, Deinocheirus mirificus." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded, but kept currently. It only takes one new discovery which could happen or may already have happened but not been described at any time to find a new species, so we cannot look into the future. IJReid discuss 02:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point, but for a similar reason 'currently' is generally prohibited - one discovery and the article is no longer correct. The usual solution is to say "as of [date]". I thought of suggesting this but it seemed a bit pedantic for the lead. Maybe it should go in. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, can you look at this? IJReid discuss 14:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded further. "Currently" is redundant, since if a new species is discovered, we will change the text to reflect this. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'm slowly going through this article looking for grammar issues, and it looks pretty good so far. One thing that stuck out to me, however, the use of millimeters and inches (in Description) for an animal that is so large. I fear there may be a disconnect for the reader with a sentence like "The only known skull, belonging to the largest specimen, measures 1,024 mm (40.3 in)". That may be how the description appears in the scientific literature, but it seems overly technical in an encyclopedia for general readers.
Should larger units be used instead? FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, at least for the larger measurements. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at this, IJReid? I'm not much of a numbers guy. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, now the smallest unit is cm. IJReid discuss 15:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite this concern, the rest of the article is looking good so far. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Deinocheirus is thought to have been widely distributed, as the only three specimens found have been 50 km (31 mi) apart." Seems like a mistake. Is there a missing "not"? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also discussed above, it is within the formation, the paper says: "These new specimens suggest that Deinocheirus was widely distributed in the Nemegt Formation (Bugiin Tsav is 50 km from the holotype locality at Altan Uul III,". FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After this edit, it's more clear what was meant. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firsfron, long time no see! Will look at these comments later when I get home. And thanks for copy edits! FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey FM! It's very good to see you! I'll do a more thorough copyedit tomorrow, but things are looking good. Keep up the good work. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I noticed, looking through the article at the images, was the large number of images of those famous huge arms. But this article has no image of the entire fossil skeleton. Are there really no free skeletal diagrams? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No photos yet apart form the skull (which we are extremely lucky to have!), since the new fossils were only described last year, in a non-free journal. We do have a couple of selfmade diagrams, but it would probably be a bit of a copyright problem if we made a skeletal diagram based entirely on another diagram... But I'm sure more free images will be available over time, and there's already extra room at the bottom of the History of discovery section. Otherwise we'll just replace some of the current images (no need for so many casts). FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, there is nothing to be done. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure something more will show up. On this note, the many arm images are not just for decoration, but also to show them from different angles, in different poses, and to show that the animal is important/famous enough to be exhibited in various museums worldwide. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next up: Some reference tightening. I tried to verify the following statement: "David Lambert supported this view [that the hands of Deinocheirus were unsuited for grasping, but could instead have been used to tear prey apart] in 1983, speculating that the claws could be used for attacking other dinosaurs of all sizes. (ref name:"lambert1983") But the page numbers given, pp. 59–227, are vast. Since the citation is for a single sentence, it is odd that the page numbers are so extensive. You will probably want to narrow down the pagination for verification purposes. No one will want to hunt around through 168 pages to locate the correct info. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will see if we can find the part of the book online (it is an old addition), otherwise it won't hurt much to just remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything, should it be removed? Or perhaps someone with Google books access could be asked to check? FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lambert is a popular writer rather than a scientist, and so his theories wouldn't hold much weight in the scientific literature anyway. I think it's safe to remove. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, didn't really add anything. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few places in Description where the prose seems highly technical. Rather than just wikilinking the terms, it would be helpful to the reader to explain what a few of the anatomical terms mean. "Each scapulocoracoid of the shoulder girdle has a length of 1.53 m (5.0 ft). Each half of the paired ceratobranchialia measure 42 cm (17 in). The shoulder-blade was long and narrow, and the deltopectoralis crest was pronounced and triangular. The humerus was relatively slender, and only slightly longer than the hand. The ulna and radius were elongate and not firmly connected to each other in a syndesmosis. [...] The furcula, an element not known from any other ornithomimosaurs, was U-shaped. The hindlimbs were relatively short, and the thigh bone was longer than the shin bone, as is common for large animals. The metatarsus was short and not arctometatarsalian, as in most other theropods. The claw bones of the feet were blunt and broad-tipped instead of tapered, unlike other theropods, but resembled the unguals of large ornithischian dinosaurs." Firsfron of Ronchester 14:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will try to fix this tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can help. Meanwhile, there's another reference I couldn't verify because the number of pages cited are extensive. The sentence reads, "This geologic formation has never been dated radiometrically, but the fauna present in the fossil record indicate it was probably deposited during the early Maastrichtian stage, at the end of the Late Cretaceous about 70 million years ago." The citation is pages 1-500, which seems like overkill for a single sentence. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Reid fixed the source. I explained some anatomical terms, but not sure what to do with the rest, as they don't really seem to have common names... FunkMonk (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All of my concerns have been handily addressed by the two nominators, the article seems quite polished, and is similar in depth and breadth to other Featured Articles on dinosaurs. Well done, gentlemen. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by karanacs Thank you! My standing with my son will go way up now that I can talk about this dino he doesn't know about yet.

Cool, and should go even further now you helped improve this article... FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

  • "of the currently only species" - I read that three times and don't understand what it is saying. Does it mean "currently the sole species"
Changed after comments above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it important to note what sizes were extrapolated from the incomplete holotype - isn't that information out of date now? If it needs to be kept, I would move it down to the history of discovery section
It is outdated, but I think the text makes that pretty clear, especially since it comes after the current estimates. "History of discovery" is mainly for fossil discoveries and its context. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if it is outdated, why does it even need to be in the article? I write a lot of history topics, and for the most part I exclude information that has since been debunked (unless it is something really well-known and needs to be explicitly mentioned as being false). Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know most of the terms in the second paragraph of description, except for ulna, radius, and humerus, which were the only ones defined. Would it be difficult to summarize the other linked terms in 2-3 words? Or to find an image that labelled all of those?
I assume you mean words like Scapulocoracoid, ceratobranchial, and metacarpus? To be honest, I don't know of any common terms to explain these. Perhaps we could add such terms (with pointers) to the diagram under classification (which also mentions several anatomical terms), IJReid? Like this image:[16] Perhaps also add such to the "sail" diagram. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added, under a new name so that the other can remain as multilingual. I haven't been able to find any sources yet for where the ceratobranchial or furcula would be, but will add them when I find some. The sail diagram will come next as the terms for it are more complex. Do you know how to add a straight line in photoshop FunkMonk? IJReid discuss 00:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, yeah, there are varous ways to do it. First, if you hold down shift while drawing, your lines get straight. Then there's also something called the "line tool", which you pick by right clicking on the button that has the rectangle tool and other tools. These two are probably the most obvious ones. I preferred the old image though, without the black and grey spots... FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image you've added to the article is very helpful!!! The only problem is its location. It's way down the page after the scary terms. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Placed the images a bit differently, which also made room for a photo of the Okavango Delta under palaeoecology. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any development on the captions, Reid? FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Labelled the vertebrae diagram, I presume that is what you mean by captions. IJReid discuss 13:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Did you figure out the straight lines? May be a bit puzzling without them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Straight lines are done, are they a bit too numerous? IJReid discuss 14:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the amount is ok, IJReid, you could just move the text and lines a bit away form the drawing so they don't touch/overlap it? FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2012 in paleontology is linked, but 2013 is not. Both years are mentioned in the context of announcing new specimens, so link both or neither
Removed, except for in the taxobox. Seems a bit much for every year. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually know what a gastrolith is because my kid makes me read so many books on dinosaurs, but I have a feeling most readers won't understand that. Another sentence in that paragraphy, explaining what they ae/what they are used for, would help.
Added (stomach stones). The text currently says "supports the theory that these gastroliths helped the toothless animals in grinding their food", isn't that enough for explanation? FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what facultative herbivory means
Added (optional). FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing keeping me from supporting right now is the outdated estimates on the creature's size. If there's consensus that the info needs to remain, I can be swayed to strike that. Gug01, Dudley Miles, Firsfron of Ronchester, would you mind weighing in on that with your opinion? Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the thing is, we have "outdated" info under classification and diet as well (while clearly explaining these are not the current theories), and it is important to note these issues, and in the context they belong (not in the history sections, which are about circumstantial issues, such as fossil discoveries themselves). This is also how it's done in other dinosaur FAs. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, Karanacs, but I think the outdated size estimates are useful, here, as a background to the history of scientific knowledge of the animal. It would be less comprehensive without that info, in my opinion. It's possible that the outdated info could be moved into its own section, as an alternative. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Casliber (GA reviewer) would like to weigh in as well. I'll come clean and say I'm firmly against removing the info, and don't think it should be moved to another section, away from its proper context, per other dinosaur/palaeontology FAC precedents. I don't think anyone is mislead, since it is clearly explained as outdated. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer they were left in too. Part of the fascination and interest with paleontology is the estimates scientists have to make from fragmentary remains, both of dimensions and characteristics, and this critter has been interesting WRT the speculation regarding these - it is an integral part of teh story. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I as well firmly believe that this info should be kept. Interested users should be able to know how close or far off scientists were with estimating the size and weight of Deinocheirus and how it compares with the data now that almost the entire skeleton is known. IJReid discuss 22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any further observations on this, Karanacs? It is probably good to take a look at other dinosaur FACs as precedents. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, I forgot to come back last week. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as well! IJReid discuss 14:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN14 returns 404 error
Removed ref and info until another link can be found. IJReid discuss 17:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the contact website for hiring the exhibit that features the holotype arms, so though it is a pretty low quality website, it is the only source that provides the relevant information, remember archive.com can always be used when a link dies. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very broad page ranges - in some instances in the order of hundreds of pages - are not useful for verification purposes. Can we include more specific pagination?
Done.
Removed
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Might want to ping FunkMonk. IJReid discuss 17:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was the first website to publish photos of the finds. It is some sort of "official" Mongolian website. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Scientist should be italicized
Done. IJReid discuss 17:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN18, 28: edition is not part of the title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. IJReid discuss 18:03, 20 March 2015 (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) 02:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]

M-theory[edit]

Nominator(s): Polytope24 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M-theory is the remarkable physical theory in eleven dimensions whose existence was conjectured by Edward Witten in 1995. Witten's discovery ignited the second superstring revolution and led to a number of important developments in theoretical physics and pure mathematics. This year is the 20th anniversary of Witten's announcement, so I thought it would be cool to bring this article to featured status. Polytope24 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Roughly speaking, bosons are the constituents of radiation, while fermions are the constituents of matter.

I associate bosons more with mediating forces than radiation.

  • Such objects had been considered as early as 1962 by Paul Dirac, and they were reconsidered by a small but enthusiastic group of physicists in the 1980s.

A reference to a Dirac publication would be nice.

  • Branes are dynamical objects which can propagate through spacetime according to the rules of quantum mechanics. They have mass and can have other attributes such as charge.

Do all branes have mass?

  • There is a small amount of inline LaTeX. As always, it looks awful AWFUL when using PNG rendering on a large screen.

Suggestion: Use the math templates like in xy ≠ yx and 1/g or 1⁄g.

YohanN7 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, YohanN7. I just finished making changes to the article. Please let me know if I have adequately addressed your concerns. Polytope24 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every single one. I'll actually read that Dirac paper. His papers are usually very clearly presented. YohanN7 (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was early on in favor, but undecided because I cannot really trust my extremely limited knowledge in string theory (cursory acquaintance with the first few chapters of Zweibach) and wanted to await comments from people with a more firm knowledge. Nice article. YohanN7 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Polytope24 (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my issues have been dealt with, I hope my comments are ultimately useful to the audience. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help! Polytope24 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: To start with, I'm actually surprised how well this article is put together. I especially like the lede's summation of the theory's (theories) applicability to math vs. physics, which is often overlooked in more glowing articles (well, in the past at least, perhaps the bloom is off the rose). Most of the wiki's math articles are absolutely atrocious collections of jargon, but this one is presented in easily readable prose with actual explanations. Most of what follows is minor, but there is one big issue I'd like to see addressed, lacking which I think the article is incomplete and inherently misleading. So, onward...

*Notes

This section mixes notes and citations. I'd strongly recommend removing the notes, like item 1, should be in their own section. If you're OK with that, I can quickly implement that with efn if you'd like.

*"In everyday life, there are three familiar dimensions of space (up/down, left/right, and forward/backward), and there is one dimension of time (later/earlier). Thus, in the language of modern physics, one says that spacetime is four-dimensional."

I don't think it's reasonable to state that 4d spacetime is a part of "everyday life". More broadly, I think it's worth another couple of sentences in this para to explain where 4d "is". Conceptually, GR is quite simple (IMHO) and I think we should make an attempt to explain that here, otherwise what follows is sort of floating about on it's own. Perhaps something along the lines of...
In everyday life we are familiar with the three dimensions of space, up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. In physics, however, general relativity introduces the concept that time itself is a similar dimension, giving rise to the modern concept of spacetime, a four-dimensional universe. We do not directly observe the 4th dimension in the same way we do the other three, we do not see it as a physical construct. Many everyday effects, like gravity, are a side-effect of this unseen "direction"; under general relativity, you are held to the surface of the Earth not because something is pulling you down, but because that is the shortest distance between today and tomorrow in a direction you cannot see.
I apologize for the prose of that last sentence, but you get where I'm going here. Some explanation of the geometric basis for gravity seems appropriate at this spot.
I have slightly expanded the edit you made here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*"Despite the obvious relevance of four-dimensional spacetime for describing the physical world"

Again, I don't consider this "obvious". Perhaps something discussing the success of these theories, as opposed to their obviousness, would be more appropriate here.

*"History and development"

Here's where I see an actual problem. Higher-dimensional solutions to physics have been around since GR. It was not long after that we had Kaluza–Klein theory and Einstein's own efforts. I consider these to be the forerunners of M-theory in every fashion. That they failed in their quest is not surprising given the difficulty of applying GR generally, and it is equally unsurprising that supergravity became "a thing" shortly after the golden age of GR began. I really think that this article should mention the development of the precursors, and the "battle" between these and QM's development through the same era. In that historical context, attempts to "dimensionize" physics were failures, QM was offering more progress and those other efforts dropped by the wayside. They briefly re-emerged in the 70s, and I think the article does a fine job from that point on.
I think this is a serious problem. In this historiography, M theory is the latest salvo in a 100-year battle between the two great physics. It's the way it potentially sits above either that makes it such a hot topic. Currently the article doesn't talk this at all, and I think that is a serious oversight.

That's all I have for now, I'm about 2/3rds through it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maury, thanks for these comments. I actually think all of these points are fairly easy to address, including the issue with the history section. I'll start working on it as soon as possible. In the mean time, if you want to make changes to the notes/citations, you're certainly welcome to do that. Polytope24 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Polytope24, check out my User:Maury Markowitz/sandbox and see if you think that would be a useful first section in the history area. I wrote it to lead directly into the existing section. If you like it, I can ref it up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these suggestions. I just added a short subsection explaining the prehistory of higher dimensional models of spacetime and Kaluza-Klein theory. This is all based on the material you posted in your sandbox, but I changed a bunch of things in order to ensure that writing was accurately reflected in the citations.
I also decided to leave out the parts explaining Newton's laws and the history of general relativity. The purpose of of this section is to give a concise history of M-theory, not to explain the whole history of physics starting with the work of Newton. On the other hand, I am sympathetic to your concern that the article did not sufficiently emphasize the prehistory of the subject and the role of Kaluza-Klein theory. Hopefully the changes I've made will address your concerns. If not, please let me know, and we can talk about it.
You'll also notice that I added a few sentences elaborating on the notion of four-dimensional spacetime. This should help emphasize the point you've been making, namely that the idea of extra dimensions was implicit in a lot of the thinking leading up to the discovery of M-theory.
Please let me know if there's anything else I need to change. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work! My only remaining suggestion in the history section is to mention the 1960s rebirth of GR as a leadup to supergravity. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a sentence on this. Please let me know if that's what you wanted. Polytope24 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the sentence into the appropriate section, expanded it slightly and cited it. I extracted notes into a separate section, and re-sectionized the references. See what you think. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I made a few changes to maintain a consistent citation style. Polytope24 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the issues above have been dealt with. I just finished the section on AdS/CFT correspondence and think I actually understand it now. This is precisely the sort of clear explanation that many of the math and science articles lack, and I'm calling it out for attention on how to do this right. Ok, just a few more...

*"One property of this boundary is that, locally around any point,"

So does this mean "at any arbitrary point on the boundary"? I'm a bit confused about this passage. Do we live in the middle of the disk, or on it's edge?

*"(2,0)-theory"

I can't find an explanation of what "(2,0)" means, either here or the linked article. The 6D is explained, as is AsD7, but not this term. Maybe a return directly after this to separate the para and then a single sentence on this?

*A couple of cites need buffing, Randall, Wald and Zee have harv tags with nothing pointing to them. Would you like me to fix these? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some very subtle changes in the section on AdS/CFT to emphasize that "locally around a point" refers to a region restricted to the boundary surface, and not intersecting the interior at all. The point of the AdS/CFT correspondence is that you have two separate theories. For one of them, "spacetime" is the bulk anti-de Sitter space, and for the other, it's the two-dimensional surface at the boundary. Please let me know if the revised version is more understandable.
I also added a sentence explaining the meaning of (2,0). This is a pretty technical bit of jargon that's not really relevant for understanding what this theory is all about, so I mentioned only very briefly.
Finally, I went ahead and removed those harv tags. They were originally being used to create citations within the explanatory footnotes. However, I was bothered by the fact that these citations showed up as hyperlinks and none of the others did. I also didn't like the idea of having footnotes within footnotes. Feel free to make further changes to the references if you like. Polytope24 (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm coming in late to this, but I would like to remind editors that WikiProject Mathematics strongly discourages use of {{frac}} in mathematical formulas. I see that hasn't been done. I would not be at all surprised if {{math|{{frac|1|''g''}}}} would fail at some point. I did make one change, which I hope meets with approval. I changed {{math}}10<sup>-30</sup>}} to {{nowrap|10<sup>−30</sup>}}, changing "math" no "nowrap" and changing the hyphen to a mathematical minus. I don't think wrapping numbers, by themselves, in {{math}}, serves any purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Arthur Rubin. I don't know much about typesetting math on Wikipedia, so I appreciate your help with this. Do you have any recommendations for typesetting fractions? Polytope24 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{{math|{{sfrac|1|''g''}}}} 1/g is considered acceptable, but formulas involving complex fractions have many of the same problems using <math>...</math> and {{math}}. {{frac|1|2|3}} (1+2⁄3) uses superscript and subscript and thinspaces to simulate pre-computer typesetter's fraction notation; there is a version of that in LaTeX, but it's (wisely) not available within our math tags. I used to have a template {{tfrac}} which used the same parameters as {{frac}} and {{sfrac}}, but just used the inline version (with, I think, some thin spaces). It was deleted as unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just learned about {{frac}} and have been going through my articles looking for places to use it. {{frac}} is my new god. And they don't like it? <moviesound>Noooooooo!</moviesound> Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

My knowledge of the topic is that of an interested layman with a maths background, so some of these questions may reveal my ignorance more than they point up issues in the article.

  • "One of the vibrational states of a string gives rise to the graviton": I don't think you say clearly that there is only one type of string, which may have different vibrational states, and that these states correspond to the various fundamental particles -- that is, that there are no particles left over by this approach. For a reader unfamiliar with the topic I think this would be worth stating directly. Perhaps even enumerate a couple more well-known particles beyond the graviton to make it clearer this approach models all particles.
  • "the type I theory includes ..., while the type II theories include ...": why singular "theory" for "type I" but plural for type II?
    D'oh. I see you fixed this, but I just realized the answer, and it really didn't need to be changed. Oh, well, it works the way you have it now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that this needs to be in the article, but I found myself wondering to what extent the dualities are transitive. The description you give: "If two theories are related by a duality, it means that one theory can be transformed in some way so that it ends up looking just like the other theory" is pretty strong; wouldn't that imply that all five of these theories can be transformed into any of the others?
    I'll reply to this below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused by the appearance of M-theory in the duality diagram. It's been described up to this point as a superset of all the string theories; the five named theories are limit points of it. So in what sense can it be specified to the point where it is dual to some of the five theories but not others?
    I'll reply to this below too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give two (apparently) different informal characterizations of "supergravity theory". In the supersymmetry section you say a theory in which supersymmetry is imposed as a local symmetry is a supergravity theory; later you say "fresh work on higher-dimensional concepts combining general relativity with recent developments in particle physics, under the general name supergravity". Are these slightly different informal terms for the same underlying theories, or was the term used slightly differently in the 1960s?
  • In a couple of places you have "work of" rather than "the work of"; if you don't want to use "the" I think "work by" would read more naturally.
  • "One of the problems was that the laws of physics appear to distinguish between clockwise and counterclockwise, a phenomenon known as chirality. As emphasized by Edward Witten and others, this chirality property cannot be readily derived by compactifying from eleven dimensions." The start of the second sentence seems a bit clumsy to me. How about "...a phenomenon known as chirality: Edward Witten and others have emphasized that this chirality property cannot be readily derived by compactifying from eleven dimensions"?
  • "Indeed, by the 1990s, physicists had identified five consistent supersymmetric versions of the theory": does this mean they'd identified five, and there are possibly more still to be identified? I'm not clear what "indeed" is adding here.
    The change you made is an improvement, but I'm still not quite clear if the implication is that there were exactly five to be found, and they were found; or if five had been found by the 1990s, with possibly more remaining to be discovered. The use of "determined" makes the former seem likely but I wanted to check. In the context of the rest of the article it seems as though there should in fact be many more theories, inside the grey "M-theory" shape in the schematic diagram, but perhaps only five of them qualify as purely supersymmetric theories, with only ten dimensions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The general belief is that there are exactly five supersymmetric string theories in ten dimensions, but I'm not comfortable writing this in the article. An expert on perturbative string theory could probably give you arguments why this is the case, but the statement that there are only five string theories is not a theorem. It's certainly possible that theorists will eventually discover a new string theory; see here, for example. Let me know if you think there's a better way to express this state of affairs in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we just weaken "determined" to something like "identified" it will fix the issue -- "identified" would be neutral about whether there are five or more than five theories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. I just noticed that that's the exact word you originally had, and when I first read it I took it as not neutral. Sorry for being so unhelpful on this one; let me think about it and see if I can come up with a phrase that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the article has "In string theory, the possibilities are much more constrained, and there are only a few consistent formulations of the theory. By the 1990s, physicists had determined that there were five consistent supersymmetric versions of the theory." Could we say something like "In string theory, the possibilities are much more constrained: by the 1990s, physicists had identified five consistent supersymmetric versions of the theory, and it is possible that there are no more to be found"? That would let the reader know that it isn't definitely the case that there are only five. The phrase I cut seems redundant with the second half of the sentence, which makes it clear by example that there are only a few consistent formulations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to explicitly mention the possibility of a new string theory. That would give undue weight to a very speculative possibility. Take a look at my edit to the article and let me know what you think. Polytope24 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ashoke Sen studied the heterotic theory compactified down to four dimensions": should this be "theories" rather than "theory", since there are two heterotic theories?
    Your change addresses my concern, but now I wonder why this is here. Presumably his work was significant, but you don't actually say so -- I imagine he's not the only theorist who has studied heterotic strings in four dimensions. Can we say why his work is worth mentioning? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This should be fixed now. Polytope24 (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Relationships between string theories" is written as if no mention of the two dualities had been made earlier in the article. I think the level of detail is about right, but I think it would read more naturally to acknowledge the fact that these have already been mentioned and diagrammed and the reader can be presumed to recall some of that information. Alternatively, you might be able to move the information on dualities (and probably also on branes) down to the subsection of the history and development section where those concepts come up. I think either approach can work.
  • "These calculations led them to conjecture that the BFSS matrix model is exactly equivalent to M-theory. It can therefore be used to describe M-theory and investigate its properties in a relatively simple setting": assuming that their conjecture is not yet proven, would it be more accurate to say "It might therefore be used"? As it stands the sentence makes it seem that the usefulness is not contingent on the truth of the conjecture.
    Sorry, the change you made doesn't really address what I was trying to say. The last sentence starts "It can therefore be used", which is unconditional. Is the BFSS matrix model now known to be exactly equivalent to M-theory, as proposed? Or is the equivalence still conjectural? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with saying that matrix theory is equivalent to M-theory is that the latter isn't really well defined. The very existence of M-theory is a conjecture, whereas matrix theory is a well defined construction that theorists can study mathematically. Therefore it doesn't really make precise sense to "conjecture" an equivalence.
Instead, what's going on here is the following. The BFSS paper showed that matrix theory has certain properties that are expected to hold in any correct formulation of M-theory. It therefore proposed matrix theory as a possible definition of M-theory, and this proposal now has wide support. It is in this sense that matrix theory may be used to investigate the properties of M-theory.
I realize that this is potentially a very confusing issue, so I went ahead and changed the language in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; that's much clearer and answers the question I had. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1999, Nathan Seiberg and Edward Witten described further relations between string theory and noncommutative geometry": this is quite a bland statement. No doubt the technical details wouldn't be helpful but is the point here that their work tightened or strengthened the links mentioned in the previous sentence? If so, perhaps we could say that.
  • Is there a possible link target for AdS7×S4?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Mike Christie. You've asked a couple of really excellent questions that I'm not sure how to address within the article. I'll try to explain the answers here, and perhaps you can recommend changes to the article that would clarify things.
I found myself wondering to what extent the dualities are transitive… wouldn't that imply that all five of these theories can be transformed into any of the others?
That is correct. A duality, by definition, is an exact (and very nontrivial) equivalence of two physical theories. The conjecture is that all of the five superstring theories are equivalent by these dualities and in addition that they are all equivalent to M-theory in eleven dimensions. In certain contexts, it may be useful to work in one theory or another, but in principle it should be possible to map any calculation in one theory to an equivalent calculation in any of the other theories.
It's been described up to this point as a superset of all the string theories; the five named theories are limit points of it. So in what sense can it be specified to the point where it is dual to some of the five theories but not others?
M-theory is meant to describe some physical phenomena in eleven dimensions. If you take one of the dimensions to be shaped like a circle, the physics is still that of M-theory: two- and five-dimensional branes. If you take the circle to be very small, then there's an alternative description of the physics in terms of type IIA strings in ten-dimensions, but fundamentally we're talking about the same physics as before, so these theories must be equivalent. Since we're talking about a very special physical regime in which spacetime has a very special geometry, we label this theory at one of the cusps in the M-theory diagram. Polytope24 (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds as though the grey area in the M-theory schematic diagram in the article could be regarded as a parameter space, and the five superstring theories represent different points in that parameter space. Is that more or less right? Then the dualities are equivalence relations within the parameter space. So are there multiple equivalence classes within M-theory? Or are all possible "parameterizations" (if that's the word I'm looking for) of M-theory essentially equivalent? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The gray region in the diagram is similar to a parameter space. The different points represent different physical situations that are possible in M-theory. In certain parts of the diagram, it is natural to describe the physics in terms of one of the five string theories, but the relationship between M-theory and these five string theories is valid more generally. In principle, you could consider a physical scenario corresponding to any point in the diagram and describe it in any of the string theories. Polytope24 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful; thanks. I don't think that that's stated as clearly in the article as you just put it; perhaps something to that effect could be added? I think that might be enough to resolve my concern, but I'm finding it difficult to articulate exactly what my concern is. I'd like to sleep on it and take another look at the article tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear how the dualities diagram can work with the description of M-theory you give. Perhaps the right question is: if any point in the diagram can be described, in principle, in any of the five theories, why does the diagram show only two of the five with a duality connecting them to M-theory? To put it another way: the duality between Type I and SO (32) heterotic connects two different points on the gray shape; the duality "converts" one point into the other. For the duality between Type IIA and M-theory, what is the other point -- the non-Type IIA point? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're asking two questions here, so let me answer them separately.
why does the diagram show only two of the five with a duality connecting them to M-theory?
As you pointed out in an earlier comment, these dualities are transitive, so we can compose them to get a duality of any of the five string theories with M-theory. The diagram of string dualities has the lines color coded to indicate which ones are S-duality and which ones are T-duality. However, if we compose an S-duality with a T-duality, the result will not be of either type; it'll be a combination of the two. That's why there are only two lines in the diagram connecting M-theory to the string theories.
For the duality between Type IIA and M-theory, what is the other point -- the non-Type IIA point?
Let's say we're at some point in the diagram near the cusp labelled IIA. Then we're describing a physical system consisting of strings interacting in ten dimensions. If we deform the situation by slowly moving this point away from the cusp, then the strings will start to interact more strongly. If we keep moving the point, we'll eventually end up somewhere in the bulk of the diagram. The strings are now interacting very strongly, and type IIA string theory ceases to provide a useful description of the physics because we don't know how to do calculations in this regime. It is therefore more natural to switch to a different description where we're talking about M-theory in an eleven-dimensional world in which one of the dimensions looks like a circle of finite size.
Conversely, suppose we start at a point in the center of the diagram corresponding to an eleven dimensional world with one dimension shaped like a circle. If we slowly move this point in the diagram, bringing it closer and closer to the cusp labeled IIA, then the circular dimension begins to shrink. It gets smaller and smaller as we approach the cusp, and eventually, when it's sufficiently small, the corresponding description in type IIA string theory becomes mathematically tractable. It's then convenient to view the system as a collection of weakly interacting strings in ten-dimensions.
One can play a similar game with the theories labeled at the boundary of the diagram. For example, we can choose a point near the type I cusp. The corresponding physical system has a nice description as a system of open and closed strings in ten dimensions. We can deform the situation by dragging this point along a path connecting the type I and SO(32) heterotic cusps. As we move along this path, the strings interact more strongly. Eventually, the description becomes intractable, so we apply S-duality to view the system as a collection of weakly interacting heterotic strings.
Note that at any point in the diagram, we can apply dualities to describe the physics using the M-theory description or any of the five string theory descriptions. These are all equivalent, but in a particular part of the diagram, it may be convenient to use one description rather than another. Polytope24 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That answers my question; I think I now understand this as well as I'm going to, and I can see why the diagrams are the way they are. Could we add a couple of sentences, near to one or the other of the two diagrams, that explain this? Your last paragraph above is very concise and seems to me to summarize the situation very well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what was confusing in the article. I've expanded both of the captions to make things more understandable. Polytope24 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thanks for sticking with me through these questions; I think that really helps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a bunch of changes to the article to address your other points. Let me know what you think. Polytope24 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most and responded to a couple above; feel free to reply indented at the appropriate points in my bullet list -- sometimes that's easier to follow. I'll try to come up with sensible answers to your first two replies in a moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. This seems to me to strike the right balance between technical and simplistic. The prose is clear and the article is well-organized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help, Mike Christie! You've given some very thoughtful comments, and I think it's helped clarify some very subtle points in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mark viking[edit]

These comments are for the scientific content of the article. I don't feel particularly qualified to judge the more generic FA criteria, but I will say that I don't see any glaring deficits relative to FA criteria. I'm a physicist who is familiar with the basics of string theory, but who has not worked in the field.

Overall, this article looks great. I had a hard time providing constructive criticism, because it all seems well-written and explains most concepts about as simply as possible.

Here is one seeming omission:

  1. There is no mention of , e.g., brane cosmology in the article. Are there no cosmological predictions from M-theory? This article by Tom Banks suggests there might be some general predictions.

Here are some minor points:

  1. In this article supergravity is called a gravitational theory in the lead. In the supergravity article, it is called a field theory. I tend to think of it more as a field theory, but reasonable people can disagree.
  2. In the quantum gravity and strings introductory section, the last sentence on the second para says "One of the vibrational states of a string gives rise to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that mediates gravitational interactions." Mediates gravitational interactions is a grad-level physics expression; maybe something like provides the gravitational force.
  3. First para of the dualities section: what "strongly vs weakly interacting" means is not provided. In physics it has to do with the applicability of perturbation theory, or perhaps the energy of the interacting field relative to the particles. One might just gloss over those technical points and say it refers to the relative strength of the forces between particles.
  4. Calling ABJM superconformal field theory a main article (in the ABJM superconformal field theory section) is a stretch, as the paragraph in this article provides more detail than said article. Probably better just to link to it, rather than call it a main article.
  5. Noncommutative quantum field theory is linked to as a main article in the Noncommutative geometry section, but field theory isn't really mentioned in the prose of that section.

--Mark viking (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments as usual, Mark viking! I made changes to the article to address each of your points. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be changed. Polytope24 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my comments have been addressed. The additional short paragraph on brane cosmology looks good and IMO is of due weight relative to the whole topic. Hence, I support this article for feature article status. Excellent work, Polytope24! --Mark viking (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Maky[edit]

  • I'm really concerned about the image used in {{String theory}}, File:Calabi-Yau-alternate.png. First of all, because the image itself is linked, it's very difficult for the average reader to find out copyright details for the image. I had to edit the template code to even find the name of the image. To me, that's a problem. Secondly—and most importantly—I don't think the source (and details about it from the description) are correct. It claims to be from the cover of the November 2007 issue of Scientific American. Not only does the image not appear on the cover of that issue (or any other back to at least 1997), but there are no articles in that issue pertaining to string theory. Furthermore, Scientific American copyrights all of its graphics, per its terms of use. In short, this image may need to go. And even if it can stay, it would be best to convert it into an SVG file.
I know this is an archive of a long-ago conversation, but I do want to make several important clarifications.
Yes, the File:Calabi-Yau-alternate.png did in fact appear on the cover of the November 2007 issue of Scientific American. The link above even shows as much. It's in the upper right-hand corner. I sent a letter to the editor about it because it was used without attribution. The editor wrote a kind letter back acknowledging the use, and a correction was printed a couple of months later.
If anyone is interested in having an SVG version of the image, I believe I still have the code I used to generate the image. However, it was over 10 years ago now, and would take some time and effort to dig up.
Thanks, Lunch (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please fix up the description and source of File:Compactification on a circle.png. The description should describe the contents of the image, and the source should point back to the SVG from which it is derived. On Commons, a good template for this is "Derived from". Also, a source for the original visualization is needed.
  • File:Dualities of string and M-theory.jpg (and most other images in this article) should be recreated in SVG format. (Inkscape is a good open source software package for doing this.) Also, a source for the content should be provided.
  • File:MichaelDuff.JPG is flagged to be moved to Commons. Issues like these need to be resolved before bringing the article to FAC. Also, the image should probably be cropped.
  • File:Limits of M-theory.png, File:AdS3 (new).png, etc... Again, source for this visualization? And wouldn't SVG be a better format?
  • File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png has not been reviewed since being moved to Commons, and probably should be converted to SVG. And once again, what's the source for this visualization?
  • File:Knot table-blank unknot.svg could use a description similar to its source and better referencing.
  • File:Calabi yau.jpg is flagged as needing to be converted to SVG.

Oppose – It's clear that the images and their licensing have not been given anything more than a cursory glance, even at GAN. Many issues need to be resolved here. – Maky « talk » 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image audit. Regarding your first point, I agree that there are problems here. There is a picture of a Calabi-Yau manifold on the cover of the November 2003 SciAm, but it is not the same as this one. The image is an alternate of File:Calabi yau.jpg and in the description of that image, it says the image was generated by Lunch, based on algorithms created by A. J. Hanson. Looking at Hanson's website, there is an image that looks a lot like this image here and similar software was used to generate the SciAm image, probably the source of the confusion. The algorithms were based on this paper. We could fix the description of File:Calabi-Yau-alternate.png to reflect that of File:Calabi yau.jpg--is that the sort of thing you are looking for? Regarding PNG to SVG, Lunch has not edited since 2011, so source code is unavailable. Conversion using autotracers such as potrace, etc., are unlikely to produce better looking results. What do you suggest? --Mark viking (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maky, I appreciate your comments here, but there are some things I don't understand.
1. I fixed the description of File:Compactification on a circle.png. You say that a source for the original image is needed, but I see that the source is already given as "own work". Is this a problem?
2. Would it be okay if I simply uploaded a new cropped version of File:MichaelDuff.JPG to commons even though the current version is flagged?
3. For File:Limits of M-theory.png and File:AdS3 (new).png, the source field says "own work". What should I change this to?
4. How can I get File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png reviewed? And again, why is "own work" not an acceptable source?
5. I modified the description of File:Knot table-blank unknot.svg by copying a bunch of links from the description of the source image. Is this what you wanted?
6. In general, why is there such a strong preference for SVG format?
Thanks for your help. Polytope24 (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark viking: Yes, the description fixes you hinted at should suffice. I suggest making sure all related images are cleaned up so there is no confusion in the future. Regarding an SVG conversion, it is not required for an image this complex, but you could request help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab.
@Polytope24: For files like File:Limits of M-theory.png and File:AdS3 (new).png, where did this sort of visualization come from? For the types of articles I write, I create range maps for species by highlighting where they are found on a map. I can't just create a map and say "Own work" and leave it at that. People want to know where I got my data, or in other types of illustrations, where I got the inspiration and data for the illustration. And the reference doesn't have to be in the "Source" per se—as long as the description notes what it's based on. (Here are two examples: [18] & [19]) For files like File:Compactification on a circle.png, it's a little trickier. If this illustration was inspired by similar illustrations in the literature, it's worth citing those. But if no one else has made similar illustrations, then "Own work" would probably suffice. I'm open to second opinions on this. As for File:MichaelDuff.JPG, I'd just move it to Commons and then crop it there (replacing the original, but keeping it in the history). For File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png, click the links in the box about reviewing and do it yourself. "Own work" might be fine in this case, but consider what I said above. File:Knot table-blank unknot.svg looks good now. As for SVG, for geometric shapes, it is much more scalable because it is a vector graphic format. As I've learned, the way MediaWiki downsamples PNG, it makes JPEG better for articles, and JPEG (as a raster graphic format) losses quality with scaling. Again, Wikipedia:Graphics Lab can help if you don't know how to create SVG files. – Maky « talk » 08:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I wanted to let everyone know that my computer/internet access is somewhat limited over the next few days. I'll definitely be able to fix some of these issues this weekend, but in the mean time, please feel free to edit the images in the article.
As for the Calabi-Yau image in the string theory template, why don't we just replace it with this one? Polytope24 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Maky, everything should now be taken care of, except for File:Compactification on a circle.png, which you have kindly offered to replace. I think the conversion to SVG format has slightly compromised the quality of some of the images, especially those with text. If this is a problem, please let me know and I'll switch them back to their original formats. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this stuff. I've just recreated a bunch of your SVG files as true vector graphics (not just SVGs with embedded raster graphics). Let me know what you think. Unfortunately, all this image work means that someone else will have to do the image review as I am now too involved in the article's image content. Regardless, I will try to find time within the next day to review and strike any comments that have been resolved. – Maky « talk » 10:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your hard work, Maky! I'm sorry if I was unhelpful in addressing these issues; you obviously know much more about images than I do. I'll try to find someone to complete the image review. In the mean time, are you still opposed to seeing the article promoted to featured status? Polytope24 (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing the changes, at this point I would still have to oppose. Though things have come a long, long way, there are still lingering issues. I just made a bunch of fixes for you on Commons. In regards to File:MichaelDuff.jpg, I advised that you follow the steps at WP:MTC, yet you simply cropped the existing image and uploaded it to Commons. I'm not an admin on Commons, so I can't really help fix it. Maybe it's fine, but that will take a second opinion. I feel you should have followed the proper procedure and then cropped the image after it had been moved. I think I've managed to fix most of the other images with sources and formatting (if you hadn't), but File:Knot table-blank unknot.svg still lacks source information. As for File:Calabi yau formatted.svg, I believe this SVG is sufficient, but I'm not skilled enough to judge it. On a positive note, the article's images are much, much closer to being appropriate for a FA. – Maky « talk » 08:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maky, I'm sorry for the lingering issues. For some reason I completely overlooked your instructions on how to deal with File:MichaelDuff.jpg. As a first step to resolving the issue, I put in a request to delete the cropped image at Commons. After that request goes through (and that might take up to a week), I'll go through the process you described for moving the original file to Commons.
Honestly though, I was having some doubts about whether it was really appropriate to include the picture of Michael Duff in this article. There were many other physicists involved in the development of M-theory (most notably Ashoke Sen, Chris Hull, and Paul Townsend), and I cannot get pictures of all these people. I have therefore concluded that it's best to just remove the picture of Duff from the article. I'll still make sure the image gets properly moved to Commons, but at least now it's no longer a concern for this article.
As for File:Knot table-blank unknot.svg, I have added a reference to
Hoste, Jim; Thistlethwaite, Morwen; Weeks, Jeffrey (1998), "The First 1,701,935 Knots", Math. Intelligencer (Springer) 20 (4): 33–48
which contains a similar table and is most likely the source on which the image was based. Please let me know if this resolves your concern. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made the right choice regarding the photo of Michael Duff. With the citation you added for the last image, I think all of my concerns have been addressed. Again, I can't judge File:Calabi yau formatted.svg, and I've become too involved in the images in this article to give my support. But great work so far. In the future, please clean up and check all images in your FAC nominations, especially if the GAN reviewer didn't even give them much of a glance. As noted above, there are plenty of resources to help create and clean up illustrations, plus you now have examples of how to make the description and licensing sections look. – Maky « talk » 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help with this, Maky. Polytope24 (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding image review: An independent review of the article's images is needed. All material should be good, but as noted above, I have become too involved in the creation and clean-up of these files. – Maky « talk » 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • (head spinning) Alright, I'm not a physicist, nor anything near one, but the situation of these images looks alright. File:Calabi yau formatted.svg is fine as an SVG; we have many considerably more complex illustrations in that format. Images look okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming, Crisco! Polytope24 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I changed "the" [string theory conference at the University of Southern California in the summer of 1995] to "a", because of the shift from a specialist readership (all of whom know which conference you mean) to a general readership. (At the second mention of the conference, "the" is fine.)
  • "toy model": I don't know what that means.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. The article was surprisingly readable and engaging, given the content. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dank, for your support and for taking the time to read and comment on the article. I went ahead and translated the term "toy model" to the more familiar words "semi-realistic simplified model". Polytope24 (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I didn't spot a source review above, you can list a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in lead[edit]

Comment There are no citations in the lead. In my opinion, there should be approximately one per paragraph in this case. On the other hand, since the article is well-referenced as a whole, the lack of references in the lead may be "by design" (e.g. it may be that it is hard to fairly single out a particular reference in each particular paragraph), in which case I have no strong objection. YohanN7 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb for the body of the article is at least one citation per paragraph (assuming all the information in that para can be found in that source) but the lead generally only requires citations for quotes or for information that for whatever reason does not appear (and is therefore not sourced) in the main body. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ian. The relevant style guide is WP:CITELEAD. As a summary of the the article, the lead content usually doesn't need much sourcing. But there are exceptions. If I was to assert in the lead the BLP tidbit "M stands for Magic Marker, the preferred writing instrument of Ed Witten", that would need a a citation and reliable source. --Mark viking (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say though that the "According to Witten" statement in the lead should include a citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you noticed, but an almost identical statement appears in the body of the article, and is supported by citation 41. Let me know if you still think we need a citation in the lead. Polytope24 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice, but I feel this statement would still warrant citing under WP:LEADCITE. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Polytope24 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • First paragraphs of Background have explanatory footnotes but not citations - are they meant to be supported by the sources mentioned in those footnotes?
  • FN4: page?
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
  • Nakrasov or Nekrasov?
  • Compare FNs 55 and 56 for formatting
  • I'm a bit confused by Moore 2012 - the link seems to be a different publication than that suggested by the given bibliographic details
  • All the books except Woit do not include location - should be consistent
  • Don't repeat entries between References and Further reading or External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping out with the source review! I made a bunch of small corrections to the article to address your points. All of the information in the first few paragraphs of the Background section is supported by the sources cited in the footnotes. All of this material is well known and easy to verify, so I wanted to direct the reader to some of the standard literature on the subject. Polytope24 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ..was first conjectured by Edward Witten at a string theory conference at the University of Southern California in the spring of 1995. Is the place of conference, and that it was spring, really that important that it should be mentioned in the lead? --Siddhant (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know… It was a pretty historic event, so I thought it was best to say precisely where and when it happened. If you think this is too much information, I can take it out. Polytope24 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. It's your call. --Siddhant (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2015 (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) 14:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC) [20].[reply]

German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers controversial negotiations between the German forces in Yugoslavia and senior members of Tito's Partisans in March 1943 that went beyond prisoner swaps and drew the ire of the Comintern. It recently passed Milhist A-Class review and I consider it is very close to or meets the FA criteria. Suggestions for improvements will be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (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) 15:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "the book did not accept the mythology": I don't know what this is referring to. The same phrase is used in both the lead and the body.
  • "In August 1942, ... Tito's Yugoslav Partisans had captured a group of eight Germans": if they were captured in August 1942 I would cut "had"; if they were captured before August and the date isn't known I'd make it "By August 1942".
  • "After their capture, Ott stated that he had an important message to deliver to Partisan headquarters, and after this had been arranged he suggested to the Partisans that his group be exchanged for Partisans held by the Germans in jails in Zagreb": it's not immediately clear what "this had been arranged" refers to. I think it means something like "after he had been taken to Partisan headquarters", but I initially thought it meant "after he delivered his message", before realizing that the last part of the sentence must be the message. How about: "tt told his captors that he had an important message to deliver to Partisan headquarters, and after he had been taken there he suggested to the Partisans that his group be exchanged for Partisans held by the Germans in jails in Zagreb"?
  • "Tito was willing to exchange the eight Germans": if Otto was part of the group, and the group was eight Germans, weren't there only seven left to be exchanged once Ott was sent as messenger back to the Germans?
  • Suggest linking "SA" to Sturmabteilung.
  • "the Abwehr were considering more than prisoner exchanges": unless I'm missing it, you don't say what more they might have been considering.
  • Velebit's role is not given when he is first mentioned; you do this for nearly all the other significant figures and I think it would be good to do it here too.
  • In the list of points made by the Partisans, I think it needs to be "stated that they considered the Chetniks their main enemies", to be in agreement with the structure of the other points.
  • "the short period of respite had in fact been a trap": I don't follow -- what made it a trap? A trap implies that the Partisans did something they would not have otherwise done that put them in a weaker position, but I don't see anything like that described.
  • "These negotiations resulted in the exchange of between 600 to 800 Partisans in total": shouldn't this also mention the approximate number of German prisoners exchanged?
  • "The negotiations first came to light in 1949": I'm not clear what "came to light" means. The British knew about the contacts at the time, so does this mean the first time the information was declassified or leaked in some way? Or does it just mean that 1949 was the first time attention was focused on the negotiations, because of the book?
  • "Martovski pregovori (The March negotiations)": not sure of the MoS rules here, but shouldn't it be "Negotiations", even though it's just a translated title? You use title case for the other translated titles.
  • Quite a few books are listed at the end of the article. A "Further reading" or "Primary sources" section might be worth it.
  • It looks like you haven't consulted some of the books listed; the ones you don't list as sources seem to be either older (Clissold) or not in English. Is there any reason to think you might be missing key material not covered in the other sources?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, Mike. I believe I have addressed all your comments except the last point. I have some Serbo-Croat skills and have read several of the books in that language that are accessible. Some of the books are obviously quite old and have effectively been superseded by later ones, and some a a little suspect due to the location and time they were published, but I have no reason to believe I've missed any key material. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the points I can see are addressed; unless I'm missing something I think the others haven't been fixed. For the "trap" question, I saw the comment about the Partisans being encircled in Case Black, but I still don't understand why the negotiations could be regarded as a trap. If the Germans were using negotiations as a trap, that would imply that if it hadn't been for the negotiations they wouldn't have been able to encircle the Partisans in Case Black. If they could do that without Case Black, it could be called a blind, or a front, but not a trap, I'd think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Mike, my mistake. As far as Ott was concerned, he was sent to Zagreb "on parole" to facilitate the negotiations, but officially he was still a prisoner of the Partisans until the transfer was completed. The total number of Germans (and Italians and Croatian Home Guard troops) exchanged after the March negotiations is not recorded in any of the sources I've read. I'm going to go back over the sources on the "trap" issue and review the logic of it, as you suggest. I'll ping you when I'm done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of Germans (etc.) exchanged isn't critical; if you have it, I'd say mention it, but if it's not in the sources it's not a problem. I would just clarify to the reader that Ott was still "on parole" as you put it; that will clear up the eight vs. seven issue. Once that and the "trap" issue are cleared up I expect to support; this is a very solid article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    G'day @Mike Christie: I have added a link and material regarding Ott's "parole". I have also reviewed the sources on the negotiations, and two things are apparent. Firstly, that the "trap" idea is limited to Pavlowitch, and secondly, he does not explain its basis, making it very hard to sustain his line of argument. I have therefore removed it, as a perspective too WP:FRINGEY for a FA. I hope that clears it up. Thank you for your review, you have been very thorough, especially with the theoretical aspects, and while my source review indicates I have got the balance right in every respect but this, the "trap" idea really did not have the legs it appeared to have when I included it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- recusing from coord duties:

  • Prose is very good IMO -- engaging but neutral in tone -- so I didn't end up copyediting anything.
  • Structure is straightforward and the level of detail seems appropriate.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review above, and add a source review below.
  • No dab or dup links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • No issues for me re. reliability of sources.
  • Formatting looks correct and consistent; only minor query is that you link locations in the References section but not in Further Reading. Not really fussed whether the locations are linked or not, but perhaps should be consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Ian. I've rm the loc links for consistency. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Being a citizen of a country than was part of Yugoslavia, I'm amazed by the article's comprehensiveness and scrutiny. It kinda bugs me that my native language doesn't feature its own version of the article, but I'll add that on my to do list.--Retrohead (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and comment, Retrohead. Greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: (less Ian). Entirely self-interested, I know. But there appears to be a consensus to promote here, images and prose have been checked as well. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Have been watching the article and nom develop; happy with the current state the article on such a complex and multifacted subject. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I supported this at A-Class and reading it again I think it is FAC quality. A few nit-picks.

  • "Tito himself mentioned the prisoner exchanges to the Comintern in Moscow, who was taken aback" I would say "were taken aback".
  • "These negotiations resulted in the exchange of between 600 to 800 Partisans in total." Is no figure available of Germans exchanged?
  • "The negotiations were first mentioned publicly in 1949 when Stephen Clissold published his Whirlwind: An Account of Marshal Tito's Rise to Power. This was closely followed by the publishing of Wilhelm Höttl's Die Geheime Front" - published followed by publishing. The second one is not needed. Ditto in the next paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dudley, first and third points addressed, I hope. So far as the numbers of Germans, I haven't seen any figures in any sources I've read, or even any primary documents. Perhaps it was suppressed for propaganda reasons due to the Comintern interest? Cheers for the review and support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - could I put up a fresh solo FAC? This one has been open for two months, and has six supports and no opposes. Let me know? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Sure thing. I was actually planning to look through the pages Ian recused himself from this morning, so thanks for the ping! --Laser brain (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2015 (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) 23:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [21].[reply]

United States Sesquicentennial coinage[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... two coins issued for the 150th anniversary of American Independence. As usual, the coins sold badly in comparison with the numbers struck, but it's an interesting tale, though not as scandalous as some later ones.Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your work on the article and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • By the March 1925 Act of Congress, by which the National Sesquicentennial Exhibition Commission was created, - Would "through the March 1925..." work better, to avoid two "by"s in the same sentence?
  • a million specially designed half dollars and 200,000 quarter eagle - Per WP:NUMERAL ("Comparable quantities"), a million should probably be 1,000,000 or 1 million (this also holds true for the body). Also, quarter eagles, not quarter eagle?
  • Perhaps a note as to who Lewis was in the lead?
  • The Commission had trouble agreeing on a design with Mint Chief Engraver John R. Sinnock, and asked John Frederick Lewis to submit sketches. These were adapted by Sinnock, without giving credit to Lewis, whose involvement would not be generally known for forty years. ... The quarter eagle was designed by Sinnock. - Is this to imply that Lewis' influence was only on the half eagle? Should be stated explicitly
I think you mean half dollar. There is some chance that Lewis submitted sketches for the quarter eagle, as related in the article. Like most commemoratives, complete records are not available.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:DATESNO, "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation". There seem to be several cases in the article where this is not applied.
That seems to apply to when a month day year-style date is given. I've changed one instance, but the one remaining (near the start of the second paragraph of "inception") does not seem to need one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert Grant, had indicated his (mistaken) understanding that a mark was placed on the first 1,000 coins struck to distinguish them and proposed that it be "K" for Kendrick; this was not done. - If he's suggesting a mark, doesn't that mean they hadn't been marked (or thought to be marked) yet? So I'd say "a mark was to be placed".
He thought this was the Mint's general practice, rather than specific to this issue and was getting an oar in as to how it should be done. I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philadelphia with a population of over 2,000,000 people ... could and should have sold a greater number of coins - lack of comma after Philadelphia in the original?
Right.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it say how many are known in circulated condition?
No. I could get some figures as to how many have been submitted to the grading services, but poorer-condition pieces would likely not be submitted, given this is not an expensive issue. This is really one of the more common half dollars, with nearly 200,000 thought to be extant. The demand doesn't really match the supply.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gotten everything above. If I haven't responded, I've just done it. Expect to have new images early in the week.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I don't think the proof status generally matters. Some Mint issues have slight design differences between proof and uncirculated, but I don't think this dime does.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. I'll note it on the image page though (the proof generally has more texture, in the Mint's images). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reviews. I will probably get to these in more detail later in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have a new source on images via OTRS and I've appealed for replacement images for the ones you've questioned. It may take a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that regarding the Franklin half-dollar? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, plus we're going to upgrade (I hope) the two coins that are the subject of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • New OTRS images are in the infobox, though the 50c bicentennial and the Franklin half-dollar still need TLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is why I shouldn't reply so quickly. All images are fine. Support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review and support, and to Godot13 for supplying the images so quickly.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RHM22[edit]

This is a commemorative series which I've never given much thought, so I learned a few interesting facts from the article. I've performed a few copyedits, which are, of course, fair game to keep, modify or revert at will. I also have a few comments:

  • Inception: First, how could it be that legislation was introduced on behalf of the Commission when the same legislation authorized the Commission? The current wording suggests (to me) that the Commission didn't exist until the legislation authorized its existence. Also, is it really necessary to include the short form in parentheses? I think it would be reasonable to just use "the Commission" and "Sesquicentennial" after the first use, since everyone should be able to infer from context. The latter point is just personal preference.
Obviously a committee to oversee planning and construction had existed for some time, as Rome and World's Fairs are not built in a day. This gave the commission federal standing, plus two members from each state, territory, etc. I don't think it as a practical matter affected who was actually running the show. There's some discussion of the two members and who should appoint them in the hearing transcript from 1925 I got through ProQuest Congressional, but it really is about whether Congress should appoint them or the governors. Most members who spoke seemed to think that it should be the governors.
That's pretty interesting, actually. The article for the Exposition would be a good project if you've got the references.-RHM22 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inception: "...Treasury or the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, but he was incorrect—Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon would not support them." Do you think that a semicolon would be more appropriate in place of the dash?
  • Inception: "These would be the last gold commemorative coins until 1984, and the second and last from that series to be quarter eagles, after the Panama Pacific issue of 1915." I understand this, but I feel as though that's because I already knew it. It seems to me that non-coin people might get confused.
  • How would you feel about moving the last paragraph from 'Inception' to first paragraph of 'Distribution of aftermath'? It seems a bit out of place with the design section in between. That's just a thought.
  • Design: If you don't mind a link inside of a quote. how about linking Art Deco?

That's it for me. I would suggest perhaps moving the half dollar and dime image up a bit, but that's just a personal preference.-RHM22 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Where not responded to, I've implemented. I'm afraid the design section would look crowded with three images, when there are none elsewhere outside the infobox. Thanks for your thoughtful and knowledgeable comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support It all looks good to me!-RHM22 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I have copies of some of the sources used, but I cannot access the online references as they require a subscription (I want one!). Here are a few points:

  • I would remain consistent and use the state abbreviations for all entries in the bibliography, including Chicago and New York.
I've generally been told that major cities like them do not require the disambiguation of state abbreviations.
I've heard that as well, but I personally prefer to opt for consistency in the case of references, but that is just a personal preference and I'm not aware if it's mentioned anywhere in official policy.-RHM22 (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do H.J. Res. 357 and S.J. Res 187 have page numbers? I suspect not, because they never seem to whenever I've used Congressional stuff as references.
They are each two pages long. The second page has a number 2 at top center. It doesn't seem worth adding.
Added. I used to use the online version, but that required a fair number of different pages, each of which was a separate source with a "Part ZZ" So I bought the book. Adding the single URL seems a good solution.

Upon examination, everything looks good.

  • Comparing Yeoman against my own copy, everything looks fine.
  • An online copyvio check didn't turn up anything troubling.

Aside from the consistency issue, everything looks fine to me.-RHM22 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. It shows the need for more online access to stuff. I am going to lose my access too whenever George Mason pulls it, though I've requested an extension, I haven't heard back. Well, it's better than it was a few years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is. I won't take this too far off-topic, but I've asked one of the Library coordinators, and he said that they're currently working on a partnership with ProQuest, which would be an extremely valuable resource.-RHM22 (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • No issues noted although I wonder if Lewis is notable enough for a redlink? Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For my money's worth, he's notable enough for a red link as president of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.-RHM22 (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2015 (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) 23:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [22].[reply]

SMS Dresden (1907)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another German light cruiser, this one joined von Spee's squadron following the outbreak of WWI, and it was the only survivor of the Battle of the Falkland Islands in Dec. 1914. This ship was eventually tracked down and forced to scuttle at the Battle of Más a Tierra on 14 March 1915. You might note that the centenary of the sinking is a little more than a month away - I'd very much like to have the article through FAC in time to run on the centenary if at all possible. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2015 (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. Parsecboy wanted to go ahead and nominate this, since an anniversary is coming up ... and that makes sense to me. All issues have been dealt with at A-class, and I expect it to pass A-class shortly. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now passed A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of prose issues Support: all the issues below have been addressed. They cover everything I found right to the bottom of the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Nothing serious, but a few things stuck out.[reply]

  • "SMS Dresden ("His Majesty's Ship Dresden")[a] was the lead ship of her class, built for the Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine)."
Are we putting the translations to English in the parens, or the German? The rest of the article puts English in the parens, so I'd suggest the same here.
A good catch - I had forgotten to fix this when I rewrote the article.
Generally I found this statement to be a bit odd. Is it no more like "SMS Dresden ("His Majesty's Ship Dresden")[a] was a German Imperial Navy ship, the lead ship of her class."
Yeah, that's a good point - see how it's worded now.
  • "She had one sister ship, Emden."
Could this be combined with the former statement? A two-ship class doesn't seem to deserve three links.
Just cut it altogether - it's really not all that relevant to this article (or at least shouldn't be in the lead).
  • " twelve coal-fired Marine-type water-tube boilers."
Is Marine a proper name? If not, should it be lower case? Is this referring to the Kaiserliche Marine, and thus a specific type? If so, I'd like to see a link here, or some explanation of what it is.
Another leftover from the old version - Gröner always refers to them as Marine-type boilers, which seems to have been a translation error - it should probably have been translated as "naval boiler" (which basically means water-tube boiler)
  • "Dresden thereafter joined the reconnaissance force"
then instead of thereafter?
Sounds fine to me.
  • "She made it back to Kiel, where repairs were effected.[6] The repair work took eight days"
She made it to Kiel where she spent the next eight days being repaired."
Yeah, I wasn't really fond of how that turned out, but when I was writing it I couldn't think of a way to split the sentence for the citations, as the NYT article covered the fact that the repairs were in Kiel, and HRS covered the length of time it took - see how it's worded now.
  • "Regardless, von Spee and those who favored the attack on the Falklands won the argument.[32]"
There are five ships and four captains (three plus admiral perhaps?) have been mentioned. Am I incorrect in thinking "those who favored" means the captain of either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau? I found this bit a little confusing.
A good point - yes, the captains of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were the ones who supported Spee in attacking the island.

That's it! It makes for exciting reading. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed.
  • Some of the images are a bit small to use at default size - can we enlarge them?
    • I have my defaults set at 300px - which ones in particular were you thinking?
      • The line drawing and the first two maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I forced the line-drawing and the second map to 300px, since those both looked fine on my screen as is, and the first map to 500px - how does that look? Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dresden_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
    • Cut the dead link - the citation to Jane's has been improved and should be sufficient.
  • File:Escadre_allemande_d'Extrême-Orient_1914_1915-de.svg: what is the source of the information presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please add alt text for all images (only one currently has it). -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John[edit]

Why was the article moved over into American English? This version seems to use UK ("metres") and thus WP:RETAIN would suggest keeping it there. --John (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first version had "paralyzing" instead of "paralysing", which is AmEng. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen that. The language of the guideline has the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default (my emphasis) and I suppose it's a judgement call what constitutes a stub. I wouldn't oppose over this I don't think. I am still reading the whole thing. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real hard-and-fast threshold for where an article becomes Start-class, but the limit for DYK is 1,500 characters, and the initial version was slightly over 2,000. WP:STUB says "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text..." - which the initial version easily surpasses. Thanks, John. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few slight adjustments. I may have a couple of questions before I support. It is looking good. --John (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why are we capitalising and italicising Maat? --John (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it doesn't need to be capitalized, but it's not commonly used in English, so it should be italicized. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd agree with that, and I think it looks far better now. There was one other thing I wanted to ask but I can't remember what it was. It can't have been that important. I now
Support. --John (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Convert meter ranges to yards, not feet.
    • Good catch - though I left the second one since depth is usually measured in feet.
  • When I was researching the Otranto article, the biography of the ship that I looked at made no reference to any hits on that ship, despite German reports. There's also no mention of any hit in the ship's log.
    • Added a bit to clarify this.
  • Still like to see some references to the Warship International article on the hunt for the ship that I mentioned earlier.
    • Yeah, I don't know that I'll be able to include it given the very short time-frame - I put in the article request but we'll see if I get it in time.
  • Suggest combining these two sentences: Meanwhile, the Royal Navy had deployed a pair of battlecruisers, Invincible and Inflexible, to hunt down the German squadron. The British ships were commanded by Vice Admiral Doveton Sturdee.
    • I think John fixed this in his copyedit.
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with one minor quibble:

  • In "World War I", "What von Spee did not know was that..." sounds too colloquial. Maybe just "Von Spee did not realize that..."
  • That aside, I could find nothing that needs to be changed or clarified. Very nice article, good luck with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds fine to me - thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Should use the same rounding for converted measurements in the infobox vs the article body
    • Should be fixed now.
  • Naval Review should be italicized
    • Cleaned up that reference.
  • Since AuthorHouse is a self-publishing service, what makes that book a high-quality source? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good point - replaced with a better source. Thanks as always Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2015 (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) 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Sardines (Inside No. 9)[edit]

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sardines" is a free-standing, half-hour story which introduces 12 characters (played by 12 actors familiar to British viewers) and manages to cover the themes of murder, incest, sexual abuse, vengeance and adultery. Most of the episode takes place inside a wardrobe. It's a comedy, but I'm not sure the humour would be everyone's cup of tea- you can see clips here and here. The article was promoted to GA last year, and more recently formed part of a good topic. The second series of Inside No. 9 will be broadcast this year, and, while I'm working on articles for the second series, I'd like to see if I can push some of the articles about the first series to FA level. I look forward to your comments! This will probably be a WikiCup nomination. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Inside_No_9,_Sardines_poster.jpg: could we fill in the "n.a." parameters, please? They are applicable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite right- I've expanded the rationale considerably. Thanks for your comment. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim[edit]

I wish I'd seen this, real League of Gentlemen stuff. Near the end, I wondered if "watched my more people" might be better than "more highly viewed", but I have no real quibbles, so I'm happy to support as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Jim- I personally really enjoyed the series. Keep your eyes open for the second series coming at some point in the next couple of months! J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • External links are good and no DABs.
  • Article and book titles need to be in title case as per MoS.
    • I prefer to use title case for book titles but not article titles. Could you point to the piece of the MOS you're referring to specifically, please? J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, it's MOS:CT. The only difference between book and article titles is italicization, not capitalization.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. It's certainly not explicit, and a recent discussion reached no real conclusion. (I also note that many other FAs do not follow this rule- Rodrigues starling and Money in the Bank (2011) were both promoted this month, and prefer sentence case for article titles.) I accept that (say) journal and newspaper titles should be capitalised, but I am not convinced that article titles should be- article titles are sometimes extremely long. My understanding is that professional style guides disagree on this, and as our MOS isn't explicit (individual articles are not listed anywhere, as far as I can see, as "works of art or artifice") I would have thought we can choose either way, as long as we're consistent. If there's a consensus to change this, I will, but I really do think it's ugly. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In several places your cites are out of numerical sequence.
  • One duplicate link for The Observer in the main body.
  • The prose is pretty smooth; nothing jumped out at me on first read. I'll give it another go through once these comments have been dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. I've made a couple of minor copyedits; please revert at will.

  • "As such, the story was not initially about the game of sardines": what does "as such" mean here?
    • I've rephrased- I think it was clearer in an earlier version of that paragraph. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need "[o]ur" when you uncap an initial uppercase letter; you can silently make it "our". Similarly with "[w]ickedly" and "[b]eing".
  • There's a lot of repetition of "writing for" at the start of the reception section. It's not easy to come up with smoother ways to say this but I think something should be done. Perhaps "Kendall, writing for the Daily Telegraph, gave the episode four out of five stars, as did A, B and C, writing for X, Y and Z (respectively); Veronica Lee, writing for The Arts Desk, gave it five out of five."?
  • "Allusions to past unhappiness is a typical trope": "allusions" is plural, so I think this has to be restructured.
    • I think I can use "unhappiness" as an uncountable noun. The allusions are plural, but the unhappiness is uncountable. Compare "allusions to religious scripture" or "allusions to ancient philosophy". I can rephrase if you like, but I think it's pleasantly prosaic. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we're looking at different issues here -- the problem I see is that the subject of "is" is "allusions", not "unhappiness". The phrase "to past unhappiness" is descriptive of the allusions and doesn't form the subject of the sentence, so there's a number problem in the verb. How about "Allusions to past unhappiness occur frequently in Shearsmith's and Pemberton's work"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I did misunderstand- I do think "allusions to past unhappiness" could be my example of a (single) trope, so could be read a as a singular noun phrase, but I accept that it does read a little oddly. I have rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Struck; and I've supported above. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very clean article; I expect to support once these minor issues are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review- it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

When I first read through this article I thought it was pretty cool that I was able to follow along without have ever sen the show or any of the characters. That along with good writing and adherence to the MOS is enough to Support. A few notes that might improve the article, though:

  • The image of Timothy West is forced at 200px unlike the others. Is this intentional?
  • Is it beneficial to have the "Notes" column of the table sortable?
    • I've rejigged the table to make sortability useful- good spot. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "Analysis" could be improved. "Dark" or "Black" humour is mentioned in 3 of the paragraphs. I think that its mention in paragraph 3 should be in paragraph 4. This is primarily a concern over maybe moving a line or two .
    • Actually, the black/dark humour is only discussed in paragraph 3. In paragraph 2, I'm discussing the overall tone of the episode (starts comedic, becomes darker) and in paragraph 4, I'm discussing the themes (including "dark" themes like child sexual abuse). J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. (Mandatory disclaimer: Reviewer is also in the Wikicup)Cptnono (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, review and observant comments- it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Everything looks good, although I'd prefer linking items on first mention only. Minor complaint and surely personal preference. --Laser brain (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. I prefer quite heavy linking in the references as footnotes are often viewed individually, rather than one after the other. I can change it if others share LB's view. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2015 (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) 14:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Forrest Highway[edit]

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For my fourth FAC, I bring you Forrest Highway, which connects Perth (via Kwinana Freeway) to Bunbury, Western Australia. It is one of the state's newest highways, opened in September 2009, but its history dates back to the settlement of Australind in the 1840s. Happing reading, and I look forward to your comments. - Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - WP:WA and WP:AURD projects notified [25][26] - Evad37 [talk] 11:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also reviewed, and did an image review. --Rschen7754 05:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the section Forrest_Highway#Forrest_Highway_after_opening the second paragraph refers to the opening of service facilities by the end of 2014, as it happens to now be 2015 that reads as dated. Gnangarra 03:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I can not find any more recent sources that discuss the proposed service centres. I could trim off that last sentence if it would make it seem less dated. - Evad37 [talk] 08:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra: I have a sources that explains the delay, and updated the article - Evad37 [talk] 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks caught this as I was heading out the door to take some photos of the area to address the issue consider me a support now Gnangarra 01:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article meets the FA criteria and it is well-written. --Carioca (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review needed for Overuse of however and overuse of subsequently (often redundant, and redundant in this article). Also, when there is nothing in the See also section, it can be eliminated and the Portal links can be placed in the next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced and copyedited usage of however, removed the three instances of subsequently, and removed the See also section - Evad37 [talk] 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more. Per MOS:SURNAME and MOS:HONORIFIC, why are there several instances of Mr. in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed most of them, but I don't have a first name or even initial for Mrs Lyttleton - Evad37 [talk] 04:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. tweaked a couple of things but prose and comprehensiveness seem fine to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (have been checked during ACR, see above)

Source review

  • Fn 1 and 3: Same web site is cited inconsistently.
  • Fn 4: Why is "(draft for advertising)" in italics? Is that part of the official name of the work?
  • Fn 39: What is "Countryman's Magazine"? I don't see that in the source.
  • Fn 52 and some others: I'm not sure I understand the need for the "Additional archives" links. Is it in case archive.org is down? In some citations, there are as many as 3 hyperlinks all leading to the same document.
  • PDFs are indicated inconsistently. Some read "(PDF)", some just have the little icon, and some have both. --Laser brain (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 1 adjusted
  • Fn 4: Yes, it is part of the official name (local government planning strategies have to be advertised for public comment before they are adopted)
  • Fn 39: That is a section within the newspaper with it's own page numbering. If you look just to right of the article you will see the index for Countryman's Magazine.
  • Additional archives: If a link goes dead, then we normally switch to the archive.org link. However, if the link goes dead and the site changes its robots.txt to disallow archive.org, the we're stuffed because the archive.org link will just display an error message (and yes, this has happened to me before). Hence the inclusion of webcitation links as a backup (though they might have their own problems also – there was funding crisis about a year or two ago, but fortunately they survived).
  • PDF icons/text: I've fixed what I can. Fn 80 will be fixed after the module update scheduled for 21–22 March 2015 which includes some adjustments to {{cite map}}. Fn 52 has a PDF link for the lay summary, but the templates do not currently allow a format to be specified. I've asked for this option to be added at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#lay-url-format
@Laser brain: Thanks for the source review - Evad37 [talk] 00:41, 20 March 2015 (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) 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Taiko[edit]

Nominator(s) I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the set of Japanese percussion instruments called taiko. They have an ill-defined history in terms of their exact origins in addition to a mythological origin story. The usage of the instrument changed greatly through Japan's history, particularly just after WWII with the work of percussionist Daihachi Oguchi, who created a performance style involving several types of taiko and multiple players. This style is now very much the norm in taiko performance as popularized by groups such as Kodo. Construction of the drums and components of taiko performance are explored in-depth. The article also goes into detail about taiko outside of Japan (such as in Brazil) in addition to its role in social movements as explored in contemporary academic literature.

Curly Turkey, GermanJoe and others left very helpful feedback in the previous FAC discussion, which was closed as some matters required more thorough investigation. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I JethroBT has addressed all the issues I had in the last FAC and on the talk page, so I support this nom (though, as the nominator knows, if I had my 'druthers I'd have most of the kanji kicked out of the body). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg: since Japan does not have freedom of panorama for artistic works, you should explicitly indicate that the work itself is now PD. The tag you've currently got indicates that the artwork is fair-use, which I don't think is what you mean - rather it's the photo that is non-free. This is further confused by "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain" - if that is true, why is this fair use at all?\
    Done, with some issues. The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain Is that text automatically generated? I don't remember writing that myself. The photograph is definitely not under a free license, as you said, and is owned by the Tokyo National Museum. I'll be removing this line. I have indicated that the work itself is PD in both Japan and the U.S., but with the non-free tag, it's produced incompatibilities that I've been unable to resolve. Does it just need to be left this way? I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one possible solution, or you could explore alternative tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Uzume.jpg: if this photo was taken in Japan, again the licensing status of the artwork itself should be indicated
    Checking... Information on the artwork itself is not immediately available and requires a little digging... I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been unable to find any information on the statue itself in terms of its creator or the year it was built, so I think it's best to remove the photo for now. I've been unable to find a suitable, free replacement image that has the necessary information. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I suggest you examine the consistency of reference formatting before a source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Can you be more specific about the consistency of the referencing format? Should things like websites and news articles also use the sfn format, even if they are just cited once rather than multiple times across multiple pages? I don't have a good idea of what's expected here; my thinking was that books would be more suitable for sfn, but using sfn for web content and news would not serve any useful purpose beyond the normal ref tags. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of thumb is that similar sources should look similar. Under that rule, using sfn for books and another option for websites/news articles is fine. Problems occur when books and websites are not consistent with other books and websites. For example, some books include locations and others do not, or sometimes you include publisher for newspapers and other times not. There are also things that, while consistent, are errors: for example, Tokyo National Museum is a publisher not a work, and so should not be italicized.
I see, that makes sense. I'll tidy these up today. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: As I'm going through these, one thing I will note is that Template:Cite news recommends the following for the publisher line: Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher) This is the case for many news publications here, such as the Japan Times or NYT, so it makes sense that there is some inconsistency in this regard. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done. I've standardized a number of matters such as publisher info on books, full page numbers for journal articles, and designating magazines vs. journals in addition to removing the via=JSTOR parameter in citations given that I provided the identification number using jstor=. I've added these in for sources that I obtained using JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: In light of changes over the past month, could you undertake a source review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only a few minor points remaining:

  • "[Den] was also known for developing a communal living and training facility for Ondekoza on Sado Island in Japan, and had a reputation for its intensity and broad education programs in folklore and music." - Is "Den" the first or last name? Use last name (or the Japanese equivalent) throughout.
    Done. "Den Tagayasu" is actually a name the performer created for himself, and it appears that Den is the last name after some checking. Reliable sources like Taiko Boom refer to him as "Den," ([28]) so I'll adjust references to him as "Den" accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is the recipient of awards recognizing the cultural value of his work." - The sentence is a bit short, "awards" could use some qualifier (worldwide? which kind of awards? ...). Just a brief addition needed to fill the sentence.
    Done. It seemed easier just to provide what the awards were, specifically, so I did. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounding nitpicky, but fair-use rationale of File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg needs the "n.a." parameters filled (on FA-level):
  • "Commercial opportunities": check other non-free art images for example phrases.
  • "not replaceable": you should indicate, why this specific image is not replaceable with another image for the same encyclopedic purpose.
Done. @GermanJoe: All of your above comments have been addressed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images have been reviewed already, no need for duplication.
  • I'll leave a full source review to the experts (cleaned up a bit). GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support (confident, that a final source review will show only minor issues, quickly fixed) The article covers a broad topic with a lot of necessary detail, but stays accessible throughout with a clear and logical structure. Unavoidable Japanese and music terminology is put into context and supported with additional Wiki-links. Sources appear to be reliable (on a quick glance), content is thoroughly referenced. Very nice article on a difficult topic. GermanJoe (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support. Some great work here. The article is well-organized and easy to read, which is hard to do for a topic readers will know little about; and the prose is in good shape. I can't speak to comprehensiveness but all the topics I would expect to see are covered -- construction, performance, types, cultural history, usage both inside and outside Japan. This is featured quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues

I'll add comments here as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two. I know nothing about the topic so please excuse any misunderstandings.

  • "Some taiko, such as the kakko, bear similarity to instruments originating from India": surely this should be "bear similarities"? If you really want the singular, it would have to be "bear a similarity", though I think that would sound odd.
    @MikeChristie: Agreed; we might also consider the more simple phrasing, "Some taiko...are similar to instruments originating from India." What do you think? I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "archaeology" spelling is more usual on Wikipedia than "archeology"; both are used in U.S. English and I'd suggest switching unless you have a reason not to, since the latter looks very odd to non-U.S. eyes.
    See Curly Turkey's first comment here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Taiko/archive1#General. I'm used to spelling it the former way as well, even living in the U.S., but I'd rather keep consistent spellings. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly thought "archeology" was the only accepted American spelling. For the record, I'm not American, so take anything I have to say about AmEng with a grain of salt. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not something I would oppose over. I'm British myself but have lived in the U.S. for decades so my eye for these things is hopelessly corrupted. You might ask at WP:Wikiproject Archaeology to see if there's an agreed spelling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to drums, many groups use vocals, strings, and woodwind instruments for accompaniment": there's a touch of redundancy about "accompaniment" after "in addition". How about "Many groups use vocals, strings, and woodwind instruments in addition to the drums", or "Many groups accompany the drums with ..."?
    Good suggestions; I've implemented the second one. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Performers also lean toward and away from the drum by adjusting the degree of bend in their left knee": why "also"?
    Removed this unnecessary qualifier. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historical accounts from 558 CE": this makes it sounds as if there are multiple accounts from that year, which I suspect is not the case. Should this be something like "Historical accounts, of which the earliest date from 558 CE"?
    Agreed, I've changed the phrasing to your suggestions. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a MoS expert, but per this, I think the Japanese terms should be italicized where they occur in the prose.
    Yeah, I do see a few terms in plain text. I'll make a pass to fix these (e.g. Chū-daiko). As a note, the MOS notes that phrases that have common use in English and proper names do not require itals. Taiko and kata are some of these loanwords, and group names such as Ondekoza or Kodo are proper name examples in the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems a reasonable approach. Since the text is still changing a little I'll review this again once the other points are mostly dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've done another pass here, and I think the Japanese terms have been appropriately italicized. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two of these figures are depicted playing drums. One of them, a player wearing skins, is equipped with a barrel-shaped drum hung from his shoulder and uses a stick or tube to play the drum at hip height": how about "Two of these figures are depicted playing drums; one of them, wearing skins, is equipped with a barrel-shaped drum hung from his shoulder and uses a stick or tube to play the drum at hip height"? This avoids the parenthetical "a player", which to my ear confuses the subject of "uses a stick or tube".
    Yeah, that reads much clearer to me and have replaced it. Thanks. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historians state that her performance is considered to be the creation of taiko music": is "historians" right? Presumably Japanese music historians don't seriously make this claim.
    Not in actuality, but they do state this is the origin of the instrument according to Japanese folklore. I think we can specify this by stating, "...is considered to be the mythological creation of taiko music." I've implemented this change. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an improvement. A suggestion: I'm not a fan of using "state" in sentences like this, since I think there's usually a better phrasing to be found. How about "Historians regard her performance as the mythological creation of taiko music"? Or even "the creation myth of"? That's a little shorter too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the former of your suggestions and have replaced it there. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked; "regard" goes better with "as" than "to be". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of warfare repeats the statement about the drums being used to set the marching pace. You could eliminate the duplication by making "setting a marching pace" the third item in the introductory list, which would let you glide into the "six paces per beat" note.
    Good point, I've modified this sentence to transition into the six paces per beat note. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Folklore from the 16th century on the legendary 6th-century Emperor Keitai offers a story during his reign that he obtained a large drum from China": I think "during his reign" could be cut.
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Konparu (金春流) school of drumming, for example, contains 65 basic patterns in addition to 25 special patterns and are categorized in several classes": as written this means that the school of drumming is categorized in several classes, which I don't think is the intention.
    I've changed this so that the categorization refers to the mentioned patterns, not to the school. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taiko continue to be used in the classical tradition, gagaku": this makes it sound as though "gagaku" can be translated as "classical tradition", which seems wrong. Would this be better as "Taiko continue to be used in the classical gagaku tradition"?
    The ambiguity you mention about its definition might also be resolved by using an indefinite article: {{tq|Taiko continue to be used in a classical music tradition, gagaku, typically performed..." How does this sound? I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, better than my suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kodo is one of the most recognized and taiko groups both in Japan and worldwide": should be "most recognized taiko groups"?
    Hah, thanks. That was leftover from a previous phrasing of this sentence. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shime-daiko are constructed with the head attached via iron rings, which are then tightened with ropes, bolts, or turnbuckles to the drum body": is "tightened to the drum body" normal usage? Or should this be "... turnbuckles attached to the drum body"?
    Done, I've made your suggested correction here.
  • "Byō-uchi-daiko cannot be tuned, and their sizes are limited by the diameter of the tree they are made from": presumably the latter statement is no longer true if these taiko are now made from staves as well as single trees.
    Reviewing sources, they do continue to be carved out from whole logs these days, and not just historically. They are also stave constructed; the main difference appears to be in cost, particularly for larger drums. I've rewritten this section to reflect this. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning of the underlining in the table in the categorization section is not apparent; nor is the reason for separating some rows by lines, but not others.
    Among taiko, there are sub-types of some types, but not others. It seemed best to illustrate these using underlining within cells. This is explained sufficiently in the text. I'm not sure there is a good way to explain the underlining within the table itself without going into excessive text. That each row is separated by lines (even when some cells are empty) I think is necessary because, some drum categories have only a few types, whereas others have many. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I follow now. I think the smaller font for the subtypes is a good indicator; I'd suggest indenting those lines a little, and dropping the underlining. I also think a caption to the table might help: perhaps move the title to below the table, and add "Indentation indicates subtypes", or add the explanatory text in a smaller font below the title if you don't want a caption. If it's made clear enough, and if you think the indentation works, you might even remove the internal row lines, and move up the Okedō-daiko rows so there's no blank space. Treat each column like a list with sublists, in other words. The problem with the row lines is they imply the rows have some meaning, which they don't. (This comment also applies to the theatrical usage table.) I have a couple of additional comments now I understand the intention:
    • The paragraph starting "The typical byō-uchi-daiko" lists the chū-daiko as a type of nagadō-daiko, but doesn't mention the ko-daiko, and the hira-daiko is described as "the other type" of byō-uchi-daiko although the ō-daiko has not yet been mentioned; and when it is mentioned it's not specifically described as a type of nagadō-daiko, though I think it's clear it's a byō-uchi-daiko from the surrounding text.
    Fixed both of these issues so that they make sense with the table. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the sentence about the "largest drum in an ensemble" meaning of ō-daiko to follow the definition as a kind of nagadō-daiko, since in the context I think the reader would expect to see the definitions that way round. Please check I didn't screw up the citations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't access the Fujie book any longer, so just to play it safe, I added in another reference there to ensure that information is verified. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nagauta shime-daiko (長唄締め太鼓) constructed such that": missing "are"?
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason why the types of okedō-daiko are not described in the text? E.g. the only place in the article where "nebuta" appears is in the table.
    Yeah, I've decided to nix these. Other than mentions of them in text, I can find no coverage of these drums, so I don't think they are worth putting on the table at this point; they appear to be too specialized. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A general comment, not really for FAC: it sounds like there's a great deal of detail that is available, perhaps too much for this overall article. Could a future article be written on "Types of taiko", which could give more details on construction and categorization?
    There is a lot, but trying to make it coherent is quite difficult. Frankly, the whole categorization is weird because it's not an official, organized system. Writers mostly agree, but few writers have attempted to place taiko categorically, and a lot of it mentioned incidentally rather than as a part of how taiko are classified. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no obligation to do an article of course, but something to consider -- I find the data often organizes itself when you do the reading, and it would be a nice supplement to this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other note, reviewing my sources revealed that okedo-daiko are largely considered to be shime-daiko, so I've decided to remove the okedo category entirely and place it as an item under the shime category. Furthermore, I've added a "new" category of drums, tsuzumi, which required some additional text in this categorization section. These aren't really new, because I had just neglected to figure out where they belonged, construction-wise. All of that can be seen in this edit and a few subsequent ones. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categorization table gives five categories, but it seems that the first three columns are defined by construction method, and the last three by usage. For example, the kakko sounds like it might be regarded as an Okedō-daiko if it weren't used in gagaku. Is that the case? Would it be better to split the table in two? The mention in the text of uta-daiko, which are shime-daiko from a construction point of view, but uta-daiko based on use, makes it seem to me that this is really two tables, not one. Also, it seems from the discussion that there are further kinds of taiko not included such as the sumō-daiko and sairei-nagadō.
    I see what you are saying; I figured it was easier to put them all together rather than separate since they are all classification systems, but seeing as there is basically overlap, it may be best to separate these into two tables, side-by-side. I'll get this fixed up soon. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: OK, I've tried breaking this up into two tables, and have added a column for kabuki on the theatrical table after reviewing sources (most of the drums are the same as in Noh, with one addition). I've also made some other changes to tables' contents-- I don't think it's necessary to include the taiko that are basically different in name only on the construction table. The miya-daiko is a type of nagado-daiko, but their use is so specific and due weight-wise, they only merit a mention in the text, and not so much in the table. Same goes for the sairei-nagado and sumo-daiko. I had these in there earlier for the sake of comprehensiveness, but I think based on your read, it's more confusing than it should be, so I think these examples should be left out. Lastly, there is some overlap between the two tables. O-daiko appear on both of them, but it is the same instrument. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the division into two tables is a big improvement. A couple more comments:
    • Uta daiko are mentioned in the text as being used in Noh performance; shouldn't that be in the table?
    • This term and nagauta shime-daiko refer to the same drum; for simplicity, I've just referred to them this way in the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not every drum in the construction table is used in theatrical performance, but every drum used in theatrical performance is presumably constructed according to one of the three given methods. Any reason not to specify which form of drum each of the taiko is in the second table? In the text, of course; not in the table. You do this for some of the types, such as the miya-daiko, but not for all of them.
    • I think this has been addressed with the new table format; all of the drums in the theatrical table now appear in the construction table. I have specified what kind of construction the miya-daiko, sairei-nagado, and sumo-daiko are in text under the Categorization section. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it dadaiko or da-daiko?
    • It's both, but the term is not represented consistently between sources on the instrument or general music history in Japan. I've gone with dadaiko for consistency's sake. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with the construction table, I think every drum that has an entry should be mentioned in the text; at least a couple (e.g. furi-tsuzumi) are not.
    • I've removed the furi-tsuzumi because there's not enough information for me to confirm it has general usage in gagaku performance. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ō-daiko means "large drum", but within any group, it describes the largest drum in an ensemble": I think "which refers to" might be better than "and describes".
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest drums of many taiko ensembles are the ō-daiko": based on the subsequent comment, this is always true, isn't it? Or does the term really have two meanings -- one as a specific type of drum of a certain size, and the other as a reference to the largest drum in an ensemble regardless of size?
    That first sentence is repetitive as you've said, so I've just removed it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the reasoning behind the choice of when to give the Japanese terms in what I assume is kanji? It's done for some words and not for others.
    See comments above and on the previous FAC from Curly Turkey on this-- there is a lot of Japanese on the page, and we have both been trying to reduce that where it makes sense to. Kanji are never provided for words that have articles on en.wiki or ja.wiki. They are only provided the first time a term appears in text, but not thereafter. If they are in the glossary at the bottom, they are also omitted. I've filled in one term, shin-daiko. There are still a few terms for which kanji are not available in RS (such as Kumaoji-daiko), and my Japanese is not good enough to reasonably know these terms. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "any drum that has a longer head and a shorter body": longer than what? and shorter than what? Than a chū-daiko? I think of heads as having width, not length; I take it "longer head" does refer to diameter?
    Yeah, this needs clarification. The heads of these drums are longer than its own body. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You now have "such that the drum head is longer than its body": how about "such that the drum head is broader than the body length", or "the drum head diameter is greater than the body length"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really a FAC comment, but looking at the example of the shime-daiko in the gallery, I don't see any iron rings, which I thought was a defining characteristic of these taiko based on the description in the article.
    I'll have a look around, but there are not that many good images of taiko (lots of performances, but not good images of the instruments). I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tsuri-daiko are suspended on a stand, and can either be played sitting down or standing up the drum is suspended on a stand": repetition of "suspended on a stand".
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while these are more functional on smaller drums for carrying": suggest "these are used for carrying the smaller drums, and serve..."
    Good suggestion. Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The skin or head of taiko are generally made from cowhide": is head plural here? Shouldn't this be "skins or heads", or else "is generally made"?
    Good catch. I've fixed so the grammar agrees.  :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as for the hayashi-daiko": as far as I can see this term is not used or explained elsewhere, and doesn't appear in the categories section.
    I've removed it; it's not particularly material to the section anyway which should focus more on the process and less on types of drums. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why and how has widespread Internet use changed the manufacture of taiko?
    This was leftover from an unreliable source, and I cannot support this claim. I've changed this to be a more general lead into the rest of the text about companies and so forth. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term is used in martial arts in a similar way, such as the idea that the hara is the center of being": this doesn't quite work. Do you mean something like "The term is used in martial arts in a similar way: for example, both traditions include the idea that the hara is the center of being"?
    Agreed, this is a better phrasing; I've changed it accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the woodwinds used, bamboo flutes called shakuhachi and the shinobue sometimes accompany kumi-daiko groups": I think this needs rephrasing. As it stands it means "Among the woodwinds used, these two woodwinds are used". I think what's intended is something like "Among the woodwinds typically used in Japan, these two are used".
    Rereading this, I'm not sure that it's important to specify that the woodwinds are typical to Japan (they can read the articles to learn that). I've rephrased this to "Kumi-daiko performances can also feature woodwinds such as the shakuhachi and the shinobue". I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, ethnomusicologist William P. Malm stated that": I think that naming the expert inline in this way is mostly useful when it's a matter of opinion. Here I think you could relegate Malm to the footnote; there's nothing controversial about this statement, is there?
    I specify the author here because it's a very specific claim made about Japanese practitioners from an observational standpoint. It's not controversial per se, but I'd rather attribute it to Malm rather than make it seem like many authors have said as much. I rephrased this to make it a little more clear. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I think your rephrasing is a big improvement and deals with my concern. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These patterns are sometimes difficult to represent in Western musical notation, such as with the piece, Yatai-bayashi": what does "such as with the piece, Yatai-bayashi" mean? Does it mean that this is an example of a piece which contains patterns difficult to represent? I would have thought almost none of the taiko patterns would be easy to represent, given what is said in the article. If that's the intention, how about "Some taiko pieces, such as Yatai-bayashi, include patterns that are difficult to represent in Western musical notation"?
    Sure, that works well. I've made this change. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "taiko performance was substantially different across Japan": perhaps "varied substantially"?
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The creators of the text maintain": I think this should be "maintained", unless this is cited to a more recent statement than the 2001 text.
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eisa are a large variety of folk dances": I think this needs to be rephrased. Perhaps "A variety of folk dances originating on Okinawa, known collectively as eisa, often make use of the taiko."
    Yeah, that sounds much better. I've replaced it with your suggestion. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some performers use drums while dancing, and fall into two categories based on the type of drum used": is it really the performers who fall into two categories, or should it be the performances or style of performance?
    Ah, yeah, that's not quite right. I've adjusted this to make it clear that the categories deal with the style and less about the performers. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think File:Hachijo taiko 2007-03-21.jpg should be cropped so that the women and drum can be more clearly seen in the thumbnail; I assume it's framed as it is because of the mountain in the background, but for this article's purposes I don't think that's the best choice.
    Agreed, I've created a derivative image from the free image that better frames the performers. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hachijō-daiko tradition originated as early as 1849 based on a journal kept by an exile named Kakuso Kizan. ": you've just indicated that there are two traditions, so I think this should be "The older Hachijō-daiko tradition ...". I also think a bit of rephrasing would help avoid the reading that the tradition is based on the journal, which is how I first understood the sentence. Perhaps "according to a journal"?
    Hm, but doesn't it seem a little redundant to say that the first tradition is the older one. And the tradition is indeed based on what was found in the journal. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then I misunderstood -- I thought the sentence starting "The Hachijō-daiko tradition originated" was about one of the two styles within the tradition, but it's actually about the overall tradition. Looking back through it I think I was confused because you use the word "tradition" for both the overall tradition and for the individual styles within it. If you want to keep that word I think it needs a bit of care to make it clear what we're talking about each time it's used. Re the journal: are you saying that the journal documented existing practices which presumably predated the journal itself, and that the tradition is considered to date from the journal, not from the pre-existing practices? Maybe because documenting it allowed it to spread? It would seem more natural to say that the journal simply spread the tradition; the journal didn't originate it. Or am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I understand the confusion given my choice of words here. I've done some rephrasing in that the "tradition" refers to both of the individual "styles" I describe in that section. I've also addressed the concern with "originated" and instead have written that the tradition was first "documented" in the journal. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one estimate asserts that the tradition female performers outnumbered males at a ratio of three to one": should be "the tradition's"? And "by three to one" would be more concise.
    I think "the tradition" is an artifact leftover I forgot to remove, and I think it reads OK without it. I've rephrased the other bit by replacing it with your suggested "by three to one" I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One tradition of Hachijō-daiko is thought to extend directly from the style reported by Kizan" should that be "descend" rather than "extend"? And "one tradition" seems odd: earlier the article says there are two traditions, and we've read about one of them; shouldn't this be "the other tradition" or "the newer tradition"?
    Changed to descend. The second and third sections here both refer to the same tradition, the fourth section refers to the newer one. Maybe these should be combined? I've rephrased the "one tradition" to "The first tradition..." I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of Kumaoji-daiko says that one player provides the lower beat, and the other player is called the upper beat -- looks like a misphrasing.
    Fixed this one, thanks. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video of San Jose Taiko says that it shows a Hachijō-daiko style, but from the text I would have thought this could be more specifically described as Kumaoji-daiko or shin-daiko, since the caption discusses the upper beat and lower beat.
    This goes to your response to the above point; Hachijo-daiko is the overall tradition, and the two styles are Kumaoji-daiko and shin-daiko. There's not enough information about the video for me to know which is being performed (though I would guess it is the latter of the two.)
    Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other type of rhythm is called honbadaki is unique to shin-daiko": looks like an incompletely edited sentence.
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that has spread in use among groups": a bit wordy.
    Changed to "spread amongst groups." I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside of Japan": can we make this "Outside Japan"? I think this usage has its adherents but "Outside Japan" works just as well and won't annoy any grammar purists.
    Sure, I think we can drop that preposition. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taiko groups situated in Australia": cut "situated".
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brazilian groups have mixed in native and African drumming techniques with taiko performance": I don't think you need "in".
    Agreed, and I've decided "combined" is a better term to use here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discrimination of this class dates back to the Tokugawa period for those occupied in leatherwork and others who worked with animal skin and were effectively legal outcasts": should be "against this class"? I think the whole sentence needs rephrasing, or perhaps just repunctuating: what's the subject of "were", for example?
    I took another stab at this section, came up with: Those involved in the construction of taiko are usually considered part of the burakumin, a marginalized minority class in Japanese society, particularly those working with leather or animal skins. Discrimination of this class dates back to the Tokugawa period in terms of legal discrimination and treatment as social outcasts. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an improvement, but can we avoid having "discrimination" twice in such a short span? Maybe "prejudice" instead? I also tweaked "of" to "against" in the second sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and I've made the change to prejudice as suggested. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to have a medium to express the experiences as Japanese-Americans": "the experiences" doesn't seem right. Perhaps "their experiences"?
    Yeah-- I thought I had written that there earlier, but I guess not! Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "differently motivated: In Japan": I don't think this is one of the cases where you can follow a colon with an upper case letter, but I'm willing to be convinced if you think this is correct. Same comment for "...perform in one of two styles: Groups on the ...".
    The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Colons MoS says: Sometimes, more in American than British usage, the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence. I'm OK with leaving these uncapitalized even if they have a full sentence, and have changed the instances you've mentioned and one other. No colon has multiple sentences after it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which has impacted performance among many groups": it would be nice to avoid using "impact" as a verb. How about "which has had a strong impact on"? Or just "had an impact on" if that's all that's meant.
    Agreed, I've made this change. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "artistically and professionally representing taiko performance": I don't know what "representing" means here.
    Yeah, I don't really like this sentence, so I've rephrased it entirely: a group well known for making taiko performance internationally visible and for its artistic contributions to the tradition. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and had a reputation for its intensity": should be "which had"?
    Fixed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other famous performers and groups beyond early practitioners have also been noted": If by "have been noted" you mean "are well known" then I think this is redundant with "famous". Can we just make this "Other famous ... include ..." and start naming them? And why "beyond early practitioners"?
    The first section there are basically the progenitors stemming from Daihachi Oguchi's time. The second section is essentially the next generation, but I think it's important to draw this distinction that there are newer practitioners who have achieved a certain status as performers. If it's OK, I'll just drop the "famous" from this sentence, which is indeed redundant. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see what you're getting at. How about "Performers and groups beyond the early practitioners have also been noted"? I don't think you need both "other" and "beyond". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that can probably go. I've removed the "other" as suggested. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the glossary table, do you need "category of" everywhere you have it? A couple of instances look like they might be OK to cut.
    Actually, the whole "category of" is not really necessary here, so I've dropped all instances of it from the glossary. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a pass through. A very enjoyable article; I saw Kodo perform many years ago and it was great to learn about the tradition they come from. Quite a lot of comments above, but most are minor, and I expect to be able to support once they're dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of minor points left above; if I get time tomorrow I'll pull out the remaining points and collapse the resolved ones. One additional point noticed on another read-through:

  • "After the skin has dried, tacks, called byō, are added to appropriate drums to secure it": something's wrong here -- should be "added to appropriate points on the drum" or something like that?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This phrasing is just to specify that tacks are only added to drums that require tacks, and not the other ones, that are tensioned using ropes or mechanical systems. Hence, "are added to appropriate drums". But I do get what you're saying, and I think adding in a definite article can resolve this ambiguity: ...are added to the appropriate drums to secure it. I've made this changed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All my comments have been addressed; I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

(spotchecks not done)

  • Dead links
  • Source for Hornbostel–Sachs classification? The glossary?
    • There actually is no source after looking around for one; I've provided this based on the Hornbostel–Sachs descriptions and the descriptions of the drums that are played, but this is probably synthesis. I think because this is such a wide range of drums that are categorically different, it might be better to get rid of it until a source classifying them can be found. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page numbers for FN31?
  • Per your reasoning above, why include publisher in FN51?
  • Museums are publishers not works - they shouldn't be italicized. Same with FN109, 197, 198, check for others
    • Thanks-- I've fixed these ones. With regard to 197 and 198 (now 193 & 194 since refs have changed), these use Template:Citeweb, and the name of the website is redundant with the publisher in these cases, so I've elected to just put these publishers in the website field. I can change this to something else if you think it'd be clearer. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you double-check details for FN135? The formatting is incorrect but I think the title might be as well
    • It's not only incorrect, but it's not citing the claim correctly, so I've replaced it with a citation to an existing source in the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare formatting of FN135 vs 142
    • Right, 142 would have been the correct way to format it. 135 has been replaced my comments in the above point. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include fellowship date in FN190 but not FN193?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • It's definitely not; I thought this article may have been published elsewhere, but it has not been. I've now replaced this with a suitable source. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate university presses
  • Since XLibris is a self-publishing company, what makes Nakamoto a high-quality reliable source? Same with Lulu and Petersen
    • I wasn't aware of this, thanks. Is there an a resource editors use to check whether a company is self-publishing? I've replaced these Nakmoto and Petersen citations using with appropriate RS. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got an error message on Terada 2001
  • How does Tusler meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Same with Vogel
    • First, both of these are doctoral dissertations. For Tusler, a Ph.D, and for Vogel, a D.M.A.. Tusler's thesis has been cited well in the applicable literature, such as in Bender's Taiko Boom ([29]), an important RS for this Wikipedia article, Post's Ethnomusicology ([30]), Lee's Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife ([31]), and has been cited independently by two other academic publications. Vogel's thesis, however, is not well-represented in the literature, and I have therefore replaced or dropped its citations from the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. Doctoral dissertations are a relatively new addition to SCHOLARSHIP, but your explanation is good. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Jethro, my apologies for not picking it up till now but I gather this would be your first FA if promoted? If so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we generally ask all of the newer nominators to jump through. Perhaps Nikki or one of the other reviewers above could look at that... :-)
    • Correct, this would be my first FA, and a spot check is certainly a reasonable practice. I'll ping Curly Turkey, GermanJoe, and Mike Christie as well if they are able to do this sooner. I'd recommend that if editors have access to Bender's Taiko Boom through Google Books or otherwise, to spot-check the article against it because it is one of more heavily used sources in this article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a fair few duplicate links in the article, which you can highlight by installing this script. Some of the dups may be justified by the length of the article and the space between the links, but pls review and lose what seems reasonable.
    • @Ian Rose: I've removed many of these duplicates, thanks for bringing them to my attention. There are still some left; many are confined to the "notable players" section at the bottom whose names and group affiliations are inevitably important in some of the other sections. Other links, such as for Yatai-bayashi, gagaku, kakko, and Tokyo Imperial Palace are sufficiently spaced in different sections of the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @I JethroBT: It looks like Nikkimaria's spot-checks revealed some issues indicating further spot-checks are needed. I've asked for more at WT:FAC but it wouldn't hurt to proactively get an experienced editor to perform some more checks. I'm afraid this will have to be archived if there is not any movement on that front. --Laser brain (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Thanks for giving this a little more time, Laser. I've sent some messages out to folks informing them of a need for a spot check of sources here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Drmies has said he's willing to do another spot-check tomorrow or Monday: [32]. Will that be OK? I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: Yep, no problem. --Laser brain (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me on Tuesday if necessary, then ... I have a pretty full Sunday and Monday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies, I'll have to leave it to Drmies ... I've just been looking over the article, and see that most of the sources are books-- I no longer have access to a good library. Good luck here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, wait, wait. Sandy, Laser_brain, Jethrobot, I am not sure what a "spotcheck" is or what anyone would like me to do. There's some 200 notes in the article and a long list of works cited--I found some problems already, but there is no way I can go through all of them anytime soon. Like I said, I'll be glad to help, but I'm somewhat limited timewise, esp. since the WMF cut my billable hours. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: It means you check some of the citations at random to see if they support the cited text, and to ensure they aren't closely paraphrased. It's SOP here these days. Usually a handful of checks are sufficient, but if problems are found that indicate wider issues, we ask for more checks. --Laser brain (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • "uses a stick or tube to play the drum at hip height" - FN 11 refers to the drum itself as a tube, played with a stick. Does FN10 say otherwise?
    • @Nikkimaria: Thanks, the tube detail was a misread on my part. Refs in FN10 refers to it as "a barrel drum beaten by a stick" and "a drum covered in skins on both sides and hung from his shoulder at hip height," so there is nothing about a tube being used to play the drum. I've fixed this in the body and image caption. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are also characterized by a high amount of tension on the drums heads, with a correspondingly high pitch relative to body size.[60]" - not seeing this in that source (plus the grammar error should be fixed)
    • I'm not sure what happened here, and I can't find a source to support the claim as it is phrased. I've subsequently replaced it with a different claim related to tensioning systems for taiko drums generally. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chū-daiko is a medium-sized nagadō-daiko ranging from 1.8 to 2.6 shaku (55 to 79 cm; 21 to 31 in),[67]" - not seeing this in that source, but I think perhaps you meant to cite this page? Even if so, your numbers are incorrect. Check that and other instances of FN67
    • Fixed these numbers, the source, and have replaced the other instances of FN67, which were also incorrect. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which the earliest date from 558 CE" - source says 588
  • "standing up.[2]" - not seeing this in that source
  • "They are decoratively painted with flames" - source mentions a "decorative object" but not flames.
    • I had to clarify this a bit; it's not the drum that is painted / decorated, but the apparatus that contains it. The Blades (1992) source does describe the flames on p. 125. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there - there's a bit more checking required here before this can pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Drmies[edit]

  • User:I JethroBT, what's with the Audry reference? Both the ISBN and Google point elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Bizarrely, WorldCat lists both the correct book and a book by Audry under the same 10-digit ISBN ([33]), so that probably had something to do with it. That said, I've filled in the correct author for this book that supports the claim. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking at the Lee reference, but that one is cited quite incorrectly. First of all, you have Lee listed as author and Nadeau as editor, but they are both editors. Second, you cite two pages: this is an article by Matthew J. Forss called "Folk Music", and should be cited as a work in an anthology (really, like an article in an encyclopedia, but that boils down to the same--we have a citation template for it), with author, article title, editors, book title, etc. Same with the other Lee reference. (I typically use the "chapter" field for such references, keeping the standard fields from the book citation template.) Drmies (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Freikorp[edit]

As per a request on my talk page, I am reviewing all web sources for both copyright violations/close paraphrasing and accuracy.

  • Ref 9: Am I missing something or does this not back up either statement it is used for regarding taiko?
    • @Freikorp: It does not support the uses, but it does support the earlier part of the sentence, Archeological evidence shows that taiko were used in Japan as early as the 6th century CE.
  • Ref 52(3): just says they are the "most well-known [taiko] group," it doesn't specifically say they well-known inside or outside of Japan. Not exactly a huge problem, just thought i'd mention it.
  • Ref 58: Just says "The tsuzumi - the hourglass drum - is used mainly in the Noh and Kabuki theatres." I don't see how this source backs up that the tsuzumi may not be considered taiko.
    • You're right, it's not explicitly stated in this source. I guess my initial read of it was that it wasn't clear that it may be considered a taiko, either. I've replaced this with a statement from the Blades (1992) source which reads:
      Tsuzumi, also meaning drum, is applied to braced drums, in particular to those in spool shape. It would seem that any drum might be called a taiko and also a tsuzimi, but that tsuzuimi usually suggests an hour-glass drum, and taiko a braced or nailed drum, barrel or cylindrical. A possible analogy would be our beels and chimes; either can be used for the same thing, but we would usually use bells for the handbell shape, and chimes for the tubes.
    • I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 67: a) not seeing the point of this inline citation here. Are you just backing up the names of the drums? And if so, how does this relate to offline Ref 68? Shouldn't the offline source back up the correct name of the drum if they are both talking about the same thing?
    Ref 67 (a) does is used to both verify the name of the drum and support the claim that it's a common type (nagado) of that broad category of drum (byo-uchi). Ref 68 does not support the commonality claim (because it doesn't discuss it), but does describe the drum's shape. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    b) Article reads "48 to 85 cm; 19 to 33 in", source reads a tad more specific "19 to 33.5 or 48.5 cm to 85 cm". I think rounding to nearest significant figure is fine, just thought i'd mention this in my attempt to be as thorough as possible.
    As a note, I think some of that rounding is done by Template:Convert, since the primary measurements for these instruments are done in shaku. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 75: Source states "Okedo have a lightweight slatted body with rope-tensioned heads." Article reads "[Okedo] are a type of shime-daiko that are stave-constructed using narrower strips of wood". I'm not seeing the connection here.
    Slatted refers to staves of wood that are long and narrow. That language feels more accessible for readers. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know; that makes sense now :). Freikorp (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 109: Just says the company is 400 years old, does not say they have "been producing taiko for over 400 years", though I think it's reasonable to make that assumption and accept the source.
  • Ref 66 and ref 188 link to the same article.
    This is tricky. Ref 66 refers to the main page you come to when you open the URL. Ref 188 refers to the "interview" tab which I cannot link to directly (or at least, I haven't found a way to do so). I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 194 and 195 don't appear to back up anything about Denver Taiko, only Soh Daiko.
    Added in a source from Konagaya to support the year the group was founded. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 207: perhaps you could rephrase "male-dominated art form", which is the exact term used in the source, though not a big deal.
    Thanks, I've rephrased this. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 217 a) "such as scrutiny by employers or in marriage arrangements". I can see scrutiny by employers in that source, but nothing about marriage. I may have missed something.
    From the article: In terms of important issues in deciding on a potential spouse, 20 percent answered, “Whether he/she is of buraku origin.” I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought I must have missed something, cheers. Freikorp (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
c) Source doesn't appear to back up that the Osaka Human Rights Museum exhibits the history of systematic discrimination against "other minorities"
I think the museum does address discrimination broadly, but for the article, it's only important to note that buraku discrimination is highlighted at the museum. I'll rephrase this part accordingly to focus on that. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 231 doesn't specifically say he is best known for his solo work, it is just a single article that appears to be (though doesn't explicitly state it is) on his solo work. Acceptable, but not ideal. Ref 233 backs this up though. I don't think you need ref 231.
    Thanks. I'll drop 231 then for this spot. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11, 25, 34, 49, 50, 52(1+2), 66, 67(c+d), 187, 188, 191, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 214, 217(b), 227, 233, 235: All good. Freikorp (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on online sources. As indicated above, my comprehensive check of online sources found a few things that needed addressing, but nothing that was disturbingly inaccurate or intentionally misleading etc. I feel confident that offline sources would also have no major issues. Freikorp (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I think need for additional spot checks have been satisfied by the above reviews. Is there anything else needed? I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: I would agree, thank you all. --Laser brain (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2015 (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) 13:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) [34].[reply]

Mary Celeste[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everyone has heard of the famous "ghost ship", found abandoned and deserted in mid Atlantic, although many think her first name was "Marie". Many other "facts" about her are also false, inventions that have been handed down and incorporated into the legend. There were no fires burning in the galley, no half-eaten meals in the cabins, or coffee still warm. The unadorned truth, however, is fascinating enough in its own right, and no one has yet found a solution to the mystery that satisfies everyone. Among the many suggestions of varying plausibility that have been put forward are mutiny, piracy, giant squid, waterspouts and aliens in flying saucers. I touch briefly on all of these theories, and others besides. Much praise to the sturdy and patient peer reviewers, who suggestions have (mostly) been cheerfully adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support—had my say at the peer review. Meets the FA standards in my view, a really fine piece of work I thoroughly enjoyed looking over. Well done Brian. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your peer review, kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another peer reviewer, quibbles thoroughly attended to at that stage. Very happy to support now. Meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion (and is utterly intriguing into the bargain). Tim riley talk 07:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could have provided an irrefutable solution; that would have made me, and Wikipedia, famous. But alas, the mystery remains. But many thanks to you for your PR efforts and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Had my say at the PR as well, looks good. Meets the criteria thoroughly.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, too. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I missed the PR. Some minor things:

  • Is it intentional to link New York State instead of city? If so it should probably be New York City and delinked.
First one, in the lede.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a local consortium of nine" -would "nine people" be better here?
  • "Early in 1872, the ship underwent a major refit" -where was this?
  • It was in New York. I thought that having said the ship was bought by a New York consortium, this was sufficiently implicit. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Christian and as an intelligent and active shipmaster" -is the full quote really essential here? Especially as you already stated he was a Christian and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with progressing in his profession. Perhaps paraphrase or "described by Fay as an "intelligent and active shipmaster""
  • It was actually Fay reporting someone else's view of Briggs, but the exact wording is not really necessary. I've cut the quote, and left it that Briggs had achieved a high standing within his profession. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Benjamin took command of Mary Celeste for what would be her first voyage after her extensive New York refit," -when?
  • In October 1872, when he made his investment as reported in the previous section. I have clarified this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Benjamin thinks that we have got a pretty peaceable set this time all round, if they continue as they have begun"" -peacable is repeated again, not sure how encyclopedic this quote is. I'd probably paraphrase.
  • I have part-paraphrased the quote, and got rid of the repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the above done.
  • You linked Gibraltar in the lede but not it seems in the first instance in the article.
  • I'm not sure what MoS says on the matter but it might be useful to add an actual link to 38°20′N 17°15′W / 38.333°N 17.250°W / 38.333; -17.250 so people can look on wikiatlas/externally on google maps. As the reader I'd want to know where it is. If you think it looks unsightly in the text perhaps a footnote.
  • In my earliest days as a FA-writer I was told not to link coordinates in this way, since this meant introducing external links into the text. I do see your point, but so I've added "midway between the Azores and the coast of Portugal" to the position of the discovery of Marie Celeste. The location of her abandonment is already given as "off Santa Maria Island in the Azores". This information will hopefully satisfy curious readers. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1925 the historian John Gilbert Lockhart surmised that Briggs, in a fit of a religious mania, had slaughtered all on board and then killed himself." -not clear to me why he'd do that, I don't follow why that would be religious killing people when most, especially Christianity denounce it! I don't think you need to change anything here as he withdrew it later, but it does seem an odd claim!
  • I think the clue is in the word "mania". Lockhart toyed with the idea that Briggs's religious convictions had turned to loss of reason and violent madness. It was hardly a tenable theory, and he wisely withdrew it and apologised for even suggsting it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link New York World, New York Herald Tribune and Geological Survey of Canada?
  • Aren't octopus and squid different?
  • Well, they're both cephalopods, both have eight tentacles, blue blood etc. People tend to get them confused, though squid can grow much larger. The Chambers Journal article refers to a giant octopus, but other sources refer to squid. I have hedged with "octopus or squid". Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mary Celeste story inspired two well-received radio plays in the 1930s,[133][134] and a stage play in 1949.[135] Several novels have been published, generally offering natural rather than fantastic explanations." -I think you really need to be more specific here and cite some examples and their authors for reference purposes.
  • I have added the playwrights to the text. Full publication details of three novels are included in f/n 13.
  • " Spencer's Island, Nova Scotia" at bottom of legacy, overlink or intentional?
  • Isn't gibraltar-stamps.com a commercial site? Is it the official Gibraltar Post Office? Also it says (Source Wikipedia)... I think there's a way to source it with a Stanley Gibbons catalogue and be a bit more specific. It might be good to elaborate a little on it, nothing too much though, perhaps ask somebody at the WP:Philately project to look into it.
  • I have deleted the Gibraltar Philatelic Bureau as a source. All the information concerning stamps is covered by the Begg reference alongside it, so we don't need it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments, a kind of belated peer review for which I am most grateful. I've accommodated your wishes as far as possible; in a few cases I think first thoughts were best and I've left well alone. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's OK, most of them seem to have been of some use, obviously it's just nitpicking at this stage! A thoroughly enjoyable read , clearly meets all FA criteria. Reminds me of a documentary I saw once on the Bermuda Triangle and a ship found like that. Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

A few minor quibbles over reference formatting, because it's FAC, and where would we be without those? "Austin's report is reproduced in full on Appendix O" should probably be "in Appendix O" (alternatively, I like the shorter form of citation 117 to the more verbose 54/55/65/66, but that's entirely within editorial discretion). Some web sources (UCL News, New Zealand Herald, DalNews, perhaps others) are missing retrieval dates. The UCL News source lacks author attribution (Adrian Lee). Is The Independent on Sunday correctly styled (as opposed to simply being the Sunday edition oif The Independent)? The Dal News reference is not properly formatted. I agree with Dr. Blofeld that you can do better as a citation for the Gilbratar stamps than a commercial site (Gibbons or Scott catalogues, at the least). In the source list, Fay and Fanthorpe need their order switched to be alphabetical. It's probably within editorial discretion, but you could probably drop the explanatory note on the Fay source by including |edition=Revised and |origyear=1942, if desired.

None of these are significant problems, and all should be easily corrected. Meanwhile, thank you for satisfying my personal referencing pet peeve by providing correctly hypenated ISBN-13s for all sources which possess them. Prose has been reviewed by people with more skill at copy-editing than I, and I don't see anything that stands out as problematic. Images seem well-chosen and properly licesnsed. I'm pleased to support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these most useful comments. I have very largely dealt with them as you suggest. I have deleted the Gibraltar Philately Bureau citation as unnecessary – the information is entirely covered by the Begg reference alongside it. I have kept the explanatory note relating to the Fay book edition, as it's more informative (gives publisher details) than the additional template parameters. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good. Last tweak I noticed on a second pass: The UCL News reference has "UCL News (University College, London)" as the publisher. Compare to the DalNews source, with |work=DalNews and only the university as publisher. I'd suggest doing the same for the University College source. And with that ... well, I was already supporting promotion. But I'll support more; nicely done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have standardised the UCL News and DalNews ref. formats, in a slightly different form taking into account the comment of PS Burton later in this review. Does your review here amount to a sources review for FAC purposes? If so, can you clarify this for the benefit of the coordinators? Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current approach still doesn't italicize UCL News. I'm trying to decide the ideal way to present this. One option might be the via field and appropriate use of formatting. @P. S. Burton:, your thoughts on this?
  • Lee, Adrian (May 20, 2006). "Solved: The Mystery of the Mary Celeste". Daily Express. Retrieved 11 March 2015 – via UCL News (University College, London).
As for a "source review" in the FAC sense, I had not done so, but have now taken the time to perform several spotchecks, none of which revealed problems with plagiarization or close paraphrasing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think that would be even better. The Daily Express Archive indicates that the article was published on pages 44–45, so that might be worth adding as well. But the current style in the article is also quite alright, I therefore think this matter could be left to the nominator's discretion. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, when we say "source review" we generally mean for reliability and formatting, and when we say "spotcheck" we mean verifying accurate use of the source while avoiding close paraphrasing -- sounds like Squeamish Ossifrage has done a bit of both, which is great. Re. formatting, Brian, the only queries I have are whether it mightn't be an idea to qualify in the references where Harlow is, and to spell out North Carolina. Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re above note (from coordinator Ian I think): I have clarified Harlow and spelt out North Carolina. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes it was, tks -- back captured my signature for posterity... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I've always been interested in this story and I'm so pleased that you have chosen to bring the article up to this kind of quality. My second FAC read of the day with no issues to report. CassiantoTalk 19:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was another happy punter at PR, and I'm glad to see that this article's in much better shape than the ship ever seemed to be! Great article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My hearty thanks to the above pair, staunch comrades both, for their encouragement and support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In the reference "Lee, Adrian (May 20, 2006). "Solved: The Mystery of the Mary Celeste". UCL News (University College, London)" it should be made clear that University College is not the source, and merely hosts an excerpt of an article published in the Daily Express by the journalist Adrian Lee. As the source is given now it looks as if the text was written by someone employed at the university rather than the newspaper. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the formatting of this reference has been raised elsewhere and is under review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted the reference, to clarify that the original source is an article in the Daily Express. I can't cite directly to the Express as I have not seen the actual article. I don't think it's quite right to say that UCL News "merely hosts an excerpt of an article". It has chosen to reproduce this expert, which highlights the work of one of the University's staff; however, I think the situation is clear as it is now shown. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I am satisfied with the new wording. P. S. Burton (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • I have added confirmation of the year to the image page. Brianboulton (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the uploader did not say where he scanned the image from. I have added this to the image page, which confirms title, author and medium but not the date. I have not been able to locate this date from any online source. We know McCord's dates, and therefore that the painting is at least 106 years old. Brianboulton (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • File:Gonave.jpg - Source link is dead. (Probably worth a separately-uploaded crop, for the article)
  • I'm not sure where I can upload from, in the absence of a source. I am considering replacing with File:Haiti ne18-8 air small.jpg – any problem with that?
  • [35] is the current link. Looks like it was moved. (Though the source image is rotated and has a different exposure, it's clearly the same image). I'd stick with the Space Shuttle imagery. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have uploaded a new version using the space shuttle image in the source link you provide, which I have cropped, turned and lightened. Should be OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to use that version; it's clearly the same as the NASA image at the source (just modified; all you had to do was update the source). Coulda cropped the image which was already in the article, as the quality appears slightly better. The new crop appears washed out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you said: "Probably worth a separately-uploaded crop, I interpreted this as meaning I should separately upload, and crop, the image from the source which you provided. That is what I did. Now you seem to be saying I needn't have done any of that, and that all I need do is to change the link on the original image, and continue to use that. Is that the case? Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A separately uploaded crop" was said before the correct link was provided; that would mean that a crop of the image which was already in the article (and not the one currently on NASA's webpage, which neither of us knew existed at the time). I still say a crop of the original image is preferable. Updating the source link in File:Gonave.jpg was and is still necessary, though, as that's the only way we can show that it is, indeed, free, and thus our derivative work (i.e. the crop) is also free.00:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I have restored File:Gonave.jpg, with the revised link details in the image page. I hope that is all that is necessary. I am somewhat out of my comfort zone in trying to deal with images, so if there is any minor fix still outstanding that you can see, please fix! Thank you for your patient attention in this review. It must be a pain dealing with the unenlightened. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'll do the final bit. Images are ready for promotion. Sorry I wasn't clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd like to see some work in the lede, which seems wordy and somewhat confusing, especially the opening statements. The last two paras would seem to be improved greatly by following chronological order and grouping items into related paras. Should I go ahead?
  • No. The order of these paragraphs was something I considered in the drafting stage, eventually deciding that the speculations that resulted from the inconclusive Gibraltar hearings naturally followed the summary of these hearings, with the ship's ultimate fate recorded in the final paragraph. While there is room for valid disagreement on this, I feel that the present order is the more logical, and unless there is a consensus among other reviewers that the paragraph order be changed, it should be left as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"After an accident-prone career"

Reading the text it seems her career was relatively accident free except for her first and last voyage? Actually, someone states that directly. Should this not be "accident-prone first voyage"?
  • That wouldn't make any sense: "After an accident-prone first voyage, she transferred to American ownership..." But I do take your point that most of her British career was free of trouble, so I have neutralised the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in Nova Scotia"

Perhaps a paran note that this was still British at the time, or alternately, "today part of Canada".
  • Nova Scotia is linked. The suggested additional words, in my view, add no useful information to the story. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The ship was constructed of locally felled timber, and was rigged as a brigantine"

Jargon is bad. Is there any reason not to explain a bit about what brigantine means here? "Two masted" seems useful.
  • The word "brigantine" is not jargon, it is the proper name for this type of ship. I have added that she was two-masted; otherwise, the term brigantine is linked for those who want further information. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"she was carvel-built, with the hull planking flush rather than overlapping"

The wording suggests that this was odd, "rather than". But AFAIK, this was the common method of construction by this point, no?
  • Both methods, carvel and clinker (overlapping planks) were and are equally common in wooden boatbuilding. This information is by no means essential and could be dropped without detriment to the article, but it seems a harmless bit of additional information for the shippies amongst us. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"registered at Parrsboro"

registered at Parrsboro, NS,
  • Unnecessary. Parrsboro is linked, and there aren't other Passboros

"sailed to Five Islands"

sailed to Five Islands, on the north coast of the Bay of Fundy,
  • It's actually on the north shore of the Minas Basin, an offshoot of the Bay of Fundy, but I don't see the need for adding such marginal information into the text. Information such as this clogs the text to no real purpose, and makes reading tedious. The links are there to help those who want further information about these inessential matters. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"On October 15,"

Should this not be part of the next para?

"citing a phial of sewing machine" Is a phial the same or different than a vial? If its a vial, that term should be parened or used in its place. If its not, a paren or note seems appropriate.

  • I'll jump in here. Broadly speaking, vial and phial are synonyms. In a narrower modern sense, vials are generally understood to be tube-shaped, which may or may not have been the case here. In any case, phial redirects to vial (not that its an article to be proud of), and I'd think that would suffice. It's not a common word, but not one I'd consider obsolete. I'd be fine with retaining it, especially if that's what the source uses. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have linked "phial". It's the word used in all the sources – not one uses the equally-correct "vial". I also remember "phial" being used in chemistry lessons at school, admittedly long ago but not as long ago as 1872, Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He heard rumors that Flood thought he might have "

Did he hear these while he was in NY and this is why he traveled to Gibraltar? Or did this happen while he was there?
  • I've clarified this point, and also improved the wording.Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"sea bed—a "seaquake"

I personally don't give a crap, but apparently since this has already been "scary quoted" it shouldn't be again here.
  • As the word now appears in the Oxford Dictionary, I'd say neither sets of quotes are apt and I've removed both. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In August 2001 an expedition headed"

I suggest this be moved to its own section, it's not really anything to do with the final voyage. And I'm confused: this section seems to suggest they did not find the ship, but at the bottom of the article there is a link to a video that purports to be it?
  • I don't think a separate section is warranted, and I'd argue that the purported discovery of the ship's remains was very much to do with its last voyage. Cussler was perhaps too hasty in declaring that he had found Mary Celeste, since the later dendrochronological tests indicated that it was a more recent ship. I have slightly altered the wording, to make this division of view clearer. Basically, Cussler's finding that it was the right kind of wood is contradicted by the later evidence that the wood was too young. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some useful points. I don't agree with all of them; where I do, I have amended the text accordingly, and where I don't I have explained why. I don't see these outstanding differences as important points of principle, and am grateful for your review. Brianboulton (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2015 (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) 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [36].[reply]

Camille Saint-Saëns[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot from peer review, another French composer whose article I hope will be found fit to join his compatriots at FA – his friend Georges Bizet, his pupil and protégé Gabriel Fauré, his rival Jules Massenet, his mutual unadmirer Francis Poulenc and one he never heard of, Olivier Messiaen. Unlike these other distinguished musicians, Saint-Saëns was a polymath, a capable practitioner in many fields including astronomy, musicology, philosophy and archaeology, as well as an organist, piano virtuoso and composer. The challenge has been packing it all into an encyclopaedia-size article. I have enjoyed his company while writing about him, and I hope reviewers will enjoy it too. Tim riley talk 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support With pleasure, addressed my concerns at the PR. A fine, well-written article on a major composer which thoroughly deserves to be promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor, for support here and input earlier. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Gaff --> see concerns below.

Audio file review by Gaff --> see concerns below.

Gaff: do you wish the queried items to be removed? I can do that, but I have no idea how to delete the actual files from WP. Tim riley talk 19:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hate to see them have to be removed and most (probably all) of this looks fixable. I'll try to help out with it, but am swamped. I'm new at doing these reviews and just following the lead so another more experienced reviewer please double check. --Gaff (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. @Crisco 1492:, I wonder if you would possibly have time to lend your expertise to all this, please? (And to the prose, too, of course, if you're so disposed.) Tim riley talk 22:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaff: a couple things to note for future reviews. France does not have freedom of panorama, so images like File:Saint_Merri_Church_Interior_2,_Paris,_France_-_Diliff.jpg need to include a licensing tag for the building itself as well as the photo - in this case it's almost certainly PD, so just a matter of adding a tag. For File:Le-timbre-d'argent.jpg et al, since these files are PD in the US, they shouldn't be on Commons but we can use them locally without any problem. For File:Corneille-Lamartine-Hugo-Klein.jpg, the tagging reflects that the image is a compilation, but again all four images are okay to use locally. For File:Sept Improvisations - 7. Allegro giocoso.ogg, Somerville Music Society appears to have run the recital series in which Smith performed - they may own the copyright there, but it would be nice to confirm this (Tim riley?). Agree duplicate file should be removed, dead links replaced and missing OTRS ticket added. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Bednarek has kindly dispersed some of the media section around the text and blitzed the rest. All items still dubious after above comments have been removed. Tim riley talk 07:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Latercomer to the peer review, found a few things to quibble about which were duly rectified. The article shows all the characteristics of a well-prepared Riley music biog, beautifully written into the bargain. Two questions: why does Camille as a boy look at least 35, and why, aged 45 in 1880, does he look 75? Honestly, though, this is first-class stuff. I sincerely hope that the audio files all pass muster as "free"; such can bring a composer's works to life more effectively than even the best-chosen prose. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Thank you, BB for those very kind words. Coming from one who weighs rather than counts his successful FACs I take them as an enormous compliment. I agree about the sound files but they were there before I started my overhaul, and my ignorance of the subject is flawless. Tim riley talk 19:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I was a fellow traveller at PR and my few complaints were dealt with admirably. An excellent and enjoyable article that has only strengthened since PR. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for your support here and input earlier. Thank you so much, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 22:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I must echo the comments above; this is an excellent piece of work displaying all the Tim Riley hallmarks. Wonderfully written and engaging; a pleasure to read as somebody with very little prior knowledge of the subject. The detailed overview of the composer's music is a real treat for classical music buffs. I am very pleased to be able to support the candidacy for featured status. Really just excellent. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need a bigger size in hats. Thank you so much, Cliftonian, for your very kind words. Tim riley talk 08:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As Gaff noted already, the sound file of "Le cygne" is used twice; it should be removed from the section "Media". In fact, my preference is not to have such a section at all. Sound files spread through the article, where they are used to illustrate the narration, are fine, but the appendix "Media" looks to me like a mere collection of works, present only because they are available – IMHO. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much both for the support and for the suggestion. I inherited the media section from earlier versions of the page, and my own clumsy attempts to amend it resulted in what is technically known as a pig's ear, hastily reverted before saving the page. If you, Michael (or anyone else) would care to tweak (or more) I shall be seriously grateful. Tim riley talk 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The "Piano Rolls" link is broken
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • FN98, 121: what source is this?
  • Are those Anderson refs meant to have two different dates? The short cites suggest yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All attended to. Sorry you've had to plough through so many titles, but the sources seemed to mount up the more I read, with A referring one to B and so on. Thank you for your sharp-eyed review. Tim riley talk 07:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport from Gaff. It looking like the concerns about media license are being addressed. It was a learning expierence for me, which hopefully didn't slow down process. As for the article generally, it is definitely FA caliber and a fine contribution. Nice job! --Gaff (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gaff. We all have to learn our way round, and I hope you have found reviewing this a fruitful and not too daunting experience. Good wishes for your further reviews. And thank you so much, too, for your kind words on the article as a whole. Tim riley talk 15:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – What a joy to read. I fixed a few reference formatting issues with nothing else to report. CassiantoTalk 19:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How very pleasing to hear from you, Cass! I hope all is fine with you, and that your studying goes exceptionally well. Thank you so very much for your support here. Tim riley talk 19:11, 10 March 2015 (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) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [38].[reply]

Great Stink[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rather small, seemingly insignificant event in the life of London, but one that some of us still feel the benefits of over 150 years later. The Great Stink showed the right man in the right place at the right time, with Joseph Bazalgette stepping forward to build the sewer system to end all sewer systems, providing London with an effluent-free river. And he did it while sporting a magnificent set of whiskers to boot! Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I left my only minor quibbles with it during the PR. Certainly looks to be an excellent account of the ordeal and meets FA criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for your PR work, Doc: much appreciated - and for your time here too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Publication names like The Examiner should be italicized in in-text attribution
  • Long quotes like "We can colonise..." should be blockquoted
  • No citations to Dobraszczyk 2008
  • Location for Cherry?
  • Ryan: do you possibly mean Boca Raton, Florida? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All tweaked and sorted now. Many thanks, as always NM! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another peer reviewer clocking in. My queries there were few and small, all dealt with, and I have found nothing else to quibble at on rereading. The text meets all the FA criteria, in my view. A most interesting, and slightly unnerving, article, which I much look forward to seeing enlivening the front page. Tim riley talk 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another debt of thanks for your work on this – much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: I couldn't help but notice how awkwardly the following sentence reads: "The smell, and people's fears of its possible effects, prompted the local and national administrators to action who had been looking at possible solutions for the problem." The difficulty lies with the "to action" and "who had been looking at possible solutions for the problem" parts. Flipping the order of those two elements doesn't fix the awkward reading, so a more comprehensive rearrangement is needed. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Having "action" right after "prompted" makes the sentence read much nicer. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I fixed the link to license on File:Crossness Pumping Station, Belvedere, Kent - geograph-2280114-by-Christine-Matthews.jpg at commons, since it was linked to a different image (see edit history). The map has a PD tag saying it was published prior to 1923, but the date on the map File:London County Council Main Intercepting, Storm Relief and Outfall Sewers November 1930, showing Bazalgette.jpg is 1930. Also, how do you know the creator is dead? Other images are either PD old (and appear validly so) or Creative COmmons with clear source and licensing. Please have another editor confirm my review, since I'm too new at this to stand alone. --Gaff (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the tweak to the Crossness image. I've altered the map licence. Under UK copyright law it doesn't matter about the author, as work done on behalf of an employer or institution ends up with the rights being held by the organisation, not the individual, so as this is now 85 years old, we're clear to use it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check.
File:The silent highwayman.jpg - Where's this digitization from?
File:Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water. Wellcome V0011218.jpg - This is technically PD-100, with a CC-BY-4.0 license applicable for reusers in countries recognizing Sweat of the brow doctrine. Might want to update that.
File:A Drop of Thames Water, by Punch, 1850.jpg - Reference that this was published in 1850? Source link goes directly to the image, so it doesn't help. Also, I'd love to have more information on which edition of Punch this was published in. The bibliographic information is somewhat lacking.
File:Dirty father Thames.jpg - How can you claim PD-70 on an image where the artist isn't listed? Also, PD-70 is not enough for the US (where the servers are located, and which we must thus consider as well). I'd also prefer a link to where the digitization comes from.
  • Unsure on the digitised version - it was uploaded in 2008 by a now-retired editor. Any thoughts? (I can find plenty of sources where it could have come from, but... - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I agree. That looks like a Google scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Caricature; Faraday giving his card to Father Thames. Wellcome M0012507.jpg - Original publication? (Punch... what?). Also, my note above applies here too.
File:JosephBazalgettePortrait.jpg - US Tag? Also, and again, how can you claim PD-70 without knowing which of the two people listed took the image?
File:How Dirty Old Father Thames was Whitewashed.JPG - Again, PD-70 doesn't apply if there is no individual author. Also, you need PD-1923 for the US
File:Father Thames introducing his offspring to the fair city of London.jpg - Fine
File:Crossness Pumping Station, Belvedere, Kent - geograph-2280114-by-Christine-Matthews.jpg - Fine. BTW, I asked Diliff to have a looksie here if he has time. Trust me, you'd love the results (have I shown you his cathedral pix?).
  • Ive seen a couple of his cathedral ones, and it would be superb if he could do the same for one of the 'Cathedrals of Sewage'! – SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:The Prince of Wales opening the Metropolitan Main-drainage works at Crossness, ILN, 1865.JPG - Digitization is from...?
File:London County Council Main Intercepting, Storm Relief and Outfall Sewers November 1930, showing Bazalgette.jpg - Again, PD-70 with no author (and you are, hopefully, not 70 years in the grave, so your contributions are definitely not described by this template). Also, not sure this is PD in the US, what with the URAA. Also, what references did you use when adding the sewers?
  • Any thoughts on the tags for the source map - which is way out of copyright in the UK? - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'd need to make sure the map is PD in the US. If this were Crown Copyright, its expiry would apply worldwide, but otherwise the URAA comes into play. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that local government work is covered by crown copyright. Difficult to check with the LCC as they were dissolved in 1965. Is the best course to upload as a local copy to get round the ridiculous URAA nonsense? (Bearing in mind I'll still come round asking for exactly which tags to stick on that copy too!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently Commons is ambiguous on the matter of the URAA (COM:URAA is not as explicitly anti-URAA as it once was), and I'm not sure we've ever tested the waters at FAC for images that are PD in their source country but not the US because of the URAA. The English Wikipedia just considers US copyright law (because the servers are here) and thus the URAA would still come into play. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492, I meant upload here as a non free. It's probably the most crucial image on the page, so there is more than enough of a rationale to have it (even if "non-free" for an 85-year-old, out-of-copyright image from a body that was dissolved 50 years ago just shows how ridiculous legislators can really be!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current template is okay, but to be fair use it needs a fair use rationale, proper license for the US, and to be downsized — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, a version too small to be of any use whatsoever has now been uploaded (seriously, it's nearly pointless having the image at all if it has to be this small: it tells us sweet Fanny Adam because the detail of the map is lost and readers can't see the actual pathwways of the sewers! I know you're only following the guidelines as they have to be followed, but it is the most unencyclopaedic of policies that we have to comply with: how does the image this small actually help anyone? How can anyone tell what the routes actually are, or through which parts of the city they passed?) Rant now over, and if you suggest which tags should be usedto satisfy the gods of image compliance I'll drop them in there (the rationale is already present). Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is an alternative... it depends if anyone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop is active. You could send them a copy of the large file, and they could create a free version using an open-access map of London... long term, I guess, but useful. Surprised I forgot about that option. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that - I've added a request there for something suitable.As it may take some time, we will have to go with the too small version at the moment: what US tag should I add to cover the US? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Installation of the sewerage system of the Metropolis Wellcome M0010346.jpg - I personally think the above notes about Wellcome apply here too, but no year for this engraving
File:Embankment Construction of the Thames Embankment ILN 1865.jpg - Author? Source of digitization? More bibliographic information?
File:Portrait of Sir Joseph William Bazalgette (1819-1891) Wellcome M0016460.jpg - Comment above about Wellcome probably applies here.
  • These are my comments... a lot of them are more nitpicky than anything else (the Wellcome double licensing, though most correct, is probably not necessary). The licensing issues and sourcing issues, however, need work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Crisco – and I'm certainly not going to hate you for doing your review properly! (Especially as many of the uploads are mine, which means it's my fault in the first place!) I'll work through these (slowly, as I'm largely dense on these things) and send you strings of emails asking the most basic questions about tagging. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are okay; once that free map is done, it will be better, but I know that Schro will make sure it gets done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose; I had my say at PR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Crisco - both for your thoughts on the prose aspect, and for your patience on the ever-vexed question of images. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief comment – I'll be back with a considered view shortly, but I'd like to refer just now to a point made at the peer review: where did the soubriquet "Great Stink" come from? You couldn't pin this down from the sources. I thought that the name probably came from the press, and this is confirmed by the following, from Halliday's book: " In the months that followed the hot, dry summer reduced the Thames to a condition which the press named the Great Stink". [39] Halliday, p. 71. I think it would be a good idea to incorporate this. Back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Brian: I'm not sure which press he's been looking at, but obviously different ones to to the ones I vainly scoured to find it! I'll add now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Yes, nicely fitted in. I have nothing further to add to what I said at the peer review and am happy to support, on the basis that I am sure you will resolve any remaining image concerns. Please continue to research these fascinating and disgusting topics with your usual diligence. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian: your sterling efforts at PR had their usual impact of tightening the article immeasurably; my thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was reading the article with great interest, it is generally well written and sourced. However, I am confused by whether MWB or MBW refer to the same entity Metropolitan Board of Works, the former appearing five times and at one paragraph, both terms were used. The Metropolitan Water Board (London) was not created till 1903, so either I am missing something here or something is missing in the article. Did the cited source use both terms interchangeably? - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Mailer diablo, You have missed nothing: the error is all mine! (Or, equally likely, the fault of predictive text on my iPad). The body on question is the MBW, which is now the one referred to throughout, following my tweak. Many thanks for picking it up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. You have my support for this FAC. - Mailer Diablo 21:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's wonderful: many thanks indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and MOS. I made a few copyediting tweaks in the week since the article arrived at FAC, but they were all minor: this is well-written and an interesting read. Nicely done! Maralia (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Maralia: your thoughts and edits are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support What an interesting article! It's sometimes surprising to learn how much science Victorian-era people got right or almost right, since we usually picture them walking around drinking mercury cocktails and chewing on lead rods for health. It's also surprising that naming a sewage pump after someone was apparently considered an honor. I have a few minor comments:

  • I would suggest spelling out "Member of Parliament" in full before the first us of "MP."
  • Local government: " The Building Act 1844 had ensured..." Is there supposed to be an "of" in there, or is that the correct name for the Act?
  • Northern drainage system: "Like the Crossness Pumping Station, Abbey Mills was a joint design by Bazalgette and Driver. Above the centre of the engine-house was an ornate dome that gives the building a "superficial resemblance ... to a Byzantine church"." This quote should give the source in-text.
  • Legacy: " The drainage network is, as of 2015, managed by Thames Water..." Is "as of 2015" necessary? It should be implied, since you're referring to the present-day.

That's all from me. The article looks quite nice overall, and I especially enjoyed the period cartoons to illustrate public perception. Very well done.-RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last point falls under the purview of Wikipedia:As of; it may change, and if it changes when Schro or someone else is not around to update, without "as of" it may stay incorrect for a while. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but is it likely to change? That template, in my experience, has always been used for transitory things. Otherwise, we'd be adding it to everything.-RHM22 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt even the government can predict what the government will do. On a more serious note, when I wrote Streatham portrait barely a year ago, the image was located in a different place than it is now. Yes, where paintings hang change, but one would think that they wouldn't be moved all that often... same here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's only been with Thame's Water plc since 2001, and it was with its predecessor since 1989, so I think that we're probably best to leave it in place. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's good enough for me. I'm not going to raise a... wait for it... great stink.-RHM22 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks RHM22, your thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good! All of my concerns are addressed.-RHM22 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (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) 12:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [40].[reply]

Forest raven[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a familiar Australian bird...well not that well-studied really. While buffing up its relative (Australian raven) which is a featured article, I read alot about the forest raven. The article is shorter as less is known, however I think it is pretty comprehensive and can't see anything else to improve. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas—can you note whether this will be a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - images are free, sample of accessable refs check out. Prose are tight, generally good to very good; have gone through with a light ce. A fine, well sourced and informed article. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx - all good, just had to flick back one bit which causes confusion as "Australian raven" is only one of the three species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Corvus_tasmanicus_map2.jpg: what is the source of the data presented? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would like a different/better map, with clear sourcing, let me know. --Gaff (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might have a crack at will be redoing the map actually. I've done it for others. And adding the consensus distribution and ref. thanks for offering. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
update- have found a map of southeastern Australia and added range onto it. In article now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been tidying up and I misplaced the goddamn thumbstick....will email as soon as I find it :P found and emailed. looks alright to me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Gaff[edit]

Looks good overall. Most images are from one source, who may or may not be expert on bird identification. Given your report that there are no other corvids on the island, shouldn't be an issue. --Gaff (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • * I fixed the Stresemann citation, since "date=The Auk" seemed an idiosyncratic format.
  • Should the species synonyms be in the infobox?
Yes, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First read through, the second paragraph of the taxonomy section was confusing. I wasn't sure if we were talking about the forest raven, using synonyms, or other birds in Australia and Tasmania. Second read through, I get it. Maybe some copyedits here could make this section more clear. It is a confusing story, for certain, and you have done a great job getting the details in there, but there might be a way to make it flow more smoothly.
Have been looking at this - how's this then? I have switched the order of the first two sentences, so the para begins by pointing out that it is difficult to tell teh difference, which then helps explain why Gould only described one species initially Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization for little and Little raven is inconsistent. The first mention of Little Raven cannot be wikilinked as currently written, because it is split up "incorporating Little and Australian ravens". Consider rephrasing to allow an early wikilink in the text. I also like when the binomial is given with common name. That is how you (or somebody) did it in the little raven article: "little raven (Corvus mellori)" and "Australian raven (C. coronoides)". I don't know if that is a rule or just personal preference, but the scientist in me likes to see binomials.
Little should be lowercase here, was missed after the capitalisation wars. I've oscillated between listing binomial names alongside common names in articles. There are a few to add.....will do shortly and see how it looks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • C. cecilae is mentioned but not linked. Was this name subsequently discarded altogether? Please clarify.
It is the Torresian crow, though now it is Corvus orru Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Maybe instead of "C. cecilae (crow)" you could link as "C. cecilae (crow)"? Looks odd that only the word crow is linked. --Gaff (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think its better to list the name as I have done now - "crow" is not what is meant so spelt out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out acronym IOC, as nonspecialist will not know what that is.
I have unabbreviated it to International Ornithological Committee Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence seems odd, "As the climate was cooler and dryer, the aridity of central Australia split them entirely." Do you mean as the climate changed, it led to a split?
Yes, added "as the habitat between became inhospitable" hence leading to long term separation of the populations. Is that clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wingspan between 91 and 113 cm " conversion needed? done. --Gaff (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much going on in this sentence? "Sexes have identical plumage, however the male is generally larger, although there is considerable overlap in size between individuals." Maybe "Sexes have identical plumage. Males are generally larger, although there is considerable overlap in size between individuals."
  • "blue-purple sheen" is it iridescent? Iridescence is a wonderful word.
Well, yeah, but "blue-purple sheen" is fewer syllables and means the same thing ..also never seen the word "iridescent" used with corvids.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The progression of eye color changes with age is perhaps given in too much detail in the lede. Consider shortening it there and keeping it long in the body of the article.
trimmed in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Use {{convert}} template on "The gap between the two populations is around 70 km, shrinking to 30 km at Dorrigo."
  • Wikilink "Mount Wellington" ??
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sclerophyll forest" wikilink
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map definitely needs improvement. Sounds like you are already on it. I would like to see the different populations mapped out.
  • "areas of 40 to 400 hectares have been recorded" -- unit conversions needed? Not sure on that one. I can check if you don't know.
to acres. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no wikilinks in the entire first paragraph of Behaviour section, though some bird species mentioned for first time.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it matter that the citation style is inconsistent? <ref name="" />in most instances, then {{sfn}} in others. --Gaff (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only use sfn for individual different pages or page ranges from a book, otherwsie we end up with an unnecessarily complex reference section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes some sense. I may ask you more about that in the future, for articles that I am building. --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relict raven redirects to Forest raven and is a common name for Corvus boreus source. Might be something to add, if not already there (I'm short on time right now, but see you have covered some of the Rowley work from 1970). --Gaff (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a few minor fixes still on my laundry list, which may or may not be helfpul in improving the article. There is also the discussion below about what exact detail should be in the lead and particularly the first sentence. In my opinion, that is a discussion perhaps best held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds so that some overall guidelines can be reached. The current verbiage is in keeping with Featured Articles on similar species (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Showcase). I am a newcomer to FA review, so the delegates will want to consider my vote accordingly. I have spot checked only a few references, but seemed okay. --Gaff (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maury[edit]

This is really very minor, but now's the time to address it. I have found that many articles on the wiki add meaningless jargon to appease a certain technical faction. In this article I can see this in the very first sentence, which contains the statement "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae". I don't think the target audience gives a crap about these two definitions, yet will be tempted to interrupt their reading to click-through to ensure they're not missing something important - and they aren't. These terms may be important to some bird nerds, but such stuff belongs in the body or sidebars and I suggest removing it. That's the first sentence, I'll give it a better read-over later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just my 2 cents...In many instances, I completely agree that ledes are over detailed. (See also: "Mammals are a clade of endothermic amniotes") I do not think, however, that "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae" is overly detailed. Just my bias, maybe hypocritically so... For comparison, I looked at the first 4 of the 137 featured bird articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Showcase and all have something similar. I'm only a minor bird nerd, having looked through a handful of field guides and read two books about crows. Even still, knowing passerines and corvids informs this article without creating too much distraction. But I can see your point... --Gaff (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz, it's a fine line we tread withj jargon and accuracy. For instance, I'd love to change "corvidae" to "crow and raven family", however that loses accuracy (and I have been corrected previously) as the family contains jays, northern hemisphere magpies and nutcrackers. "passerine" is pretty broad and I think one linke to corvidae is not a big deal, especially when it says "family" right before it, so the reader who doesn't know the phrase gets an idea its a group of related organisms. I do want to eliminate as much jargon as possible though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a type of crow, right? Is there any reason to be more specific than that in the lede? We have a whole body to be specific in. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
we-ell it depends...do you consider to be a raven as a type of crow? or are both of equal "rank" as it were? A bit like horses and ponies really.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
Precisely. And we have an entire article to flesh out that definition. And why do we still have the entirely useless term passerine in there? We may as well say it has wings. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, I'd find it pointless to say "The forest raven is a bird" as that is patently obvious, and feel that "passerine bird" is more exacting and more educational to the reader as it helps define the critter more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Passerine bird" is not more exacting - a classification that includes half of all birds is less exacting that "raven". Your argument is precisely the sort of problem I'm talking about, jargon because it seems cool to include jargon and sound smart, when doing so actually lowers the readability of the article. I'm not talking about replacing this word with that, I'm talking about removing it all. If the reader can't figure out that this is an article about a bird, having them click through to passerine isn't going to fix that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Casliber here, it has nothing to do with "being cool" (why the weird accusations?) but is about accuracy. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, therefore info about classification has to be included. Otherwise it wouldn't be a summary, would it? It is the norm across animal articles to mention important parent taxa in the intro, "corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". There is already a Simple English Wikipedia, so we don't have to dumb this down to that level. There might be a point in "passerine" being so broad as to be pointless, though... FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". Precisely my point. Do you really think that using the term "feline" in the intro improves the article compared to "cat"? If the reader hasn't heard the term they'll have to click on the link to find out something they already know. This is useless filler. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would appear the intro of pretty much all animal articles are wrong in your opinion, which makes it a wider discussion that should be taken up at Wikiproject Tree of Life[41] or some such, not the FAC of a single article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from IJReid[edit]

This article is a very good read, and as I completed the GA review for the Australian raven, I believe I have learned a fair amount about the species and genus now. I would support this as a Featured Article, but I have two nitpicks. The caption of the first photograph outside of the lead starts with a lowercase, this should be uppercase. Also, the second paragraph of Taxonomy and naming is difficult to fully understand. It would be best to mention the names of the taxa rendered redundant to C. australis. Also, the reasoning the first revisor was required are not mentioned, and this might cause misinterpretations about the taxonomic history. In reply to Maury Markowitz, it is appropriate for the sentence to include "passerine", as raven is already mentioned, bird is much too general, and Corvidae is noted very soon after in the same sentence. IJReid discuss 03:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well-spotted on the caption and fixed now. Will have a tweak on the para a bit later. thanks for the support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I can't see much wrong with this. Just a few minor comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As with the other two species of raven in Australia—although technically correct, given the taxonomic complexities I wonder if " other two species named as ravens..." might be better?
hmmm, to me that implies the names are less valid than other common names. The feather bases are used as a valid sorting tool in Australia, and the evolution supports the name split here between Australian ravens and crows....I think it also makes the flow a a litle awkward. Might pass on this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • perished of tuberculosis in 1778—what's wrong with "died" ?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • as evidenced by the forest raven only found in closed forest refuges on the mainland but a wider variety of habitats in Tasmania — I would add a "being" and an "in"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the forest raven could be confused with the black currawong,— really?
my mother in law pointed at a pied currawong the other day and thought it was a magpie...after that I think anything's possible.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The call is considered the most reliable means of identification in areas where its range— subject of "its" is "call"
expanded instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forest raven Vocalization"—in the audio caption, capitalisation looks odd
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forest ravens fly from Tasmania and the mainland to islands well offshore in Bass Strait and may even traverse the strait entirely. It was…—"ravens…it"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey Cas, long time no see–Please add alt text for all images. Good luck! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Just a reminder you'll need a source review, Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John[edit]

Tentative support on prose. Like to take one last look but it looks great so far. --John (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been a couple of weeks I'll take the opportunity to close this now, John -- I'm sure Cas will welcome any post-FAC tweaks you see fit to make... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Laser brain[edit]

Everything looks fine—I didn't note any problematic sources or any problems with formatting. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2015 (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) 12:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [42].[reply]

Uncle David[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an experimental independent film produced in Britain in 2010. Engaging with LGBT themes, it stars the performance artist David Hoyle and includes a soundtrack featuring Boy George. A GA since May 2013, it has gone through FAC three times, each time failing due to a lack of interest, perhaps as a result of its niche and controversial subject matter. Fourth time lucky ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I'm still satisfied with this article, 4 nominations in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • See 3rd nomination, agree with all points, fair-use OK.
  • 2 additional images since last nomination, CC or released into PD with sufficient info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's well-written and well-presented. It flows nicely and seems comprehensive. It's absolutely not a movie I would ever see, and I'm surprised there is so much about it. Good work. Karanacs (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general, this article seems well-written and well-organised, and I found few things to quibble about. The article is far from my usual type but I suppose I should broaden my mind!

  • What age is Ryder supposed to be in the film?
    • It's not made at all clear; that's part of the ambiguity of the film. He's an adult actor who is behaving like a child. It leaves things enigmatic and disturbing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the course of a day, he filmed three shorts starring Hoyle and Reich," - Are you sure this is correct? Or should it be Ryder rather than Reich?
  • ... "which had eight people inside of it during filming;" - "inside of it" is offensive to my ear.
I do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Release", the last third of the paragraph is rather off-topic it seems to me.
    • I understand your viewpoint although I am a little loathe to see it removed altogether because I fear that it would erode the otherwise comprehensive nature of the article. I'd be happy to listen to any other users' views on this particular issue, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... a cast commentary track voiced by Hoyle, Ryder, Reich and Nicholls." - Nicholls has not been mentioned before. Who is he? On further investigation I find he is one of the directors but his name has been mis-spelled in this sentence.
  • That's all I can find for the time being. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was suggested at the previous FAC that there was excessive use of "the latter" in the article and I see there are still three instances of its use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just seen this additional question but am unable to find any instances of "the latter" within the article. A quick look at the revision history of the page reveals that User:Mike Christie was kind enough to make the alteration. Thank you Mike! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I am now happy with the article and the improvements made since this review started, and support the candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "The next morning, he goes onto the beach to bury the corpse of his nephew in the sand, tearfully kissing the body goodbye before it is swept away by the sea": if it's buried, how can it be swept out to sea?
    • In the film, the body is placed in a shallow grave, and then covered in sand, however the outgoing tide is nevertheless powerful enough to take the body away. To hopefully avoid this problem in future, I've changed the text in the article to "The next morning, he goes onto the beach to place his nephew's body in a shallow grave, tearfully kissing the body goodbye before it is swept away by the sea." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add at least approximate dates to some of the key events in the last two paragraphs of the producton background section?
    • I have added one date ("circa 2008") and will look into the possibility of adding more. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That's useful, but I suspect a little copyediting is now needed; you have "agreed to the request several years later" but it appears the delay was just c. 2008 to 2009. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a tricky one. I suspect that the chronology as articulated by Ryder ("about 3 years ago", "After a couple of years") simply isn't accurate. The interview was posted online in November 2011, although not necessarily conducted at that time. However, assuming that it was conducted at that time, then Ryder and Hoyle would have first met circa 2008. If "a couple of years" then passed that would take us to 2010, yet that cannot be correct given that we know that Uncle David was filmed over five days in October 2009. So I think it best if I remove "circa 2008" altogether, as i really don't think that we can use that reliably. I will do some more investigating and see what I come up with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the interview conducted with Reich, the director, which was posted online in May 2011, we are given a few further clues. Here he states that the RVT Christmas show took place "2 years ago", by which I presume that he means Christmas 2009. However, if this show was the "genesis of the film" as he states, then Christmas 2009 would make no sense, because the film itself would already have been filmed in October 2009. In that scenario, the original Christmas show would have taken place in 2008. What I think we have here is an interview that was conducted several months before it was posted online; i.e. the interview was conducted with Reich when the film was first released (in 2010) but only posted online when the DVD of it was released (2011). Do you think that I should go ahead and state that the Christmas show took part in 2008 within the article, or would that be stretching our use of reliable sources ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree it doesn't look like you can be definite enough to put this in the main text. It's up to you, but one option would be to add a footnote that said something like "the dates for the events leading up to the film are unclear", and give the information you have. I asked for dates because it does seem a bit vague without them, but if the sources aren't helpful there's not much more you can do. My support isn't dependent on this; I'm going to go ahead and support regardless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Sex-Gore-Mutants a reliable source?
    • This is a question that was posed during the articles' third FAC. There, User:Hamiltonstone stated that "I had a bit of a hunt. By conventional criteria, it is pretty marginal, but as a source of reviews that can be worth quoting it appears to have a long track record and has even been cited in a scholarly book. So I think it is OK. The few facts (as distinct from reviewer observations) on which the article relies on this source alone (really just the budget number) do not appear in any way dubious, but are consistent with the rest of what we know from other sources. My view is that it's sound." I would echo their comments again this time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That's helpful -- I think I should probably do some digging myself and try to come up with an opinion; I'll post back here if I find anything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't find out enough to be sure. Once you've fixed the only remaining issue -- the issue with the dates above -- I'll support with the caveat that I would like to see the source review confirm that that site is reliable for our purposes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a copyediting pass; please revert if I made a mess of anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My only caveat to the coordinators is that I am not sure about the reliability of the Sex-Gore-Mutants website, and whoever does the source review should try to evaluate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hamiltonstone. I thought this was travelling pretty well last time, and as noted above my one source concern was resolved. There has been some copyediting between the close of the last nom and today, and I hope that has improved the prose (though i wasn't concerned about it myself, i know Graham Colm was). I'm happy with this piece. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Laser brain: I'm satisfied with the formatting and overall use of sources, including the commentary track. I spent some time searching and thinking about the Sex Gore Mutants reliability question and ultimately I think it is OK. Film scholar Jay McRoy cites it in his textbook Nightmare Japan: Contemporary Japanese Horror Cinema and once in a peer-reviewed article for Spectator, a film journal published by USC. That's good enough for me, I think. --Laser brain (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (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) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [43].[reply]

Benjamin Tillman[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a racist, bigot and killer, who was also a senator and governor of his state, and a non-trivial figure in American history. It's necessary that this article be done, it is a story that deserved to be told better, even if not a story we care much for. Normally I say "enjoy" but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Support – As one of the peer reviewers. My few quibbles were dealt with there. This subject is odious, but it is Wikipedia's job to cover vile human beings as scrupulously as we do the good guys. I congratulate Wehwalt on this article: it can't have been fun to write, and it is neutral, well-balanced, and as excellently readable as we have come to expect from this source. Full marks, but can we have a fully-paid-up member of the human race next time, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 February 2015‎

I'll see what I can do in that department. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: The sources are all of the appropriate standard of reliability. The one format issue I can find is in ref. 133, which requires a pp. not a p. Otherwise, all in order. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I tend to share Tim's sentiments, both about the repellent character of the subject and the quality of the article that presents him to us. My detailed comments are in the peer review, and I have nothing particular to add now. There were probably more Tillmans than Greeleys around in America, in the second half of the 19th century, more's the pity. I'm glad to see that Horace has his star now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, and for the kind words. I've fixed the source issue, and will undertake to do someone less offensive than Tillman next time. Easy standard to meet.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article, I enjoyed reading it. I made a few minor copyedits, but nothing else stood out as needing correcting. One thing that might help: where you discuss the Farmers Alliance and the sub-treasury, it might be useful to link to the system in widespread use that the farmers were reacting against: the crop-lien system. Lawrence Goodwyn's The Populist Moment is a good source on that, if you need one. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will add that in. As it is discussed, no additional source should be necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts of Eddie Hugh

I have some doubts about the neutrality and balance of parts of this article. There is a lot of negative content (understandably), much of which comes from one source (Kantrowitz's book), and some of which contains assumptions and/or insinuations. Examples include:

  • "Tillman and his men arrived too late to participate in those killings" (assumption/insinuation that they would have participated).
Yes, they would have. See Tillman 1909 if you want the gory details, but the source here is a fair summation. I'm reasonably certain that the Tillman 1909 reference is where his later biographers get info on his role in Hamburg and Ellenton.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that it's preferable to state that they would have / intended to join in, but arrived too late, rather than hint at it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Democrats were able to suppress the Republican/African-American vote, reporting a win for Hampton in Edgefield County with over 60 percent of the vote. Bolstered by this result, Hampton gained a narrow victory statewide, at least according to the official returns" (insinuation).
Tillman admitted that he and others stuffed ballot boxes. This is not a matter of historical dispute. He went into considerable detail as to how he and others did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just state that; "reporting a win" and "at least according to" could be expressed plainly (and be more accurate by doing so; and create a more detailed impression of Tillman for most readers). EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tillman and others had a celebratory meal at the home of the man who had pointed out which African Americans should be shot" (what was being celebrated? The insinuation/assumption is the killings.).
Yes. That is what they were celebrating. Have you examined Tillman 1909? This is again not a matter of doubt as Tillman often spoke of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stating that in the article would clarify the point for the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it to make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tillman's death generated a large number of tributes to him in the Senate, [...] Blease, who was angry that Tillman was being lauded, and stated that the late senator was not what he had seemed. He wrote in front of the volume, "Don't believe me, but look up his life & see."" (why not mention some of the tributes, instead of implying that they were false? Putting this in the following section might help to reduce the bias of having it at the end of a section and link it with some more positive things that are there.).
The source does not quote from the lauds. I do not think it is necessary for us to go beyond the sources in such a manner. If a reputable biographer does not feel it necessary, how do we second guess? As for Blease, given that he was a white supremacist himself, I am hesitant to put it in the legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they were stated in the Senate, I imagine that they're available somewhere, but it can be left. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The late senator's supporters and protégés lingered long in South Carolina, [...] Others who knew and at one time admired Tillman who persisted long on the South Carolina scene" ("lingered" and "persisted" have negative connotations).
I don't agree with you on this, but will modify the verbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite being a white supremacist, Tillman as governor initially took a strong stand against lynching" (the "despite" looks like editorializing).
Fair enough. Introductory phrase struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "taken action to prevent such murders, they still occurred, with no one being prosecuted for them" (more editorializing: if no-one was prosecuted, they weren't murders).
I disagree, but will change to "killings".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Tillman as governor, "the former Red-shirt faced the mob as head of state."" (another bit of Kantrowitz that is more snide than informative).
As is developed throughout the section, Tillman had a conflict because of his former role as Red Shirt. This is developed throughout the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But why end the para with it? The fact (former Red Shirt, governor of state) is self-evident from what's been stated earlier; all that's added by including the quotation here is an editorial comment to counter the possibility of a positive tinge emerging from the description of BT's lynching stance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest: a greater variety of sources; some hedging in places by stating whose interpretation is being presented; and giving information plainly to allow the reader to reach a conclusion, rather than leading the reader to a particular conclusion/impression through insinuations.

Unless there are comprehensive sources on Tillman that are being overlooked, I don't see what I am supposed to do about the matter. Tillman has only the biographers set forth. Everything is footnoted. Over two dozen sources are used, including many recent and scholarly articles. I am afraid that to a certain extent, we must take Tillman as we find him. If you note, the first two reviewers seem to be holding their mouths and running in the direction of the toilet because of how fair I am being to Tillman. I will ask them if they wish to comment further in light of your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some other things encountered:

  • Source 2 takes me to a login screen.
Subscription tag added.
  • There's "African American", "African-American", "the African American" and "black" used; avoiding the second one is the current preference, I believe.
That is when used as an adjective, and the article is consistent in that regard. Note the article title, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd spotted a non-adjectival use, but all fine. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Red Shirts and Reconstruction" is a heading, but there's no description of what/who red shirts were.
Fixed.
  • "Tillman proved an adept farmer" is contradicted by "after two marginal years, the 1868 crop was destroyed by caterpillars" and "Tillman's losses in the agricultural depression of 1883–1898".
Even an adept farmer may suffer problems like that, Remember, the Florida problem occurred when Tillman was 18-20, and the language you quote is later. As for his losses, well, given the nationwide economic problems, losses are not entirely surprising. In spite of the losses, Tillman made himself a wealthy man through farming.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "today Clemson University". Better to avoid "today", as it may change.
I've changed it to "later", though I think it unnecessary. If Clemson University's name changed, I suspect our good editors would go through and change every reference to Clemson.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charleston News and Courier". Should all of that be in italics?
That is the source.
  • "Even most Conservatives would not support a bolt from the party". "Bolt" has several, diverse meanings. Using a different word would help.
That is a proper political term, which I've used in FA's before, see William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896. I do not feel the article goes out of its way to use jargon, nor is there ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had to look it up. "The act of suddenly breaking away; breaking away from a political party (U.S. colloq.)" says the OED. Fine if the US colloq bit is not regarded as a barrier in this instance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the race given control of one of South Carolina's seven congressional districts". I don't understand this; is "race" the correct word?
The legislature gerrymandered as many black voters as it could into a single district. This is made clear in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit slow. "the race" = "the African American". Going from the definite article form (rather than the plural form) to "the race" threw me. Fine if no-one else hesitated over it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this awkward, as well, perhaps born of a desire not to repeat the same words too often? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "blacks".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inauguration and legislative control" section. The indented quote is shorter than the preceding one that is not indented.
That is true, but the second quote is where he gets down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'll go beyond that, but it's what I offer for now. EddieHugh (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. The bottom line is, you think I'm being unfair to Tillman by such words as "murders". I disagree. No modern source on Tillman is as dispassionate as you would have. Lynching was wrong, and all sources make this clear. Failure to do so in this article would leave me open to charges of being a racist. This is the balance, and I think it fairly respects the sources, of which there are nearly thirty. I assure you, some of the sources are far from dispassionate about Tillman. What more can I do?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using NPOV, impartial tone: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized" and, from the same page, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Of course lynching was wrong, but how that and other things are presented also must be considered. Reminders to the reader that BT was bad, words that hint at negativity, insinuations rather than plain statements... these actually weaken the strength of the presented evidence 'against' BT: just present what there is and BT's actions will speak for themselves, without leading or commenting being required! EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a PhD thesis, "Benjamin Ryan Tillman: the South Carolina Years, 1847-1894"; and a book by Eubanks, "Ben Tillman's Baby: The Dispensary System of South Carolina, 1892-1915": any use? EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dispensary system probably not. I am searching for online access to the thesis, it is not at a library within 280 miles of me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem to be available online. Given that it is cited by other sources such as Kantrowitz and the ANB, it is something that would be nice to have but I don't consider it necessary. And I checked academic sources through my George Mason University access.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have read this article carefully twice – at peer review and then for the present FAC. It seems to me that Wehwalt has been scrupulously neutral throughout. The suggestion that we mustn't say "murder" if nobody has been convicted cannot be entertained even fleetingly. Wikipedia has an entire article on "unsolved murders", which would be a contradiction in terms if we accepted the novel premise that without a conviction a killing is not a murder. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the noun as "The deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being", and that is manifestly what we are considering here. As to the other points, I am not altogether in agreement with some of the concessions Wehwalt has made in response, but they have not materially damaged the neutrality of the article, which remains impeccable, in my view, and I do not press the point. – Tim riley talk 07:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting – I used the same definition as my starting point! It's a legal reality that, if there's no conviction for murder, then there's been no murder. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In English law (on which I believe American law is based) the exact opposite is the truth. Nobody can be tried for a crime until it has first been demonstrated that the crime has been committed. See Corpus delicti. But perhaps Tillman or his compatriots changed all that in the United States. – Tim riley talk 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even following that line, it would be necessary to discover if murder was established at the time, to look at the definition of murder at the time, etc., etc. Much simpler to use the accurate "killings" rather than the assumption-based "murders". My key point remains the leading in how the information is presented, rather than what is presented. On the "murders" part again, "there were claims that the black victim had raped" is in the next sentence. "murders" leads the reader in one direction, which is reinforced by "claims", which is reinforced by the subsequent and (presumably) non-specific "though studies have shown that". All of this content (the what) could be presented (the how) plainly, without leading. I'd hope that part of the collective goal here is to present the life of a saintly pacifist in the same way as the life of a Tillman – that is, leaving the reader to interpret the content to the maximum extent possible, instead of having to interpret the presentation. The changes made so far help towards that end. EddieHugh (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being too picky on the murder matter, but if you're generally content, let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I add:

  • A bit more on his family would be appropriate for a biography (apologies if it's already there). For instance, he had a son who died in 1950.
    • I'd be interested in this, too, if sources exist. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro (p. xxvi) to the 2002 edition of Simkins' books states that BT's powers were much reduced by strokes in 1908 and 1910. I don't think this is included at the moment.
I've added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but a greater price was paid, electorally and in lives, by the African American". The same author's words were "a most costly price" in the intro mentioned in my point immediately above; does source 2 justify "a greater price"?
Yes, "While he energized the mass of rural white voters to challenge the aristocratic rule of the state by the Bourbon Democrats, he did so at the expense of the state's African Americans." combined with the discussion further above in the article about 1876. I've added the cite from Simkins to more fully justify it.
  • There's a proposal to rename Tillman Hall at Clemson University. I'm not sure of the most recent status of this, but it might be a good idea to monitor it and update the article if/when it does change. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Turned down by the trustees a couple of weeks ago after an endorsement by the faculty senate. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • EddieHugh, this is a useful critique, but I think Wehwalt has gone far enough in making the article neutral. It's always difficult with an odious subject, but I think what's presented in the article mirrors the modern scholarly consensus. You'd be hard-pressed to find any historian alive today who disagrees that Tillman participated in violence and electoral fraud against his black neighbors. I agreed with a couple of your points, as I noted above, but I think to do much more would tip from neutrality into false equivalency. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a tendency today on Wikipedia to call any adjective, any descriptive statement, to be POV. I do not agree with that. We have to take people as they are, warts and all. I think I've gone quite a long way in answering EddieHugh's concerns, with some of which I agreed, some of which I did not and I may reconsider one or two (killings for murder). I think that in substance, I've addressed the concerns. I would ask EddieHugh to acknowledge that in general, the matters that he has brought up have been addressed, or if not, at least seriously considered and reasons given.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out my initial comment on balance, which has been satisfactorily dealt with. To me, the neutrality problem remains, in part. Please see my what versus how comment, above. To stress again, it's not the content that lacks neutrality, but the words that are used to present that content. "claims" and "though", for instance, have been used here to imply, rather than state. Compare something such as 'black people claimed in the first half of the 20th century that they were not mentally inferior to white people, though studies had shown that they scored lower in tests of intelligence'. The content is accurate, but how it is presented (the italicized parts) leads the reader in a particular direction (in this instance, pointing towards what I assume we would find objectionable). My argument is that how we feel about the content/topic/person is irrelevant and that the words we choose should not lead, either to what we find objectionable or to what we find acceptable. EddieHugh (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying. While I am happy to work with you on individual instances, I think your intervention has already cleared up any questionable matters. I believe that this article is fair to Tillman. It is factual, and I took pains to avoid casting judgment on Tillman outside the legacy section. I present the 1890 race no differently than I presented, say, Joseph B. Foraker's gubernatorial runs (to use a colleague of Tillman in the Senate). If there are individual instances, I will be happy to work with you on that. But I do believe in the fairness of this article. I do thank you for your review and for feeling strongly about your position. I do believe the best results come from challenges to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A well-balanced article, and neutral to the point of being painful in places (possibly too much, but don't chnage it on the basis of me!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. This sort of article does tend to get one into a reviewer fork.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you say in you preamble to this review, Tillman was a racist, bigot and killer – and he gloried in these "achievements". To quibble over whether he was a murderer or merely a killer is pedantry. The article seems to me to be admirably restrained in its portrait of this dreadful man; it presents him as the sources do, and there is no need for you to go any further, in the interests of supposed neutrality, in looking for any balancing gloss. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use the "upright" parameter for images that are wider than they are tall
  • File:1890SCGovResults.png: is this based on a pre-existing map? What is the source for this data?
  • File:Von_engelken.png: confused by date given - this is dated to 1916 but struck 1898? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) Fixed 2) Removed, as Gamecock's election maps seem to be slowly getting deleted and he's not around to defend them, and 3) Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "... was an American politician of the Democratic Party who was Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...": What do you think of this? "... was a Democratic Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...". That tells us he's American.
Thanks, but I think it would be best to just drop the "American".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing what you could do.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. Continuing.
  • Gary asked, "what white man wants his wife or sister sandwiched between a big bully buck and a saucy wench"?: If the ? doesn't come right after "wench" in the quote, then saucy wench ...?" is arguably better.
Well ... it's an odd passage. "Eugene Gary, Tillman's running mate in the 1890 campaign, spoke frequently about the need to protect white women from the sexual threat allegedly posed by black men. Gary advocated the segregation of railroad cars, demanding to know "[w]hat white man wants his wife or sister sandwiched between a big bully buck and a saucy wench." Tillman's white opponents even worried about being outflanked as proponents of this protective, manly white supremacy: a white anti-Tillman audience in Columbia responded to Gary's speech by shouting, "Come off that Tillman ticket.... You ought to be with us."" So almost certainly it is a complete sentence but the question mark is not given in the quote, which is why I put it outside. I suppose I could have put it in brackets.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case, my solution won't work. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Okay, fine edits Wehwalt, we're almost done. The only one that's a problem for me is restoring "Charleston's cherished The Citadel" ... South Carolinians drop the "The" there, and that would work for me, or the workaround I used, or just dropping "Charleston's cherished" would work too. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just drop the "cherished"?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arranged for McLaurin ... to not be re-elected": I'm not sure what that means.
It is complicated, but what it amounts to is that Tillman put in the party rules that candidates had to support the entire Democratic platform (most of which Tillman had written). McLaurin bucked the party line on the question of American territorial expansion, so he could not in good faith sign that he supported the national platform, and so could not run in the primary.
Thank you most kindly for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only comment I would make to the coordinators is that reasonable minds can differ as to how to approach a person like Tillman, and I think there's consensus that my approach is a valid one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2015 (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) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [44].[reply]

Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two early science fiction magazines together in one article this time; the two have almost identical histories. These two were unusual in that they had no budget for fiction: the editor had to get his stories free from friends and acquaintances. Since his friends included several writers who would go on to become famous in sf, this worked out better than you might expect. The magazine also features some of Hannes Bok's early work, and since it is all out of copyright I've been able to include two of his covers -- he had a very distinctive and characterful style. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they appear to be fine, but it'd be good to state your source for copyright non-renewal explicitly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked via [45], so it would be easy to add that, but I'm not sure where the standard place to add it would be -- the license template doesn't have parameters. Where does this information usually go for out of copyright images? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually link right above the license tag. File:Alex_Schomburg_-_Harl_Vincent_-_Marvel_Science_Stories_for_April-May_1939_-_Illustration_for_Newscast.jpg might be a good template. By the way, Abebooks has a couple copies of these magazines available, so the images might be improveable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done; I didn't include the license in that parameter because it appears lower down; not sure if that's the standard way to do it or not, but it's what happens when you use the wizard to do uploads. I have copies of all these magazines, and can scan the covers if you're interested, but unfortunately they're in boxes at the moment (along with about 5,000 other old sf magazines). If you really want to restore these old magazines I could keep you busy for a very long time once I get the boxes unpacked! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a major boon. We could start with trying to get major artists and authors, and go from there. Have to be vigorous about copyright checking, but we always need to be vigorous about that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll scan some; I'll check with you before doing it, and it'll be a while, because they're in boxes, but I think this will be great. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Generally very strong.

  • Perhaps you could more clearly clarify the relationship between the two publications in the lead? Also, perhaps the alternative name should be mentioned and bolded?
    Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in the publication history section could probably do with some attention
    I tweaked the tense in one place, but I may not be seeing what you're seeing -- can you be specific? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "had he been able to achieve it" thing is throwing me- are you suggesting that he was lying in the advert? I'm also unclear what "In the event" adds. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources don't say he was lying, but personally I think it was likely to be a bait and switch. That issue of Writers' Digest appeared before any issues of either Cosmic or Stirring had appeared, and there's no question Wollheim knew he couldn't pay that rate initially. At best he was hoping that by the time he received manuscripts he might be able to start paying something, if the magazines were successful, but most likely if he liked a story he planned to offer little or nothing for it. The payments Kornbluth received were well below half a cent a word, and I'm not aware that any other writers were paid at all, though they may well have been. It's possible that he believed the Albings would pay that rate after two or three issues, but there's no way to tell.
    What I meant to convey in that paragraph was (a) the fact that he did offer a payment rate, before the magazine launched, and (b) to position that rate against the rates other magazines were paying, so that a reader understands what that rate indicates, and (c) to make it clear that he did not in fact manage to pay the rate. "In the event" is meant to be a transition: I meant no more than "As it turned out". What do you think could be done to improve the paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fascinated by this printer error- perhaps it could be expanded upon in a footnote if the information is too trivial for the main body?
    It's an interesting story but I don't think I have the sources to be explicit. Knight's story is about little alien invaders whose bodies were incredibly resilient, so that bullets would cause their bodies to distort but would not harm them. They call humans "the Brittle People". The story is only a page or two long, and the point, if I recall correctly, is the realization at the end that the little aliens are invincible. This depends on the reader understanding who the Little People are (the aliens) and who the Brittle People are (the humans). In the opening sentence, the printer changed "Brittle People" to "Little People", presumably because he assumed it was a mistake on the writer's part. I met Damon Knight years ago and asked him to sign my copy of that issue, and he did, and also corrected the misprint, writing "Brittle People, dammit!" above the first sentence, and signing it. If I can find that issue in my basement I could take a picture of that correction with his signature and include that in the article I suppose, but I'm not sure that's sufficient evidence for a discussion in the text. As it happens, Damon told me he didn't own a copy of that issue any more, so I later found one and sent it to him, which was a nice thing to be able to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What a fantastic story- both about the misprint and your interactions with Knight. A Google Book search suggests that sources may exist. Any details you can include would be very interesting. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea the details were out there; thanks for finding that! I've added a footnote; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his autobiographical anthology" I note that our article on the book suggests that it is a story anthology rather than autobiographical?
    It's both -- it's a collection of all the stories which to that point had not been collected in his short story collections, interspersed with autobiographical reminiscences. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wollheim later commented to Damon Knight that because of the payment he could sue Asimov for royalties whenever his name appeared in print." A nice factoid, but it's not completely clear now- too many pronouns for clarity.
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast to Tremaine's attitude, John W. Campbell, who in 1938 had taken over from Tremaine as editor of the leading science fiction magazine, Astounding Science Fiction, was not concerned by Albing's policy." Again, a little convoluted
    I cut the clause about Campbell taking over from Tremaine; it's true but not strictly necessary to the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Campbell was proved right when the magazines ceased publication" Sorry to be picky, but Campbell was certainly not proven right by the fact the magazine ceased publication. Perhaps you could say "Although the magazine did cease publication after a relatively short amount of time, ..."
    Thompson's comment in the source is that Campbell's "prognosis" was proved correct, by which he appears to mean Campbell's assertion that the magazines wouldn't be competitive. I think ceasing publication is evidence that they weren't competitive, which I think is what Thompson meant. I've changed this to "Campbell's prediction"; does that help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "although Campbell was correct that the magazine was unable to compete with paying magazines" or something like it? Technically, for Thompson's preduction to be proved correct, it would have to be unsuccessful because of the low quality of the content, which goes against the following setence. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's definitely better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some inconsistency between the use of "science fiction" and "sf"
    It's deliberate variation -- I use "sf" because "science fiction" is a long enough phrase that is repeated often enough in these articles to get tedious. "Sf" is the standard abbreviation, but I don't think it's necessary to use it all the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some fixes- please double-check them. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits all look good to me. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will get back to this in the next few days- sorry for the delay! J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick further comments:

I've made some more tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look fine; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and content. I've not looked into the sources/images in detail. Great work. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- recusing from coord duties:

  • No dab or dup links
  • Prose looks good, I just tweaked here and there
  • Structure is simple and straightforward
  • Content/detail seems sufficient, especially given the short life of these mags
  • I'll rely on the review above for image licensing
  • Sources all look reliable and happy with the formatting

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No prob -- I forgot to add, just picking up on your nom statement, that the covers you've been able to include are indeed very special! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, I think Bok's work is really unusual and deserves to be more widely known. The May 1941 Cosmic cover, in particular, is terrific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


One nitpick: *"Knight would later become a member of the Futurians, but he was still living in Oregon at the time the story appeared in print" - We haven't established that location had anything to do with membership. Should this be explicitly mentioned? Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. They were a New York group; I've now mentioned that before the comment about Knight -- does that fix it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That fixes it :) Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2015 (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) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [46].[reply]

Gary Cooper[edit]

Nominator(s): Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American film actor Gary Cooper, noted for his natural, authentic, and understated acting style and screen performances. His career spanned thirty-six years, from 1925 to 1961, and included leading roles in eighty-four feature films. He was a major movie star from the end of the silent film era through the end of the golden age of Classical Hollywood. His screen persona appealed powerfully to both men and women, and his range of performances included roles in most major movie genres. Cooper's ability to project his own personality onto the characters he played contributed to his appearing natural and authentic on screen. The screen persona he sustained throughout his career represented the ideal American hero. Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Support – As one of the peer reviewers. At an earlier stage in its history the article was long and, in parts, discursive. The nominator has since tightened it up admirably, and it is now comprehensive without being overlong. The prose is a pleasure to read, the sourcing and referencing are wide and thorough, the proportions and balance impeccable. I leave it to the experts to comment on the images, but as regards the text I am happy to support for FA. – Tim riley talk 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Collect[edit]

Oppose Undue coverage of Patricia Neal and abortion makes me quite concerned. The affair is of minor biographical value, and a couple of sentences would suffice. I say this as a person whose GA Joseph Widney was achieved by massive removal of "stuff". Collect (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: I responded to your discussion on the Gary Cooper talk page, but I'll copy that response here for the reviewers. Cooper's love affair with Neal was well-publicized and documented in Neal's autobiography, as well as all of the Cooper biographies. By all accounts this was not a casual fling, but a serious relationship, which led to Cooper's three-year separation from his wife (which you also deleted)—a major event in his personal life. After his death, Cooper's daughter Maria reached out to Neal and helped her through a difficult time. A few sentences about their affair and the direct impact on his marriage is appropriate for this article. If the focus of your objection is the sentence on abortion, delete that one sentence. A fair argument can be made for its removal. Keep in mind that a number of editors have recently reviewed this article—GA and Peer Review—and it was not brought up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this here and the article talk page. Bede735 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Made edit on that basis - also removed an "also" etc. OK? Collect (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with your changes. Bede735 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Support Another happy PR participant. This article is very well written, nicely balanced, covers all the aspects of Cooper's life I would expect it to, and is an enjoyable read throughout. Excellent work! - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Support I conducted the GA review for this and was happy with many of the improvements during and since with the peer review. There may still be too much personal life info for some people, but it is clearly very well researched and written and some readers will like the length.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

Support I have been making visits to this article since it's GA review and the article has improved to a great extent. My only comment is that it would be better to archive all newspaper and magazines article references to prevent dead links. Otherwise, great job! — Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Gary_Cooper_Signature.png: what is the original source for this?
I created the signature image from an autograph I found here: PSA (fourth image in the scroll). I added a link to the original source to the image page. Bede735 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:For_Whom_The_Bell_Tolls_trailer.jpg: IMDb is not a good source for copyright status - check for renewals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the link on the image page with one from TCM, also with no copyright notice. Bede735 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jonas Vinther[edit]

Support Having spend a lot of time on this article myself, I believe it's worth FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimknut[edit]

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Jimknut
  • "Cooper's first important film role was in The Winning of Barbara Worth (1926) with Ronald Colman and Vilma Bánky. In the film, Cooper plays cowboy Abe Lee, who dies after an exhausting ride to warn a community of an impending dam disaster." – The Winning of Barbara Worth is available on DVD. I suggest that you watch it. Cooper's character does not die at the end of the film.
You're right. I just watched the 2007 MGM Movie Legends DVD, and after being shot and left in the desert, he last appears back in town recuperating in bed at 1:12:08. Interestingly, four biographers have him dying in Colman's arms after the ride. In his Saturday Evening Post memoir, Cooper described the scene where he dies in Colman's arms, which is where the biographers probably picked that up. I corrected the sentence. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to biographer Jeffrey Meyers, the romantic image of the tall, handsome, and shy cowboy hero that embodied male freedom, courage, and honor was created in large part by Cooper in the film. Unlike some silent film actors who had trouble adapting to the new sound medium, Cooper transitioned naturally, with his "deep and clear" and "pleasantly drawling" voice, which was perfectly suited for the characters he portrayed on screen, according to biographer Jeffrey Meyers." – "According to biographer Jeffrey Meyers" is fine the first time, but the second time you should shorten it to "according to Meyers" (or perhaps "also according to Meyers").
Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cooper appeared in the Dashiell Hammett crime film City Streets playing a cowboy who gets involved with big-city gangsters in order to save the woman he loves." – I have seen City Streets and I don't recall Cooper's character being a cowboy. The Homer Dickens book describes him as being a "lanky westerner", which may or may not be a cowboy.
Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the qualifier "feature" film. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1944, Cooper appeared in Cecil B. DeMille's wartime adventure film The Story of Dr. Wassell with Laraine Day—his third movie with the director. In the film, Cooper plays an American doctor and missionary who leads a group of wounded sailors through the jungles of Java to safety." – How about making the second sentence read: "In the film, Cooper plays Dr. Corydon Wassell, an American doctor …"? Since Coop was playing a real-life character a link seems appropriate.
Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1958, he appeared in Anthony Mann's Western drama Man of the West (1958) with Julie London and Lee J. Cobb, about a reformed outlaw and killer who is forced to confront his violent past when the train he is riding is held up by his former gang members." – "In 1958, he appeared in Anthony Mann's Western drama Man of the West (1958) with Julie London and Lee J. Cobb, about a reformed outlaw and killer who is forced to confront his violent past when the train he is riding in is held up by his former gang members."
Done. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the simple list of feature films adds value to the article in that it provides a reader with a convenient way of locating a film in the context of their overall career. The list in a compact three-column format fits within a single screen for most resolutions, so it doesn't take up a lot of space within the article—less than 25 percent the vertical space of the citations section. The main filmography article provides a lot of information and detail that could overwhelm a reader who might simply want to know which films Cooper made around the time of Mr. Deeds or High Noon. The two serve different purposes. Not all readers who come to this article are there to read the entire article, but may simply want to know some simple facts about Cooper's life—provided in the infobox and lead—or may want to simply scan through the titles without encountering the "scroll of death". When I navigate to an encyclopedia article about an actor, I expect to see a filmography, because it represents the body of their work. For actor biographies, the simple list is especially valuable because of the restriction against navboxes for actors (a restriction with which I agree). According to WP:CORRECTSPLIT, when you create a separate article for a section, the guidance is to "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article." In most cases, that would mean a couple of summary paragraphs. For filmographies, bibliographies, and works, a simple list serves that purpose. Having said all that, I recognize that other editors may have strong views in this area, which I respect. If other reviewers feel the simple list in this article is unnecessary, I'll remove it. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography – The book John Wayne: American has two authors, Randy Roberts and James S. Olson. Was is it credited only to Roberts? Memo From David O. Selznick should list Rudy Behlmer as the editor. It seems odd to list Selznick as the author since he was dead by the time the book was put together. Jimknut (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I want to thank you for your careful read of the article and your helpful suggestions. I have been working on the Gary Cooper filmography article preparing it for WP:FLC. I know you did the lion's share of the work on this article back in 2009, and I would appreciate your FL review after I submit it. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

I'm very close to supporting this article. However:

  • I'm still a bit concerned about the sentence about North West Mounted Police. Rather than saying, "Cooper appeared in his first Technicolor feature picture" I think it would be better to say "Cooper appeared in his first all-Technicolor feature" (note the hidden change made in the link to Technicolor). Perhaps you could also add a linked note in the Reference section stating, "Ten years prior to this, Cooper appeared in the all-star feature Paramount on Parade, which included scenes in two-color Technicolor, including his "Let Us Drink to the Girl of My Dreams" sequence. (Source: Dickens, pp. 8, 73-74.) Also, he appeared as himself in the Technicolor short subjects Star Night at the Coconut Grove (1935) and La Fiesta de Santa Barbara (1936)." (Source: Dickens, pp. 23-24)
Done. Bede735 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography – While not necessary, you might consider adding links to Joseph Conrad, Richard Schickel, David O. Selznick, and Rudy Behlmer. (On a personal note I'd really like to see a link to Rudy Behlmer added. In addition to being one of the world's most knowledgeable film historians he's a really nice guy as well!)
Done (partially). Per WP:OVERLINK, Conrad and Selznick are already linked in the article. I will need to pick up Behlmer's Behind the Scenes and his book on Hathaway. Bede735 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A side-note (sorry I can't help it): I always find it amusing that Gary Cooper's mother was Alice Cooper! Jimknut (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a woman ahead of her time. Bede735 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any more concerns from me? Nope; Do I support this article? YUP! Jimknut (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian Rose[edit]

Coord note -- I can see this article has generated healthy interest (as one would hope). We still need a source review for formatting/reliability, as well as a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing given this is the nominator's first time at FAC. I'll post a request at WT:FAC for the former, perhaps Tim could look after the latter? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do a spot-check. I've just ordered the Dickens, Meyer and Swindell books at the British Library: they'll be ready for collection by mid-morning, when I'll toddle down and do the honours. I'll report back after lunch, I hope. Tim riley talk 08:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check[edit]

I've done a ten per cent check of the cited sources for accuracy and due avoidance of close paraphrase. Owing to a misunderstanding between me and the British Library (i.e. I screwed it up) I was working from a later edition of Meyers than the one used for the article, and the page numbers don't match. But I was able to check the statements attributed to Meyers in my sample, even if I can't vouch for the accuracy of the page numbers cited.

  • Meyers
    • Refs 42, 43, 59, 94, 124, 142, 153, 169, 197, 216, 231, 267, 289, 314, 330 and 396 are all fine for accuracy and absence of close paraphrasing.
  • Dickens
    • Refs 34, 41, 51, 97, 105, 118 (but see my next sentence), 160, 173, 183, 196, 213, 238, 243, 252, 258, 270, 296 and 404 are all fine. Ref 118 should ideally point to page 140 rather than 139, I think.
You're right, Tim. I made the correction. Bede735 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swindell
    • Refs 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 36, 53, 72 (another page number query – see below), 93, 123, 164, 205 a & b, 293 a & b, 319, 343, 377, 389, and 420 (so far as I could tell without knowing what the nominator considers a cameo, and I'm quite happy to leave it at that) are all fine. Ref 72 should point to p. 122 rather than 123.
I made the correction. Bede735 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the above, the article passes the spot-check admirably. – Tim riley talk 15:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim riley for taking the time to do this and for all your help at GA and PR. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Is Rainey 2008 or 1990?
Done. The correct year is 1990. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN407: publication title should be italicized
Done. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes CineArtistes a high-quality reliable source?
Done. I replaced the reference with one from the official website. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include only one author in short cites for Roberts but both for Hanks and Hodges?
Done. I added Olson to the Roberts citation. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated or spelled out in full
Done. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the major biographies covers this. The citation was for a note that was not necessary for the article, so I removed the note and reference. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nikkimaria, for doing the source review. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Lots of things seem to have been overlooked here.....

Lead
  • "known for his natural, authentic, and understated acting style and screen performances" is puffery and fancruft
  • "He was a major movie star"..... prominent
  • I understand what "he portrayed more mature characters" is trying to say, but "mature" isn't really neutral
  • Friendships and partners aren't really necessary to include
  • Focus on the Academy Awards Cooper won and nix the nominations he lost
  • No mention of him winning a Golden Globe for Best Actor in Friendly Persuasion?
Early life
  • Remove the comma after "English immigrants"
I removed the comma. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite a promising first eighteen months at Grinnell, he left college suddenly in February 1924"..... not sure if "promising" is a good term to use
Career
Silent films, 1925–28
  • "Risky" from "risky stunt work" doesn't seem like a good word choice
  • "first important film role" is POV
  • "was a major success"..... critically or commercially?
  • "held out for a better deal" reads awkwardly
  • "the first film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture"..... is this for Children of Divorce or Wings?
I rephrased the sentence. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something doesn't feel right about starting a sentence with "still" followed by a comma
I removed the word. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cooper's acting skills improved" is POV
  • "It became one of the most commercially successful films of 1928"..... how much did it gross?
Hollywood stardom, 1929–35
  • See note in lead regarding "major movie star"
  • How is "One of the high points of Cooper's early career" encyclopedic?
I changed this to "One of the more important performances in Cooper's early career ..." Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "good foods" in "taught him about good food and vintage wines" isn't neutral
  • Something doesn't feel right about "one of his most ambitious and challenging dramatic roles"
  • How can one's performance be "intense"?
  • "revealed his genuine ability to do light comedy" isn't really encyclopedic
  • "Cooper changed his name legally in August 1933"..... it's best to explicitly mention here the name he legally took on
I added "to Gary Cooper". Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adorable girl" is POV
  • Try to give a more definitive statement than "who may have been put off"
I altered the wording. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most popular and successful adventure films"..... again, be specific as to whether this is commercial or critical success
American folk hero, 1936–43
  • This section is uncomfortably long to read and should be divided into subsections
I added subsections. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The year 1936 marked an important turning point in Cooper's career" is simply inappropriate tone
  • "an innocent, sweet-natured writer" is POV
  • "For his performance in Mr. Deeds, Cooper received his first Academy Award nomination for Best Actor"..... include who he lost to
  • "A critical and box-office disappointment"..... a more neutral way to say this would be "critically and commercially unsuccessful"
I replaced the word "disappointment". Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a weak screenplay" is POV
  • "biggest failure to that date"..... critically or commercially?
  • Is "major" in "turned down several major roles" the best word choice?
I changed it to "important". Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "clever screenplay" is POV
  • "shallow philanderer" is not encyclopedic
  • "sweet-natured rodeo cowboy" is POV
  • I don't see how "what could have been a fine vehicle for Cooper" is encyclopedic
  • Is "Cooper's fourth straight box-office failure" saying fourth consecutive box office failure? If so, I'd use that term in place.
I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced "daring" from "daring English brothers" is needed
  • "magnificent sets" is not neutral
  • "The film received good reviews"..... positive reviews is more encyclopedic
I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure "heroic actions" is neutral
  • New York Post is unreliable, so I'd remove its review
  • "Cooper finished up the year"..... concluded is more encyclopedic
I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now commonly called "Lou Gehrig's disease'" is unnecessary and "now commonly called" is not encyclopedic
  • Who did Cooper lose his Best Actor Oscar nominations for The Pride of the Yankees and For Whom the Bell Tolls to?
  • "Cooper did not serve in the military during World War II due to his age and health"..... what specifically about his age and health kept him from joining?
Mature roles, 1944–52
  • This section's title isn't really neutral
  • "he's" from "he's about to marry another woman" should be "he is" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cooper's most important film" is POV
  • "understated" from "Cooper's understated performance was widely praised" isn't really needed, and I'm not sure it's the best term to use anyway
Later films, 1953–61
  • "Despite its beautiful cinematography" is POV
  • "Cooper was more effective playing" reads awkwardly and doesn't seem neutral
  • Who did Cooper lose his Golden Globe nomination for Friendly Persuasion to?
  • See above note from "American folk hero" regarding "good reviews"
  • "made three unusual films" is POV
Personal life
Marriage and family
  • It would help to include a year for when Cooper met Rocky
I included the year. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to mention where Rocky grew up or her education
  • Not sure if mentioning Rocky's stepfather or "Athletic and a lover of the outdoors, Rocky shared many of Cooper's interests, including riding, skiing, and skeet-shooting" is really needed
  • I'm skeptical about including "patient" in "By all accounts, Cooper was a patient and affectionate father"
  • "Sharing many of her parents' interests, she accompanied them on their travels and was often photographed with them. Like her father, she developed a love for art and drawing." can be scrapped
Romantic relationships
  • Much of this seems like simply a list of women he was with. While people like Clara Bow and Patricia Neal are certainly worth mentioning, but not sure how many of them are needed.
  • What is "worldly" in "worldly actress" supposed to mean?
I removed the word. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was the most important romance of his early life" gives no detail on its impact and I'm not convinced its tone is very encyclopedic or neutral
Friendships, interests, and character
  • This entire section is completely superfluous and should be scrapped entirely
Religion
  • "many of his friends believed he had a deeply spiritual side"..... no quotes or commentary from these friends?
  • These two paragraphs are best merged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which discourages really short paragraphs
Final year and death
  • Don't need the day of week for when he died
Acting style and reputation
  • Is "essential" in "three essential characteristics" the best word choice?
Career assessment and legacy
  • See note in lead and "Hollywood stardom" sections regarding "major movie star"

Sorry, but this is not FA material and I must oppose; many excessive details (particularly in the "personal life" section), prose is not up to par, and it reads like a fansite. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with most of the points made above by Snuggums, and so, it would seem, do the other experienced editors, above, who have supported the nomination. Some of these editors have considerable experience at FAC, having between them taken more than seventy articles through FAC to promotion to FA, and with the greatest respect to Snuggums, who, to be fair, I see has managed that achievement once, I suggest that their collective and individual judgement may conceivably be worth taking into account. A few of Snuggums's individual comments bear consideration (the point about WP:CONTRACTIONS is technically correct) but a remark such as his opening comment "known for his natural, authentic, and understated acting style and screen performances" is puffery and fancruft is nonsense. The statement correctly reflects what is in the main text, and what is in the main text is a fair and correct representation of what the sources say: I can say this with confidence, having looked at the two sources from which the statement is constructed while doing my spot-check, above, from which I still have my notes to hand. I could go on (Risky from risky stunt work doesn't seem like a good word choice – yes it does; good foods in taught him about good food and vintage wines isn't neutral – yes it is; an innocent, sweet-natured writer" is POV – no it isn't; shallow philanderer is not encyclopedic – yes it is. And so on and on) but I just note that most of Snuggums's points have not troubled those supporting the promotion, and I suggest that a polite acknowledgment of them is all that is required, rather than any action. – Tim riley talk 11:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tim, for all your time and help with this article. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Snuggums makes a few points worth considering:

  • I'd clarify that it was Wings that won the first Best Picture Academy Award, e.g. "the latter being the first film..." etc
I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would delete "Still" in: "Still, with each new film..."
I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the "folk hero" section (2,300 words) might benefit from some subdivision, and would consider this, but I would not insist.
I subdivided the section. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't use the phrase "innocent, sweet-natured" twice, for two different characters in two different films. I'd find a synonymous phrase for one of them.
I rephrased one of the descriptions. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cooper's first production compamy, "International Pictures" was formed in 1944. It's not mentioned after 1946 – what happened to it? We are only told that he formed a new company, Baroda Productions, in 1959. (Snuggums didn't raise this, but I picked it up)
The last sentence of that paragraph reads, "It was also International's biggest financial success during its brief history before being sold off to Universal Studios in 1946." I would need to research its history as part of Universal. The Universal Studios Wikipedia article indicates that Independent Pictures was merged into a new entity, United World Pictures, which failed within a year. There are no sources provided for that section. I'll add a note to capture that history if I can find a good source. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a few passages that could be trimmed without detriment to the article, but I strongly disagrre that the whole "Friendships, interests, and character" section needs deleting. It gives us some essential insights into the character of the man, which informs our general reading.
  • In the main I disagree with Snuggums in his interpretation of what is POV and what is not, but it might be worth checking to see if there are a few cases where a specific attribution to a source might help.
I will go through the article again with this in mind. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of Snuggums's suggested alternative words are worth considering. However, many of his comments – saying that certain phrasing is "inappropriate", or "reads awkwardly", etc, are personal viewpoints, from which the main editors are entitled to differ. I certainly didn't perceive inappropriateness or awkwardness in the passages thus described. Snuggums's final judgement on the article is unjust; while all prose is susceptible to improvement, to say that the article reads like a "fansite" is absurd. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Brianboulton, for your guidance. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (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) 16:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC) [47].[reply]

Les Holden[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Elwyn Roy King, Roy Phillipps and Garnet Malley, I present another Australian fighter ace of World War I to help commemorate the centenary of that conflict. Okay, you've probably never heard of Les except by association (his uncle co-founded car manufacturer Holden), but he certainly led an interesting life. King and Phillipps may have been the more successful aces, but Holden had the most eventful post-war career in civil aviation. Like them, he died too early, in this case on a routine passenger flight after having survived numerous brushes with death during the war, not to mention the wilds of New Guinea in the earliest days of its air transport industry. Thanks to everyone who stopped by the recent MilHist A-Class Review and in advance to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I copyedited this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nice work as always Ian. I have the following comments:

  • "after a brace of incidents" - "brace" sounds a bit odd in the lead. Could it be replaced with "pair" or "series" or similar?
    • It isn't a particularly common word these days I grant you -- altered!
  • "was posted to the 4th Light Horse Brigade as a private" - while this is what's in the source, you might want to double check it: I think that the light horse used cavalry ranks, so he was probably a trooper upon joining the unit (I could well be mistaken though!)
    • I daresay you're right but I double-checked his service record and the one reference to his initial rank I could spot said private rather than trooper...
      • Fair enough. I had a look at his file on the NAA website as well, and couldn't see anything either (it's a very badly kept file!...). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holden claimed his first aerial victory while No. 2 Squadron was still flying DH.5s, before it began converting to Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5s in December 1917" - do the sources give a date for when he claimed this victory?
    • 'Fraid not, just that it was in a DH.5. You did highlight for me however that I should've had additional sources in there...
  • "Formed at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria, it transferred to the newly opened RAAF Richmond, New South Wales, on 30 June" - given that Holden presumably wouldn't have travelled down to Melbourne to fly with this squadron in the week or so between his enlistment and its move, I'd suggest trimming this to just say that the squadron was located at Richmond from 30 June. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it looks like he did just that! Adjusted accordingly... Tks for review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article. Karanacs (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Karen! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2015 (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/March_2015&oldid=654379882"