Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2010

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2010[edit]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010 [1].

Miniopterus aelleni[edit]

Nominator(s): Ucucha 15:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Malagasy and Comoran bat, like Miniopterus griveaudi (promoted to FA a few weeks ago) that is part of a group of superficially similar, but genetically distinctive species. This article was GA reviewed by Casliber and incorporates suggestions by several other people who reviewed the articles I wrote on other species from this group. I am looking forward to your reviews. Ucucha 15:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Another fine (but technical) article that is very thorough and well-sourced. Given that Casliber did the GAC, I'm not surprised that I didn't find any obvious issues. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources and citations look fine, no obvious issues. No spotchecks carried out (sources not accessible to me). Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check. The most important source, Goodman et al. (2009b), is in fact open access. Ucucha 16:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None. Easy, isn't it? Hamiltonstone has kindly added an external link that includes some pictures of the animal. Ucucha 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments: Good stuff so far. This does not seem far off from FA standards. I do, however, feel that the prose can be improved. I have begun a line-by-line prose review here. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've replied on the talk page. Ucucha 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a brief but productive prose review, I am happy to Support this nomination on the basis of readability and accessibility. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 20:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and comments Happy to support, just one question and one nitpick Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review! Ucucha 13:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within M. aelleni, Goodman and colleagues found some differentiation (3.4% divergence in cytochrome b sequences) — is this enough for subspecies status?
  • Miniopterus aelleni is known to live... — Miniopterus aelleni lives...?
  • I prefer "is known to", because it is extremely likely that the true range is greater. The sources use similar wording ("Miniopterus aelleni is known to occur in northern and western Madagascar across the elevational range of near sea level—1110 m and on Anjouan from 220–690 m." Goodman et al. 2009b: p. 6). Ucucha 13:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It meets all the FAC criteria so far as I can tell, and it's an interesting read to boot. I'm happy to support it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010 [2].

Ronnie Lee Gardner[edit]

Nominator(s): KimChee (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the late subject initiated a 25-year appeals process, providing an interesting look into incarceration and capital punishment in the state of Utah. It has developed over several months into a good article and is ready for a FA review. KimChee (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A number of redundant and self-evident links, including the ones mentioned, have been trimmed out. KimChee (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More links ruthlessly removed, but mercury has been redirected to mercury poisoning as I believe that was the context of its mention in the case. KimChee (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing an Australian editor add a link regarding the United States, I think it may be necessary to leave a link for American to keep the article global. KimChee (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly sure what policies are, but it seems to me that links to random topics, such as meningitis and huffing, do not really have impact on the topic at hand. 68.197.174.59 (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think those links are fine. They are used in the context of potentially damaging his brain/influencing his actions, and I think readers would often want to find out more information on those topics, to see what kinds of effects they might have. "Huffing" is also slang and would not be understood by everyone. Trebor (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what "keep the article global" means given that this article is written in English and is about one American. It is not about poverty or an infectious disease where a bias towards their impact on one country would be a problem. The linking is much improved, but I still see, for example, pled. I suggest the nominator reads this and tries to avoid getting an award. Graham Colm (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, those have been taken care of. May I nominate an old revision of the article for that award? KimChee (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second impression I am sorry but I have to oppose because I don't think the prose is FA quality. It's close, but problems remain. The Lead is often the most difficult to fine tune. Here's a list of examples that I think need refining:
  • Here, "to limit appeals" - does this mean the number of appeals, the length of appeals or what? It's vague.
The lead has been updated to specify that it is the number of appeals and the end of the Death penalty debate section discusses the proposed legislation in more detail. KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here this, "to escape from a court proceeding" - sounds odd. I know what it means, but the prose is clumsy.
This part of the lead has been completely rewritten. KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More clumsy prose here, "as a result of the courthouse shooting", "courthouse shooting" should be avoided and a better phrase used.
  • I think "pointed out" is too colloquial.
  • Here, "A state law regarding" - begs the question which state law? And, I think "on" would be better than "regarding".
This has also been rewritten. KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the inclusion of "team" is needed here, "Gardner's defense took the case all the way."
Rewritten using the term "legal team". KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like "for being the first" and would prefer "because it was..".
  • No need to apologize as this is to the benefit of the article. The lead has been updated to address the comments above. KimChee (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, I think the article would benefit from a copy-edit from an editor new to the article and who can bring a strategic distance and iron out the remaining glitches. The sources have been used well, but are occasionally a little too close with regard to wording - I found the section on the execution a minor problem - with the use of "his ashen face" and "He was strapped to a black metal chair with a white target over his heart, a hood over his head, and sandbags placed around him to stop ricochets", which is only a minor re-write of the text used in the sources. Graham Colm (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the execution section and will request an editor who assisted me during the peer review process to make a quick pass through the article for additional improvements. KimChee (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck my oppose because I like your friendly attitude and your responses to, hopefully, constructive criticism. But I still think another copy-edit from an experienced editor could make the further refinements that are needed. There is nothing I like more when working on Wikipedia than to add my support to worthy FA candidates—I hope I can do this here soon. Graham Colm (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, the opportunity is much appreciated. I have learned to value diplomacy while dealing with the image copyright crew. :) KimChee (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • The following sentence, "Gardner had a daughter in May 1977 and a son in February 1980 with Bischoff, but was convicted of robbery and sent to Utah State Prison in the same month his son was born" is cited to [6]. I can't see any mention of this information in the source.
  • The primary citation for this sentence is [1], which confirms the dates and information about the conviction. [6] was included in an earlier revision to confirm the names of Gardner's children. This was commented out due to reservations expressed during an earlier review. These children are adults now. Is there a second opinion regarding this? KimChee (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On your selection of sources, I notice that around 40 per cent of the citations are to The Deseret News; it seems a bit odd that a local paper should be the main source for such a high profile news event. Would you care to comment on this?
  • A broad selection of sources was easy to find regarding the execution and to a lesser extent, the courthouse shooting. However, the details of Gardner's life and mundane legal proceedings before the execution were followed almost exclusively by the local city sources, the two largest being Deseret News and The Salt Lake Tribune. Deseret News allows their archives to be searchable back to 1850 through Google's news scanning service. For this reason, I admittedly cite it frequently for articles pertaining to Utah history. On the other hand, The Salt Lake Tribune website underwent a change this year in which most of their archives are now behind a paywall (example). Therefore, this is a result of availablility of information and not any bias in particular. KimChee (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Cleaning that up was a chore. KimChee (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image copyright

Looks okey other than File:Gardner execution protester Utah cropped.jpg which has potential derivative works issues with the typesetting on that sign.©Geni 07:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues is not the typeface. The issue is that while the words may be in the public domain their layout is not.©Geni 18:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. That image is nice, but not critical to the article, so I will follow the recommendation of the reviewers. KimChee (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be content that this image is PD, it falls below the threshold of originality, how else would you display this text on a canvas that only allows 11 characters per line. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Murder" subsection

  • "During the night of October 9, 1984, Gardner attempted to rob the Cheers Tavern in Salt Lake City."
"the night of" could be clarified by being more specific about the time. For example: "At about 11 p.m. on October 9, 1984,".
Gardner was evidently successful in robbing the tavern so "attempted" is the wrong word. Perhaps: "At about 11 p.m. on October 9, 1984, Gardner robbed the Cheers Tavern in Salt Lake City."
  • Done, except for the time of 11 p.m.; I could not find that in the sources for that sentence. Do you remember where you found that information? KimChee (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was using 11 p.m. as an example of how to construct the sentence. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While high on cocaine, he shot bartender Melvyn John Otterstrom in the nose, killing him."
"high on cocaine" is too casual. Is there another way of saying this? Perhaps, "while under the influence of cocaine". I'm not sure "in the nose" is necessary. Some will relish this horrific detail but some will not.
  • Done. The article previously reiterated the source in stating that he was shot in the nostril. That was changed to "nose" due to an earlier objection. However, I think "face" or "head" should still get the point across. KimChee (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify the order of events. Did Gardner kill Otterstrom first and then rob the tavern, or did he rob the tavern first and then kill the bartender?
  • The sources are also unclear on the order of events as evidence was circumstantial and relied on testimony. I added some information regarding Gardner's version of the events and investigator findings. KimChee (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph can be tightened. I suggest something on the order of: "While under the influence of cocaine, Gardner robbed the Cheers Taven in Salt Lake City of less than $100 at about 11 p.m. on October 1984. Gardner shot and killed bartender Melvyn John Otterstrom during the event, and later attended his funeral, posing as a childhood friend."
  • As the victim's own cousin Craig Watson was the source of claiming how much was stolen, I think it is important to keep that detail. KimChee (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope this helps!

Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks very good. Just one comment at this moment: The "female visitor" he had sex with is not stated in the article to be visiting him, leading me to wonder at first if it was rape. However, the source material does state that she was visiting him, and therefore presumably the sex was consensual. If I was confused by this, others might be, so the article should clarify she was visiting him. --Golbez (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, rephrased.
  • Dab/EL check - no dabs, no link problems. --PresN 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I found some minor issues with references not quite squaring with how the facts were presented (specifically in multiple ref cases), probably as a result of avoiding copyvio and trying not to inappropriately snythesize sources, but they were at the margins, and certainly the overall citation of the text appears good. I'm not sure if I follow Geni's point about the copyright in layout, but if i read it correctly it would suggest we could never portray protest posters in any images. Somehow, it just doesn't seem like common sense, but I am well aware that common sense can be a bad guide when it comes to copyright... hamiltonstone (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — The article has been greatly improved since my first and second impressions outlined above. I am satisfied that the prose is of FA standard. I have spot checked several sections of the article for any problems with copyright and my only—borderline—concern has already been addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the disclaimer that I reviewed it for PR. I'm not an expert in the topic, but it appears comprehensive and well-sourced, and well-written enough to be an FA. Trebor (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comprehensive and the sources are great. FA.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010 [3].

Common Firecrest[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lovely bird, with thy golden crown./A kind and tender nurse art thou,/Making thy nest of moss and down,/And hanging it on the bending bough."
At its GAN, this was given a thorough FAC-type review by User:Sasata. I think it's ready to roll. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images comment: All images look good license-wise, and File:Regulus ignicapilla -Galicia, Spain -singing in a conifer tree-8 (1).jpg is adorable. J Milburn (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that not many people will be able to read "File:Temminck regulus.png", because it is not in English. The field for the language in its cited reference in the caption has not been used. I think that the translation in English could be added to the image description on commons, or this image could be removed from the page without much loss to the page. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an illustration, not intended as text. nevertheless, I'll put a translation on the image page, may not be today Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of an illustration that at least 99% of viewers can not read. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image map looks a bit sketchy. There are some odd appearances at the borders of colour zones. Snowman (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've redrawn twice now at your suggestion, if you are still not happy, you are welcome to fix it yourself. The map is to give an impression of the range, not to win art awards. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some Improvements to the map. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The binomial is listed as Regulus ignicapilla at IOC, so why does the page use a different spelling. Snowman (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the alternative spelling a synonym? if so it probably should be detailed in the infox. Snowman (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say not, same genus name, just an (incorrect) variant of the species name. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These mites live on fungi growing on the feathers." : This probably needs a bit more explanation. Is this beneficial to the birds or not? What do the fungi feed on? Snowman (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add a sentence about the fungi. Some level of mite presence seems to be very common, and presumably not normally harmful. Problems seem to arise mainly with domesticated birds. Unsurprisingly, there is nothing on which fungi are found on Firecrests, or their specific diet. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "interspecific territoriality" is incomprehensibly jargon to me. Snowman (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All species will catch flying insects while hovering": are the insects or birds flying or hovering? Snowman (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure there is a problem here, it's clearly the insects that are flying and the birds hovering, nevertheless changed to All species will hover to catch flying insects. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used an Google translate and found that kinglet is "βασιλίσκος" in Greek and not "βασιλικοεκς" which is what is currently on the page. I do not know what is correct, but I think it needs double checking. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab/EL check - no dabs, but [4] is broken. --PresN 23:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might want to check if one of the numbers in the URL is cut off. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for check. If only it was as simple as a typo. Birdlife have completely revamped their site so all the hundreds,if not thousands of links to this key site will now be dead. At least this one is fixed now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ok, taking a read through, as I have been woken by drunk housemates. Hope this makes sense...

  • "Juvenile Common Firecrest might be confused with Goldcrest" Plurals or definite/indefinite articles?
  • added def articles
  • "Yellow-browed also" You've referred to it as "the Warbler", it's not being referred to as "Yellow-browed"?
  • added "warbler"
  • "The songs of the Mediterranean subspecies" Name?
  • added R. i. balearicus
  • "the Balearic Islands" Link?
  • linked in lead earlier
  • "the crests" This refers to Goldcrests and Firecrests collectively? Is there perhaps a generic name or something instead?
  • It's a common usage for the European birds, and just gives a bit of variation from "kinglet". The genus Regulus includes species in addition to the two European ones, and might be misleading
  • "in Europe from Southern England, France, Spain and Portugal east to Belarus, northwestern Ukraine and Turkey, and north to the [Baltic and southern Latvia." Spare bracket. Also, why a link to Baltic and not others? Belarus and Latvia are surely more obscure?
  • I think it's FAC practice now not to link countries, and I'm reluctant to decide on the relative notability of sovereign states
  • "ignore each other's songs" Caught my eye. Is that apostrophe correct?
  • I think so, there surely must be an apostrophe, and I've referred to the species in the singular. I'm prepared to be corrected though
  • "robbers like Grey Squirrels Eurasian Jays and Great Spotted Woodpeckers." Comma?
  • done
  • "as well as various arthropods typically avoided by adults, such as harvestmen, earwigs, and centipedes." Why?
  • No idea, and sources don't say. They are quite large and crunchy, so perhaps the adults prefer to shove them into the all-accepting gapes of the ravenous young rather than tackle these tricky items themselves
  • "warblers" Not caps?
  • The only occurrences I could see were references to genera (Sylvia, Phylloscopus) rather than individual species
  • "Throughout the Firecrest's range, the main predator of small woodland birds is the Eurasian Sparrowhawk taking avian prey as up to 98% of its diet." Another comma may be useful.
  • Yes, done
  • "including Proctophyllodes glandarinus on Firecrest" Link?
  • Done, although I'm not holding my breath waiting for the article to be written
  • "on fungi growing on the feathers" What sort of fungi?
  • One reason that I'm vague about the diet of the mites is that I can find nothing to suggest that anyone has researched the feather fungi on these species. Most work refers to pathological fungi in domesticated species
  • "feathers, emerged" Lose the comma?
  • Done
  • Perhaps "cultural references" would be better than "in culture"?
  • Well, I've used the latter consistently in my other FAs, so I'm inclined to stick with it
  • What's the poem you quote in the nomination? Does that not have a place in the culture section?
  • Minstrelsy of the Woods by Robert Mudie. It's by a scientist, not a poet, and very obscure - try Googling it! Too nn

Very nice. Now, bed. J Milburn (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about your disturbed night, at least you've put it to good use, thanks for review and support, I hope I've adequately addressed your concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (moral or otherwise as WP brids member) reduced to minor nitpicks - looks good to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fix and support, sorry Sasata and J Milburn have left so little meat for you! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impression: I have edited the article and I edit birds pages, which could be seen a as conflict of interest; however, I think that I have been objective. Very good article. It is possible that further copy-editing issues might be found; however, I would support FA after the three new problems I have listed above and any other issues yet to be listed have been repaired or explained. Snowman (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Regulus bulgaricus is not actually from the Pliocene when you place the Plio-Pleistocene boundary at 2.6 Ma, as you do in this article; it is from MN 17, which is 2.6–1.95 Ma. The confusion arises because the Gelasian (2.6–1.8 Ma) was previously considered Pliocene, but is now included in the Pleistocene. Also, why does the species not merit a red link?

(More to come.) Ucucha 22:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm no geologist, so could you please check the revised version makes sense. The suggestion of a link to bulgaricus was good, since, to my surprise, there was already an article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better; it could use some minor tweaking (you have "BP" once and "mya" another time, better to use the same measure; and you round 2.588 mya to 2.6 once but not the other time). Ucucha 14:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First dates now (2.6 million to 12,000 years ago), so rounding consistent, and no BP now. I should have spotted the inconsistent rounding, it's something I castigate others for! Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the identity of the fungi growing on its feathers?
  • No, Snowman asked me that above, I suspect that the research hasn't been done. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the range expansion in Europe because of climate change?

Ucucha 16:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The map shows an isolated population in or near Abkhazia, which isn't mentioned in the text. Ucucha 16:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the dubious race R. i. caucasicus was mentioned in taxonomy, but even I can see that's not very explicit, so added Caucasus to list in Range section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be more specific than "Caucasus"? The map suggests its distribution only includes a tiny proportion of the whole mountain range. Further, I think Crimea should also be mentioned there. Ucucha 19:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are isolated populations east of the main range in Abkhazia, the Crimea and Turkey. — It should be borne in mind that distribution maps are fairly crude, especially away from western Europe - BWP states, for example, that the distribution in Romania is probably more widespread than shown, and has question marks east of Poland. Nevertheless, both books show the Crimean and eastern Black Sea outliers, so amended as indicated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support just a couple of nitpicks you need to take care of.

  • Lead - either "with fledging 22-24 days" or "which fledge 22-24 days"… the current phrasing is wrong.
  • A lot of your sentences in the lead start with "It… " could a little bit of variation be possible?
  • Description: "The Common Firecrest is a small plump bird, 9 cm (3.5 in) in length with a wingspan of 13–16 cm (5.1–6.3 in),[2] and weighing 4–7 g (0.15–0.25 oz)." Shouldn't that be "weighs"?
  • I think you may need to explain what a nominate form is, you refer to it often but never link or explain it.
  • Actually linked under "Voice", but now also in caption to taxobox image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the article through CorenSearchbot and Earwig's without issues.Ealdgyth - Talk 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, I wondered when the plagiarism scare started whether I had subconsciously based my own deathless prose on something I had read, relieved to see it's all my own fault! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010 [5].

Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, its another Gunpowder Plot article. Thomas Percy was something of a rogue, a man who would do whatever it took to get the job done. He also reportedly had a bit on the side, was into bribery, killing and most importantly, pork pies. Huge pork pies, so large that when King James I didn't do what Percy had said he would do, he promptly joined up with Robert Catesby, and attempted to blow the king and his government sky high. The rest is history. Parrot of Doom 19:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing comments

  • Missing bibliographic details for Haynes 1999
    • Fixed
  • When sources have two dates (ex. Fraser or Dixon), be consistent in which date the footnote uses
    • Fixed
  • "wrote a letter mitigating the offence" vs "wrote mitigating the offence" in the source; "entrap the Scottish warden of the middle marches" vs "entrap the Scottish warden of the middle marches" in the source; "not least from an officer he replaced" vs "not least from one of the officers he replaced" in the source - close paraphrasing, should probably do some rewording
    • I wish I could, but the only information I have on these aspects of Percy's life are from the ODNB, and that doesn't expand on them (or provide a citation so I can check). That's why I didn't rephrase too much, for fear of altering the meaning. I'm betting this info is from the family papers, which will be stored offline, probably either in London or Northumberland somewhere. Believe me, I've looked.
      • I've looked around a bit and I still can't find anything on this. I've therefore made this change. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tall, florid man, with a broad beard—'the head more white then the beard'—and stooping shoulders, being also 'long footed, small legged'" - probably worth noting where those embedded quotations came from
    • Done
  • "Letter from the Robert Devereux" - why "the"?
    • Done
  • "for which he was rewarded with £200" - source?
    • ODNB. I wish Wikipedia's inline citing system could be more intuitive, but it isn't. I've moved both citations together, at least that way its less confusing.
  • Formatting for ODNB refs varies slightly between footnotes - should be made consistent
    • Done
  • Is De Fonblanque organized by volume or by part?
    • I'm afraid I can't answer that in detail, since one is offline. It was added by another editor, presumably he has the original.
  • Durst is missing publisher location. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know it. Parrot of Doom 20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other A S Barne books (the publishers in this instance) were published from New York, if that's helpful at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that's acceptable I don't mind, although I generally don't add things I haven't already seen. Parrot of Doom 10:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've just done a quick Google search, and second hand booksellers are referencing that specific ISBN edition as " A. S. Barnes & Company, South Brunswick / New York / London, 1971." Hchc2009 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with just a few quibbles that don't prevent me supporting.

  • shouldn't it be "Peterhouse College" in the lead?
    • Done.
  • Were Catesby and Percy unimpressed with the whole of the dynasty or just with James? (lead again). The article body says he was complaining about James, not the whole dynasty.
    • I take 17th-century politics to mean that the dynasty at that point was represented by James - he was basically the first monarch in the Jacobean line, distinct from the Tudors.
  • Life before 1603 - last sentnence of the first paragraph .. the "Their son, Robert,…" is a bit unclear in this context, as the last "he" mentioned isn't Perce, but Parker. I'm assuming that you mean Percy and Martha's son Robert, not that Martha had a son with Parker…
    • Done.
  • I have not reviewed the images for compliance with image policy.
  • sourcing looks fine. I ran the article through earwig's tool and attempted to use Coren's tool, but it hung.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ta very much :) Parrot of Doom 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab/EL check - no dabs, no link problems. --PresN 23:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article at GA and could find very little wrong with it. It covers the topic thoroughly, is very well written and is easy to follow. Three trivial points which may be ignored and do not affect my support.

  • "but the consensus among historians is that what promises James did make, were oral rather than written." Is the comma necessary?
    • I just insert these things so they sound natural as I read them aloud. If you read the entire sentence aloud (its fairly long) I think it fits ok.
  • The "Plot" section begins with Percy becoming a plotter, then goes back to his meeting with Catesby. A minor point, and feel free to completely ignore it, but would it be better to have the Catesby meeting first then the date of his joining the plot?
    • Its structured that way so people understand that his joining was as a result of earlier meetings, but without actually saying it. Just a bit of storytelling really.
  • Possibly irrelevent, but "Cecil was already aware of certain stirrings before he received the letter": how did he know? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its in the Gunpowder Plot article. Too much detail for here, but basically the man had many fingers in many many pies. Parrot of Doom 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wondering if any of the following sources might have additional info? Sasata (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy and Motivation in the Gunpowder Plot
Mark Nicholls
The Historical Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Dec., 2007), pp. 787-807
Gunpowder, Treason, and Scots
Jenny Wormald
The Journal of British Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, Politics and Religion in the Early Seventeenth Century: New Voices (Apr., 1985), pp. 141-168
Treason's Reward: The Punishment of Conspirators in the Bye Plot of 1603
Mark Nicholls
The Historical Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Dec., 1995), pp. 821-842

Support - an excellent article, meeting all the FA criteria, in my opinion. A handful of tiny queries, none of which affect my support: *"Northumberland, whom it seems might…" – should be "who" – this is not an accusative

  • "…he delivered it to Salisbury. Cecil was already aware…" – Earlier blue-link notwithstanding, this looks at first glance like two different people, and is perhaps confusing
  • " Catesby's reaction was somewhat different…" It would be helpful to know how Catesby knew about the letter
  • Grays Inn Road – usually spelled with an apostrophe, I think (and is so spelled in the WP article)
  • In Note 2, the apostrophes are of the non-WP curved kind, unless my ageing eyes deceive me.

Tim riley (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments, I've corrected the points you raised. I don't think there's much point in detailing how Catesby came to know of the letter, anyone wishing to know more can click on his article. There's a lot of repetition in these plotter articles, I'm just trying to keep it in check. Parrot of Doom 13:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check the images are all old enough for the originals to be out of copyright. Although the NPG is asserting "sweat of brow" in preparing its reproductions, their use is currently within Wikipedia policy. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010 [6].

Venture Science Fiction[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venture was a short-lived companion to the much better known Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. It is fairly unusual in that it had three quite distinct incarnations, though the British edition only included reprints. I brought this to GA standard some time ago, and since then have acquired additional sources and now feel it is FA-quality. Mike Christie (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just realized that the appearance of my own name on this source link used in the article might prompt questions, so here is the background. Around 2002 the OED started a page to record citations of science fiction words. I originally ran that page, and am still involved as a volunteer. The page is under the aegis of the OED; it runs on Jesse Sheidlower's website (Jesse is the North American editor of the OED). The link is used to cite the earliest use of a term in an issue of Venture; I was the person who found and submitted that link and recorded it on that webpage. Hence to some extent it could be said I am citing myself here. I was also the person who made the day-to-day decision to include that information on the website, so though there is editorial control I exercised that control myself. Jesse Sheidlower also oversees the cite and could remove anything inappropriate, so I believe this is OK. I think the term in question, Sturgeon's Law, is now actually in the latest edition of the OED, including the citation I submitted, but since that's a pay site I would prefer to use this one if possible. If that turns out to be an unacceptable source I will check the OED3 and use that source instead. Mike Christie (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the citation is now in OED3 (which dates the term back to a private letter from Fruma Klass in 1951), it might be better to cite the OED directly and give that as a convenience link, as is now half done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you're asking for here -- is the current citation to the OED not accurate? It refers to it as a draft entry; I believe it is a full entry in OED3 but I have no access to it so I can't check. I can get temporary access if needed to check it, but would appreciate it if someone else could look as it would mean calling in a favour. Also, just to clarify, the letter from Fruma Klass was an email to me in about 2002 or so, in my role as volunteer working on the OED SF citations project. She gives the 1951 date in her email, on Phil Klass's authority. I forwarded the email to Jesse Sheidlower and they decided to treat it as a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take another look at the entry; I'll consolidate the footnotes in a day or so. This is not an argument against promotion; all of these trust Sheidlower's editorial judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Current ref 9 (Science Fiction Citations…) lacks a publisher. Note that it will NOT load for me on a Mac with safari nor with firefox on a PC nor with IE on a PC, so I can't judge the reliability, but I'm not being that impressed so far.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is the parent page for that link; it works, and so do the links on either side of it. I found the page that should be used here in the Wayback Machine: here. I'd prefer not to use that if I can avoid it as the live link will update with any further citations to the OED. I've emailed Jesse Sheidlower, who runs that site, to ask what the issue is. If it's not fixed shortly I'll switch to the Wayback Machine version. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loads for me. It does verify the sentence after which it is placed. Wackywace converse | contribs 17:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does load now; Jesse has fixed part of the problem but the 1958 citation is not showing up; he's looking at that too. The information needed is still covered, though; it's in the text above the list of citations. I have just realized that the appearance of my own name in that page might raise a question so I've added a P.S. above to address it. Mike Christie (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1/2c: Not a fan of contractions in titles. "Tuck, Encyclopedia of SF, p. 604." is miscited. Tuck is infact The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Volume 3. Did you consult individual articles in the two encyclopedia consulted or the entire work. If individual entries were they individually authored, or were they authored by the editors in chief? Why not cite the titles of the sole articles consulted, at least in short citations? What makes the two tertiary sources (Tuck, Donald H. (1982); Clute, John; Peter Nicholls (1993).) high quality reliable sources? Tymn & Ashley, Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines seems to contain individually authored articles with individual titles; what is the author and article at p. 391. (Tymn & Ashley, Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines, p. 391.). "Magazine:Venture Science Fiction – ISFDB". Al von Ruff. appears to be miscited? Surely: Al von Ruff, "Magazine:Venture Science Fiction Magazine" in ISFDB.? ISFDB is a wiki (faq here). What makes the ISFDB a high quality reliable source, or a reliable source at all? (I apologise if these questions have previously been visited at FAC). SF Citations appears to be improperly cited (it has an editor in chief; a record is cited from a larger tertiary work). Probably do to back up SF Citations with the OED3 citation if relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Tuck encyclopedia is written entirely by Tuck; I added the article title to the citation. The Nicholls/Clute has multiple contributors and I've credited them and the articles now. I've also cited the individual authors in the Tymn/Ashley.
    • The Nicholls/Clute is the most reliable reference work in the field and has a very high reputation. I can probably find support for that if you like but it is widely known in sf and is not controversial at all. Similarly, Tuck has a high reputation; the Nicholls/Clute describes his work as one of the foundation stones of sf bibliography.
    • The ISFDB is an interesting case. It is only partly a wiki; though the main site also can be edited by the public (though with heavy restrictions). Still, I don't think it meets the definition of a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is cited for the convenience of the reader only -- that's why the citation reads as it does. There is no information in the article that is only sourced from the ISFDB; that citation also refers to the individual issues, to verify such things as the price, page count and so forth. This could be removed but it has survived similar discussions at previous FACs: see Amazing Stories and Galaxy Science Fiction for a couple of FAs that have an analogous citation. I think it's sufficiently useful to the reader to leave in. As for citing it, Al von Ruff is the publisher; he's not the author of the material cited, which can't really be cited to an individual contributor. I am open to changing the format but the current format seems to cover the situation as I see it.
    • Not quite clear on the problem with SF Citations -- I suppose you could think of Jesse as the editor in chief, but day to day editing work was originally done entirely by me, and is now done by two other volunteers in addition -- Jeff Prucher and Malcolm Farmer. Jesse might be regarded as the publisher perhaps? I will add the OED3 cite as it definitely covers the information; since it's behind a paywall I will leave the other cite up too. Mike Christie (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very happy with these responses. The issue with SF Citations is that it is cited like a website instead of like an entry in an edited compendium. Just because an edited compendium is published electronically doesn't make it any less of an edited compendium. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, but I'm not quite sure what ought to be done. Could I ask you to correct it for me, or show me what it is that needs to be done? Similarly I have a short form citation for the OED that doesn't quite look right to me; I don't think I've cited a website in short form citations before -- is there a better format for that? Mike Christie (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hope that helps. cite web has a parameter |work= so individual pages occupy the |title= position, and the containing site occupies the |work= position, for example |title=FAC/Venture Science Fiction/archive1 |work=en.wikipedia.org. The OED we cited had a date for the individual article, so I noted it. Also fixed the ISFDB cite for title work and to indicate the publisher is a publisher. Attributed the SFCites work to its editorial team at the same time using the author order listed on the about page. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you! Mike Christie (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: It will be better if a brief summary of the "relative merits of the artwork" (from the article) are given on the pages of File:VentureJul1958.jpg and File:VentureAug1970.jpg; this helps establish the rationales (if the article is re-written and those text removed, ...). Regardless, the self-created chart and fair use of the images seem reasonably in line with policies/guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the image review. Mike Christie (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support As requested, I made some comments on the fair use images used in the article some weeks ago. When I read it then I thought it was of FA quality, and rereading it now I find it meets all the FAC criteria. My only quibble is whether the Australian edition should be mentioned in the lead. Since the Australian edition is in the section header, it seems odd not to also mention it in the lead. I think using the double cite for Sturgeon's Law is the way to go. Nicely done. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could mention the Australian edition in the lead if you think it's worth it; the reason I didn't is that it's just a reprint edition and has no independent interest. The British edition only contains reprints, but is not at all a copy of the American edition, so it seemed worth mentioning. The reason I mention the Australian edition in the section header is that without it the header would have seemed inaccurate: I do need to mention the Australian edition somewhere, and since it's an exact copy of the UK edition that seemed like that place. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thought would be to very briefly mention the Australian edition in the lead by adding a bit to the current sentence on the British edition, so perhaps something like: A British edition appeared for 28 issues between 1963 and 1965; it reprinted material from The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction as well as from the US edition of Venture[, and was itself exactly reprinted in an Australian edition]. On my monitor at least, the Australian edition is visible both in the Table of Contents and in the header while reading the lead, which is my main reason for also including it in the lead. Ultimately it is your call, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it some more, I think you're right. I added a sentence to the lead about it. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given the recent emphasis on checking for intellectual property issues, I checked the three internet sources cited in the article. They back up what they are used as references for, and the material in the article is not plagiarized or a close paraphrase of the sources that I could see. Most of the article is sourced to references which are offline and I do not have access to. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with only a few nitpicky comments (Note: this review is based on content only; haven't done a source check or any other checks) :

  • Very nitpicky: for some reason "succumbed to poor sales" makes it sound like a disease, which may not be far from the truth - I can't think of a better word, but maybe someone else can.
  • Check that F&SF is consistently italicized - currently not in the "Second US run" section"
  • Also in the "Second US run", perhaps the info re: Tanner and art should be consolidated
  • Nice pulp magazine article with nice images. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I see what you mean about "succumbed", but poor sales really is a fatal disease for a magazine. I rather like the metaphor; if you can think of a better way to put it then we can change it, but I think it's OK. I made the other two changes you suggest, plus a tweak or two I noticed in the "Second US run" section; let me know if that looks better now. Mike Christie (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine now. That was all that I noticed - it was a very interesting read. I can live with "succumbed" - as you say, poor sales do kill a magazine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just finished a copyedit, which didn't take long. Looks in fine shape—no queries on substance per se. One on content of lede:

  • The fact that the magazine published McIntyre's first story during its second run is noted in the lede. That seems justified. Might it not similarly be worth noting that during the magazine's first run, it was where Sturgeon's Law was first published? That seems at least as significant in the history of sf, and strikes me as the signal moment of Venture's original version.—DCGeist (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion. I added it to the second para of the lead. I thought about adding the definition of Sturgeon's Law there too, but I think it's not needed in the lead; it's linked, after all. Mike Christie (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Small query.

  • [Lede:] "The second US version was no more successful, with less attractive color art..."

Should that be "cover" art? If you do mean "color", then some explication of the point is needed in the main text (i.e., that interior art in Venture, as in all [?] sf digests, was black-and-white).—DCGeist (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo for "cover"; I've corrected it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I made a couple of small format corrections in the references.
  • Where is "West", as listed under Tymm?
    Westport, Connecticut; I don't know how that happened, but it's fixed now. Mike Christie (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be a stray apostrophe Asimov that also continued until Venture' folded
    Yes; removed. Mike Christie (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise nicely-written.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good use of what sources exist. Solid all around.—DCGeist (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010 [7].

Thomas C. Kinkaid[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... American World War II admiral who served under General Douglas MacArthur in the Southwest Pacific. A-class article. Has been on the front page as a DYK Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whew... for a second I thought someone had bothered to work on the Painter o' Light :P Anyhow, image comments:
    • Images should really not just deeplink to the actual image but place it in context on an image description page of some sort. For example, File:Thomas C. Kinkaid.jpg should link to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/k02000/k02749c.htm, so people can verify the content in the description (unless you've dealt with the NHC numbers before, for example, you wouldn't know that the 80-G's are all former Navy-owned photos now at the Archives.) Same thing with File:Kinkaid July 1942.jpg, File:Kinkaid May 1943.jpg; if you don't want to actually hunt for the proper entry pages on the Heritage & Historical Command site, you can just link to the Kinkaid page you found the images at since it's got most of the same info.
      • Done. I did not upload most of them. I just selected from pictures that had already been uploaded by various editors. But yes, I know about the 80-G, NH and the SC numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, most images are nicely formatted with a template. It would be nice if they all were.
    • In terms of compliance with image use policy, WP:ICT and WP:FA?, all are marked public domain and should be so as works of US military authorship. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • File:USS Lexington under attack at Coral Sea.jpg Isn't US goverment. It's PD in japan but it's US status would appear to be more complicated. If it was first published in Rear Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison's "History of U.S. Naval Operations in World War II" it should still be under copyright. If it was published in japan first then yes it should be PD.©Geni 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As established in my previous correspondence with the NH&HC, they believe all of the images they post to be in the public domain, so I think this is alright. It may have been war booty seized after the war's conclusion? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Oh, thank you for not forcing me to review the painter.
  • Any reason you put the state for New York (in the Hoyt ref) but not the state for Philadelphia (Blair)? Likewise you omit the state for Lexington (Leary), and Boston (Morrison all of them). You can get away with not using a state/country on something like New York/London, but if you use it for Greenwood CT, you need it for Lexington, KY. And if you use it for New York, NY, you need to use it for ALL of them.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2c (minor quibbles) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your use of Cherpak, E. M., ed. (2004), being as they are the edited memoirs of H. Kent Hewitt, surely your detailed citations, such as Cherpak 2004, p. 101 are inaccurate, as this would be content authored by Hewitt, correct citations to indicate the primarily responsible author or editor of the actually cited content
    • Cherpak's name is on the cover, and the libraries file the book under that name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frank, Benis M.; Shaw (1968). Shaw lacks a first name. You've cited the Volume Title as the Work Title.
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot (1950). Series title missing.
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot. Are these works in series, or volumes of a work?
    • Volumes of a work. There is a wikipedia article on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- passed at GA a while back and supported recently at MilHist A-Class review -- believe structure, prose, detail, referencing and illustration all make this worthy of the bronze star as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support --

Our library happened to have Wheeler's biography of Kinkaid, and I double checked the facts in the Early life and Early career section since it only has a single source for most of the facts.
  • You have a range of 1-8 for most of the content in Early life & I would recommend adding another footnote for pg 1-3 for the text before 'Georgetown, Washington D.C' and start a new paragraph, and 4-8 for the rest of the section.
  • Pages 1-8 doesn't support Kinkaid having to do anything specific based on where his parents lived - remove "Because he lived in Washington, D.C., he had to seek" or put another reference there explaining why he couldn't go to the Secretary of the Navy or the Vice-President. Or you may need to explain the nomination process circa 1904.
  • He was required to complete an examination by the president for the nomination, then an examination for the appointment then he was admitted after passing both exams. Also, just because 283 of the 350 who took the examination were admitted, that doesn't mean only 283 passed the exam - some of them could have been appointed but didn't attend the Naval Academy, or some of them failed and were admitted anyway.
  • You left out the part where he had failed his medical examination due to hearing loss, but was graduated anyways and was re-examined two years later. Wheeler doesn't mention the medical re-examination either; I guess he passed.
  • Article text:Machias replied with its M1895 Colt-Browning machine guns. When one jammed, Kinkaid exposed himself to fire to clear the weapon. but Wheeler indicates that he assisted in clearing the weapon, and fired the weapon as well. Maybe check another source on this incident? (DANFS was no help)
  • You also ommitted Kinkaid being nominated for the Distinguished Service Medal (which he didn't receive) in 1919.
I'm going to quit there but in addition to addressing the preceding items I would recommend adding/varying references in the sections that rely on a range of pages from Wheeler's biography. Thanks for nominating such an interesting article! Kirk (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing; Wheeler is pretty consistent using the rank 'passed midshipman' after he graduated and before he was promoted to ensign, but you use 'midshipman' instead; I actually think 'midshipman' is correct but I would recommend checking what his official rank was 1908-1910. Kirk (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind - I checked the 1910 Register of the commissioned and warrant officers of the United States Navy and Kinkaid was a midshipman (Academy students were Midshipmen on probation). Kirk (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I did not think it would be misunderstood as it stands. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, this is one of the perils of relying heavily on a single 'reliable' source, who turns out to occasionally unreliable. I think leaving out the failed medical examination is ok since it doesn't seem to have affected his career; I'm ok if you leave the Machias action the way it, and of course I'm still pondering on why Wheeler used passed midshipman which was phased out as a rank in the 1860s; you have it right when Wheeler had it wrong. Switching to support - thanks! Kirk (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I'll add comments here as I work through the article.

  • From the lead: "During the Battle of the Surigao Strait he commanded the last naval battle between battleships in history". Surely this should be "commanded the Allied forces during the last naval battle"?
  • "Over the next few years the family successively moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Norfolk, Virginia, Annapolis, Maryland and Georgetown, Washington, D.C..": Per MOS:CONSECUTIVE you don't need that second period at the end of the sentence. In addition, the use of commas both as internal punctuation and to divide elements of the list is confusing to someone who doesn't know US geography and has no idea that "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" is a single place, not two. I'd suggest trimming this to the names of the towns, possibly adding "(in Virginia) after Norfolk, since the default Norfolk is not the town.
    • Another editor wanted them to consistently use city/state. Changed the commas to semicolons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      OK -- it's not great but I can see the reason for keeping the state, so I'll strike the objection. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which, while much newer, were by this time no less obsolete" is a bit tangled. Perhaps "which were newer than the Hartford, but by this time no less obsolete"?
    • Changed to "which, while much newer, were by this time also obsolete" Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll strike, since this is clearly better, though I suspect it could be further improved. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments about his time at Midvale Steel and Bausch & Lomb are uninformative -- I can guess that Midvale made gun components and Bausch & Lomb made target finders or something similar, and that's why he went there, but is there any information about this in the sources? E.g. he went there to oversee naval procurement from those firms?
    • He was studying the manufacture of naval weapons as part of the training course mentioned at the start of the paragraph. The narrative problem here is that this was interrupted by the tour of duty in the Caribbean. Tightened up the wording and hope it is clearer now. Unfortunately my sources, which rely on his personnel file supplemented by interviews with Helen, do not go into more detail. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      That's much improved. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At that time his father was in charge of the Naval Engineering Experiment Station there, allowing him to stay with his parents and study for his navigation examination." I changed "At this time" to "At that time" since you're not using historic present, but looking at it perhaps it should be "At the time". I also think "allowing" doesn't quite work; the reader takes the subject as "his father", rather than the fact of his management of the station. How about "which allowed Kinkaid to stay ..."?
  • "he visited Sperry Gyroscope and Ford Instruments to consult with them on the fire control systems": perhaps "their fire control systems", or just "fire control systems"?
  • "In 1922 Lieutenant Commander Kinkaid became": do we need his rank here? It was mentioned above (and linked there too).
  • "Kinkaid reported that Italy was unprepared for war. Only in May 1940 did he warn that Italy was mobilising, shortly before it declared war on France and Britain on 10 June 1940." Is there an implication here that he should have noticed that Italy was prepared? I think it would be helpful to give whatever inference the sources draw, if any.
    • Wheeler (p. 124) says that Kinkaid's judgement was flawed because his sources were poor. I disagree. He reported correctly that Italy was unprepared for war. He reported the correct date shortly after Mussolini made his decision. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I take your point, but we have to reflect the sources. Surely if Wheeler feels Kinkaid's judgement is flawed something to that effect should be mentioned, even if there is (sourceable) way to qualify it? Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have put forward the facts and left out the opinions. The reader can make up her own mind. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've struck my comment, since I've no expertise in this area, but often a historian's evaluation of an incident is very much worth including, and it would be doing readers a disservice to exclude all such opinions. Mike Christie (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kinkaid now faced the problem of selection to rear admiral. Speaking to the officer in charge of detailing, Captain Arthur S. Carpender, a classmate who had recently been selected for flag rank, a problem was identified with Kinkaid's lack of command experience." Two uses of "problem", and "speaking" is a dangling modifier. How about: "Kincaid reviewed his qualifications for promotion to rear admiral with Captain Arthur S. Carpender, the officer in charge of detailing and a classmate of Kinkaid's. Carpender, who had recently been selected for flag rank, identified a problem with Kinkaid's lack of command experience." This makes it actively Carpender who identified the issue; if the sources say the two of them together came to that conclusion then I'd make it "Carpender had recently been selected for flag rank. The two officers concluded that Kinkaid's lacked sufficient command experience for promotion." Or something along those lines. Incidentally, I am not sure what "officer in charge of detailing" means; is this something for which a link could be provided?
    • I've reworded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good. Any link available for the "officer in charge of detailing"? Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, unfortunately detail is a disambiguation page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, but I guess I didn't make my original point clear: I don't know what "detailing" means in this context. It seems to me to be a specialized term that would benefit from either a link, or, if that's not available, an explanatory parenthesis, or a rephrase. Mike Christie (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Naval officers alternated between duty afloat and ashore every year or two. Combined with separations, and promotions every four to six years, this created considerable "churn". Who got posted where was the responsibility of the Office of Detail, part of the Bureau of Navigation. As ships became more technically complex, it became increasingly difficult to man them with officers and ratings possessing the required skills. Chips Carpender was in charge of officer detailing, meaning that he selected officers up to the rank of captain for assignments, which is what is meant by "detailing". He did not actually assign them himself; such orders went out under the signature of the chief of the Bureau of Navigation; nor did he select officers for promotion. However being able to decide who went where made him an important figure to more junior officers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          That's a very helpful explanation. I won't oppose on this point, since it's not a weakness in this article, but how about linking "detailing" to either Office of Detail, if that's a plausible eventual article, or else to Bureau of Navigation, which presumably should eventually cover the topic? FAs aren't responsible for the quality of the articles they link to, though if you wanted to drop a version of your explanation above into the Bureau of Navigation article that would be beneficial. Mike Christie (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kinkaid then headed north to join the screen of Vice Admiral William F. Halsey's Task Force 16,[26] under the command of Rear Admiral Raymond A. Spruance. Shortly after Task Force 16 returned to Pearl Harbor, Halsey was hospitalized with a severe case of dermatitis and, on his recommendation, was replaced as commander of Task Force 16 by Spruance." Seems like a sequencing problem of some kind -- was the task force under Spruance's command when Kinkaid headed north?
  • "built around the carrier USS Enterprise though he was not an aviator": does this mean that he had never been a navy pilot? Or just that he had never been involved with naval aviation in a command role and hence would be inexperienced in that specialization? I would guess the latter, but to a lay reader "aviator" means the former.
    • He had never been a aviator! (They don't call them pilots in the navy - as a maritime pilot is something else.) By law aircraft carriers had to be commanded by aviators; but there was nothing that said that carrier task forces had to be. However this was resented by the aviators, as noted in the final paragraph of the section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I think that's fine as written. Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ealdgyth's comments, below, that some of the WWII battles don't have a good lead in. The Aleutian battle is fine, just as an example: you have "Kinkaid's command was responsible for" and then the battle is mentioned and the subsequent action clearly belongs to that. The mention of the Admiralty Islands campaign is also fine, but for the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Battle of Leyte and the Battle of the Surigao Strait, there is no such lead in. I think only a sentence or so is needed in each case.
    Looking through these again, I think the reference to the Battle of Leyte is probably OK; the subsequent comment that it "would see MacArthur's promised return to the Philippines" is the context needed. Mike Christie (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Eastern Solomons is now OK. For the Coral Sea, how about just adding "three days later": "When Task Force 17 was attacked three days later in the Battle of the Coral Sea"? That tells the reader it's a continuation of the current events and no further context is needed. For the Battle of Leyte, how about: "For the Battle of Leyte, which began in October 1944 and would see MacArthur's return ..."? And change "In the subsequent Battle of the Surigao Strait" to "The next day, in the Battle of ..."? I think that would connect the dots for an uninformed reader a little better. It would be good also to mention that the Battle of Leyte Gulf took place in October, if that can be worked in. Mike Christie (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Halsey's orders, which gave priority to the destruction of the Japanese fleet, led to the most controversial episode of the Battle of Leyte Gulf.": I suggest moving this sentence to the start of the following paragraph: the current position of the paragraph break causes the reader to be unsure if they are about to read about the episode in question.
  • "Battle of the Surigao Strait" should probably link to the appropriate subsection of Battle of Leyte Gulf, rather than the main article as it does now.
    • That's a good idea, but I want to leave it as it is, because I am preparing a new article on Surigao Strait, so it will become an aticle in its own right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. You could always relink it at that point, but it's fine. Mike Christie (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the circumstances for the awards of all his decorations except the Legion of Merit, which as far as I can see is mentioned only in the infobox and not in the body of the article. I assume this would be worth covering in the body?

That's everything I can see; sorry it was a slow review, and I hope some of these points have been useful. I think this is a fine article and I am close to supporting. I agree with some of the points made by Andy and Ealdgyth below; no need for me to add them to my list but I will watch those too before supporting. Mike Christie (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments not ready to support just yet as there are some concerns with the prose. All my concerns addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really should do an audit of the links - a lot of links that may be not needed - or are linked a few too many times. Example - you link battleship in the lead and again in the first paragraph of early career. Same with United States Navy - it's linked in the lead and then again in the first paragraph of early life. Is there a need to link to London? New York City? Rome? The impression that the article gives is of a huge number of blue links, which can be off-putting to readers.
  • You mention that he sought an appointment to Anapolis, but don't say what year… and did he get the appointment from T.R.?
  • Early career: "Kinkaid came under fire for the first time when the ship was fired upon from ashore. Machias replied with its M1895 Colt-Browning machine guns. When one jammed, Kinkaid exposed himself to fire to assist in clearing the weapon. He fired it in response to gunfire against the ship." this just seems … too detailed and very choppy to me. Perhaps "Kinkaid came under fire for the first time when Mchias was engaged from shore and returned fire, with Kincaid exposing himself in order to clear a machine gun jam." Also, did he get a commendation for this act? I think the naming of the exact typo of gun is just plain unneeded here, honestly, and is too much detail.
  • Again, too much detail "In November 1917 he was ordered to deliver a 20-foot (6.1 m) rangefinder from the Norfolk Navy Yard to the Grand Fleet." is the size of the rangefinder important? And is it important that he did this little errand? Otherwise, why include it?
    • Several reasons. It represents his service in the Great War and we keep track of the wars an officer participated in. It was brief but that is also important to note. It also involves his becoming known to senior officers, which is important in the US Navy where interpersonal realtionships are paramount. The rangefinder was the latest American technology. And I did not want people to think that he carried it in a briefcase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps then "ordered to supervise the delivery of a newly developed large rangefinder"? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here, we're lacking details…"The Washington Naval Conference would prevent these ideas from being put into practice, however." … as most folks won't remember that this limited the number of guns on ships.
    • Yes, but this can be accessed through the link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with that is that then you've lost your reader, and they may never return. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right. Of course they will not look under the link. added comment to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward sentence: "This tour saw the end of the Greek occupation of Smyrna and the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne by Turkey saw a draw-down of U.S. naval forces in the region, reducing Bristol's post to a primarily diplomatic one." seems run knish.
  • "By coincidence the ship was at anchor in Long Beach, California when the 1933 Long Beach earthquake struck. Over the next few days thousands of sailors and marines participated in relief activities." but… did he do anything important with that? Do we know?
    • Nothing notable that we know of. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if we don't know if he participated, do we need to cover that in the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only in May 1940 did he warn that Italy was mobilising. Soon after he learned from Count Galeazzo Ciano that Italy would declare war on France and Britain between 10 and 15 June 1940.[17] However, he provided accurate reports on the damage inflicted by the British in the Battle of Taranto." … what is the however there supposed to be relating to? It's unclear why you're using however, which implies that the reports before this had been inaccurate…can we get more detail on why that is thought?
  • What does "No lower ranking classmate was promoted to flag rank before retirement." mean? Do you mean lower ranked as in naval rank or rank from their graduating class?
    • Reworded to mean the stronger form - no one ranked lower in the class Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me get this straight… "For his part in the battle, Kinkaid was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal." both carriers he was supposed to be defending got hit and one sank and he got a medal? I think a bit more explanation is in order here…
Heh heh. I like the way you put that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that Kinkaid was responsible for TF 16, not just the screen. And he did win the battle, thereby saving the marines and soldiers on Guadalcanal, but at great cost. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a problem in the WWII sections is that we aren't given any context as to why Kincaid's commands were engaged in the various battles.
  • "Yet Kinkaid's most troublesome subordinate was once again a U.S. Navy officer, Rear Admiral Ralph W. Christie, the commander of Task Force 71, the Seventh Fleet's submarines." … err… again? I think we've missed a bit here, when before did he have issues with US Naval officers under him such that this is now ANOTHER example of an issue?
    • The allusion is to his conflict with Rockwell in the Aleutians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we make the allusion more explicit then? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How about: "Despite the unpromising relationship with the army, Kinkaid's most troublesome subordinate was a U.S. Navy officer, as had been the case with Rockwell in the Aleutians. This time his problems were with Rear Admiral Ralph W. Christie, the commander of Task Force 71, the Seventh Fleet's submarines." Mike Christie (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds good. Changed to this wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these help. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I ran this through CorenSearchbot and Earwig's and nothing showed up. Also checked a couple of sentences in Google books, and no hits. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'm leaning toward supporting, as the narrative is fine and overall the writing is good. It seems well-researched. A few issues:
    • See WP:MOSNUM. We should probably be using the American date format since the subject is definitely strongly associated with the US. Personally I wouldn't raise the issue, but you may get editors drifting along later who try to change them all.
      • WP:MOSNUM: Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the first para of Southwest Pacific, you use passive voice and thus consistently fail to tell us who sent Kinkaid ("It was announced", "MacArthur and Curtin were asked", etc).
      • Ernie King did it. Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Ealdgyth noted above, it's overlinked. Part of the problem is using that template for the ship names, which seems to wikilink them. Use the template on first mention, and then use italic plan text after that. I fixed one before I took in the scope of the issue.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned it, but the article seems WP:OVERLINKed to me-- a sea of blue, many countries, words like golf. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was mentioned. Some effort was made to reduce the number of links by not using the ship template on subsequent mentions of a ship name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:35, 26 November 2010 [8].

Limbo (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I delve into FAC limbo... :)

The previous FAC (more than 3 weeks ago, natch) failed heavily from copyedit problems. Since then, two separate editors (one from the LoCE even) have CE'd this article. Also since then, a good reliable source article came out that filled out a lot of early BG on the game and the creation of PlayDead, thus allowing me to fix the redlink issue that Tony highlighted last for the studio. I've also fixed a problem that Tony has listed for the infobox image with his input. MASEM (t) 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck this time! Taking my fourth read through the article.

  • "to its short length, might deter" Remove comma?
  • "startled; the game abruptly ends at this point.[6][7]" Does one of the sources use the word "startled"?
    • Yes, actually, the ArsTechinca one about Limbo's ending.
  • You could add to the rationales of the images that free images were requested from Playdead, but that they did not provide any. (Fine without it, but the stronger the rationale the better, right?)
  • "using a bear trap to secure the base of a rope" If that's the part of the game I'm thinking of (that animal corpse hanging from the rope?) then I wouldn't call that the best description of what you do. Again, that in the source?
    • I've rewritten this slightly, but as its directly from the game, its just a matter of making sure the description is accurate and makes sence.
  • "Jensen had sketched" Repetition of "Jensen"
  • "for the Windows platform, was" Again, lose the comma
    • This comma's needed as to end the phase starting with "initially..."
      • The sentence is "According to producer Mads Wibroe, part of their decision not to release for the Windows platform, was to avoid issues with software piracy, something they could control on the Xbox 360." The main clause is "part of their decision not to release for the Windows platform was to avoid issues with software piracy", and there are no subordinate clauses in the middle. It should not be split. Think about it- "According to producer Mads Wibroe, part of their decision not to release for the Windows platform" does not make sense independently. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "controls–jumping and grabbing–outside" Those the right kind of dash? I have no idea, but I thought it may be worth checking...
    • They should be emdashs, fixed.
  • "pointed to, was the use" Again.
  • "15 U.S. dollars or 15 euro." As this is a European title, perhaps euros first? Also, the plural of euro is euros. British English, include the price in pounds? I dunno, your call.
    • euro before dollar makes sense. However, the only reason British English is being used here is that the game source is primarily European; Britian (the country) has nothing to do with it, thus I don't think the UK price is necessary here.
  • "of limbo or purgatory," Limbo is a proper noun (and purgatory/Purgatory can be)
  • "Other theories consider: the scenario that both or either the boy and his sister are dead; the implications of change in setting as the boy travels through the game; and the similarities and differences between the final screen of the game and the main menu.[6]" Odd listing- perhaps rephrase?
    • Broke it out into two sentences; the first part is really its own statement on a scenario; the last two are about observations from the game itself.
  • "IGN named it the third best Xbox Live Arcade title of all time in a September 2010 list.[57]" Perhaps mention what beat it?
  • Both "plot" and "sales and accolades" have some tense shifts- a quick read through in order?
  • One thing that came to mind- you didn't mention those worms that you come across a few times in the game; the ones that burrow inyo your head. No big deal, but did no source mention them?
    • Added a mention in gameplay

Generally looking great. J Milburn (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've addressed the points above (even if not commented on). --MASEM (t) 14:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I checked out the sources at last month's FAC. I raised a few fairly minor points which were satisfactorily answered. I've looked again; there are additional citations, but I don't see any fresh problems. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recently did a full copyedit of this article, and will be helping with any fixes if necessary. – S Masters (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice work, interesting topic, thanks for working on it. I have some points/questions/suggestions:

General

  • The images look fine, the non-free ones have appropriate rationales and since alt-text was removed as a requirement there's nothing to criticize about omitting it.
  • I think it's problematic to use " he/shefelt" for expressing someone's opinion, which is done often - say/state etc. is better suited because "felt" implies some intimate knowledge of the commenter or an unreasonably emotional comment by him/her, unless the person used the word him/herself. Not sure if I'm the only one "feeling" that way :)

Gameplay

  • "... pulling it taut, allowing ..." - is that just "pulling it out" or do I miss something?
  • "In addition to other achievements ..." - I had the page printed out and without the link that is confusing, may I suggest a very short explanation in parentheses after "achievements"? are those actual eggs or game easter eggs or what exactly?

Development

  • "Initial development was funded personally by Jensen and Patti, along with Danish government grants, before moving onto larger investors ..." - what moved? the devolpment, the funding? or did Jensen and Patti move on with what? this should be clarified
  • "He further asserted that there will never ..." - assertion is not the right word I think, because he's not speculating but stating something over which he has control.
  • "... never be a port of Limbo to another console ..." - I think that should be explained briefly, the meaning of porting is not common knowledge, even for people who often work with computers, or it should be explained simpler with something like "adapt"

Story, art and music direction

  • "For the second goal, Jensen wanted ..." - what does "for" refer to here? it's just an opaque way of saying "as the second goal", no?
  • "... with specialization in acousmatic music." - it's unclear whether that refers to the game's audio creation or Andersen's education. also, acousmatic could do with a brief explanation, too, to make the article not totally dependent on others/guarantee a certain degree of self-containment.
  • "...; this was intended in the same manner as the game's own art and story that left room for interpretation by the player." - I find that formulation inartful and unclear, but that could just be me

Gameplay direction

  • "... for the game's custom engine, ..." - what is a custom engine? it's not clear from the context.
  • "... elements to aid and gain the friendship of the player." - how can one gain the friendship of a player by making puzzles easier? is the team referenced in the sentence making friends with the player? how?
  • "Limbo has received universal acclaim, comparing it favorably to previous minimalist platform games ..." that's a weird use of gerund and not such a great formulation because it doesn't say who made the comparison - the sources show that Limbo was compared to the other games and that Limbo received acclaim, but not necessarily that the two things were combined. I think that would benefit from a clearer, more straightforward reformulation.
  • "Matt Miller commented that part of the success of Limbo is [...] varying the elements throughout the game, and preventing the player ..." - I omitted the first part because then it becomes clear why that formulation doesn't work, it should use "the variation of elements", no?
  • "... from getting too accustomed since 'everything changes'." - too acustomed to what? I think that only works when it refers to something. Something like "unalert" or "negligent" is meant, or "habituated" or "conditioned", or not? that would work without referring to a specific thing.
  • "the game is 'undermined by the title's lack of innovative gameplay' he claims has been seen in earlier platform games" - I think a word is missing, "which"? then "which he claims could be found ..." is perhaps better.

Presentation

  • "... were exceptionally regarded ..." - what does that mean?
  • "... showing human figures across a chasm that disappears once the player crossed it." - right now it reads as though the chasm disappears, perhaps "who disappear" would be better
  • is there any negative review comment on the presentation?

Plot

  • "Another spiritual interpretation suggested ..." - "spiritual interpretation" seems more like a judgement over the review than the content, I suggest removing "spiritual" as obsolete
  • "Other theories considered scenarios where both or either the boy and his sister are dead." Weird formulation, perhaps simply use "where the boy, his sister or both are dead" (since the article doesn't use serial comma)
  • why mention how other theories attempt to incorporate details of the game without spelling out how this is done? the sentence about this reads pretty redundant at the moment, or at least that's how I read it.
  • "... the game ends on a profound revelation." - that's not clear from the cited reviews, the eurogamer.net review calls the ending understated and the IGN review calls the ending unexpected (unless I missed something), and also not from the (first) plot section, which only states that he finds a girl, presumably his sister, and the game promptly ends, so I wonder where that comes from and why it is emphazised here
  • "Haywald had contrasted Limbo to Braid, a similar platform game with minimalistic elements, but communicated its metaphorical story to the player through in-game text." - that reads as though Haywald communicated the story.

Sales and accolades

  • "... Limbo represents a shift in the type of game that gamers want out of the services; ..." - what services?

Hekerui (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • All these points should be addressed with proper clarifications. As a note "taut" here is wikt:taut - without slack (eg tight). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also to comment: there really isn't any negative comments on the presentation (outside of what reviewers considered a lack of music unaware of the intent). There are some reviews from unreliable sources that call it a depressing environment. (And normally, no, for a vg, I wouldn't go into this much detail with sections on the reception; that is I would group positives and negatives together, such as in this case the lenght-vs-cost, and the second half pacing would be there; but this game has generated that much word of mouth and the like that the most logical approach is how its been broken down, meaning some sections will have no real "negatives" against the positives.) --MASEM (t) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The "taut" is duly noted, and the presentation part looks okay. I made some changes to make the content more easy to understand using the sources, and I fixed some issues of typos and redundancy that came up during the edits made as a response to my comments. Hekerui (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: File:LimboGame1.jpg could be worth elaborating the fair use rationale further, but I think it suffices as it is of the gameplay, which has its aesthetics and form significantly commented on in the article. File:Cboxlimbo.jpg's rationales, although from a standard template, suffice for the identification shot. File:Dino Patti - Game Developers Conference 2010.jpg is appropriately licensed. No serious image issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first sentence I read has a misplaced modifying phrase: "The game's story and its ending have been open to much interpretation, purposely left vague and unanswered by Playdead." Will give it a full read-through shortly. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • More
    • "worms that dig into the boy's brain and force him to travel in one direction until exposed to sunlight and killed" Is it the worms that are killed when exposed? As written, it sounds like the boy who is exposed and killed. If so, why would he be killed from being exposed to sunlight?
    • "By this point, Limbo, initially intended as a freely available Microsoft Windows title, was set to be released as a retail title." Unsure what this means.
    • Problem with parallel structure: "such as the addition of multiplayer play, adjustable difficulty levels, and extending the game's length"
    • "The game underwent numerous iterations" An iteration is a creative version... you don't really "undergo" a version.
    • "While the first half of the game contains scripted events, the developers found it necessary to drop planned events in the second half of the game" This statement isn't adequately explain, in my opinion. Why did they have to drop planned events?
    • "Jensen also wanted the puzzles to feel like a natural part of the environment, and to avoid the feeling that the player was simply moving from puzzle to puzzle through the course of the game." There you have parallel structure, but the meaning is wrong; the "puzzles" don't "avoid the feeling".
Sorry but I only got up to Reception for now. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All these points to here (including the earlier statement) should be addressed. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although the visual style has been consistent throughout development, it would be better to use an actual screenshot of gameplay rather than the prerelease screenshot at File:LimboGame1.jpg - hahnchen 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had asked this to the VG project a while back [9] with the few agreeing that the pre-release is fine as long as it still is truthful to the appearance of the game. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks still show potential for improvement—the most concerning issue is the mammoth paragraph size. Other concerns include the occasional clunky phrase ("prior to" has been pretty much scared out of Wikipedia), redundancies (random "any"s floating around), and comma use (commas after coordinating conjunctions is very inconsistent throughout). —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to differ on the paragraph size. There really isn't any large paragraphs here save in the reception, and that's for logical grouping of common thoughts (but we're still looking at paras with 5-6 sentences at the end of the day). Also, given that this has now gotten at least 3, maybe 4 copyeditors by uninvolved editors, including one from the LoCE, it would be more helpful to be citing specific fixes you feel need to be made. (I have gone through and nuked Priors and Anys). --MASEM (t) 13:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went through last night and added a few paragraph breaks. I'll go through again in a bit and see what can be fixed. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 13:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ugh, my bad. I was looking at the version you had broken up regarding the length, thinking that was the way I had last edited it (its been a busy week offline here). You're absolutely right that the former version was too long. Thank you for that. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence is a bit confusing: Andersen sought to create non-traditional acousmatic music solely on the sound effects of the game's environments; one example he pointed to was the use of electricity...— are the sound effects comprised of acousmatic music only, or is acousmatic music used only in the sound effects? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 14:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the former (music that only uses the sound effects ...) I've tried to fix that sentence to establish it. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I don't see that any reviewer has spotchecked for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do one now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot-checked the following references: 5, 10, 16, 17, 37, and 49. Five doesn't fit entirely but works ("There are occasional glimpses in the distance..." vs. "Once during the journey, the boy catches a glimpse..."), 10 is fine, 16 is fine, 17 doesn't mention the "Summer of Arcade" promotion that it references, 37 is fine, and 49 is fine. In conclusion, looks mostly good, no plagiarism. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know before Boston Herald archived the article, it supported the "Summer of Arcade" claim. Does this need to be corrected? --MASEM (t) 20:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - performed a copyedit of the article. Some minor changes, but other than that everything looked to be in order. Good work. Jujutacular talk 15:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I think the prose is passable now, and it seems all other issues have been addressed for a while now. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Look like an excellent article. JJ98 (Talk) 07:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this in the lead:

    The player guides an unnamed boy through dangerous environments and traps while searching for the boy's sister.

    Who's searching for the sister: the player or the unnamed boy? When I read further into the article, I find it's the unnamed boy, yet the lead implies it's the player. I didn't read further; another check needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This instance seems inelegant not misleading because the player is playing the unnamed boy, no? Nevermind, was changed. Hekerui (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did change it to be clear; technically, yes, it could be the player looking for the sister, but it's more accurate with the clarity. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:51, 24 November 2010 [10].

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia[edit]

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was the sister of Tsar Nicholas II and was "the last Grand Duchess of Imperial Russia". Her life started in a massive palace, and ended in a small apartment above a shop in East Toronto.

User:AJ24 is major contributor, and I hope they will join the nomination. DrKiernan (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

(note: I have not looked at possible copyvio, plagiarism, or sourcing concerns)

  1. Being unfamiliar with the naming conventions of Russian royalty, should Romanova be included in her name? I understand that the patronymic is used in Russia as a surname; is the convention about surnames different for Russian royalty as opposed to other European royalty?
  2. I find the use of citations in the lead to be odd. Is that information not covered and thus cited in the article? If it's not, my understanding is that it shouldn't be in the lead. Am I incorrect?
  3. "There were 21 fatalities among the casualties." seems awkward to me, as 'casualty' (I think) is usually used colloquially to mean killed. Something along the lines of "Many were wounded, 21 were killed" would work I think. Inelegant, obviously, just trying to get my meaning across.
  4. I think you may have some overlinking issues; it seems as though you have linked the Dowager Empress multiple times. It's the only one that stood out. (I think GD Michael may be repeatedly linked, too).

Those were the only things that jumped out at me. And thanks for including born to the purple, a phrase with which I was previously unfamiliar. I got a bit distracted following that rabbit hole.. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, on the specific points:
  1. I'm going off Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Other royals, which says the surname should be mentioned in the first line of the article but not in the article title.
  2. Yes, I think you may right there. I've removed the references from the lead and duplicated the material in the body of the article.
  3. Changed to the simpler "There were 21 fatalities." The wounded are mentioned in the next sentence anyway.
  4. I tend not to worry if the repeats of the link are in different sections, but only actively remove them if they duplicate a link earlier in the section or link a common term. DrKiernan (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and was probably worth more. seems a bit weasely. Can you bit a bit explicit about who made this opinion? 110.32.20.68 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to ... and was mostly held as stock and bonds. Her material possessions were appraised at 350 Canadian dollars in total, which biographer Patricia Phenix considered an underestimate. DrKiernan (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Why is Vorres cited as "Vorres (2001)" while Phenix is just "Phenix", Massie just "Massie", etc?
  • Refs 109 and 117 should be more fully formatted, with titles and publisher information.
  • Publisher locations missing from some references.

Otherwise the sources and citations look OK. I have noted the major reliance on just two sources, but this is probably OK since both are relatively recent biographies of the subject. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the two main sources are the only book-length biographies of Olga that I know of. Although Olga's own autobiographical memoirs, edited by her great-grandson Paul Kulikovsky, were re-published earlier this year, but I was under the impression that we're supposed to use third-party sources if they are available in preference to autobiographical ones. If you want to check reliability and comprehensiveness with online sources, then you could read the sugary biography offered by Olga Kulikovsky-Romanoff at [11] or the short and snazzy one offered by Bob Aitchison at [12]. In answer to your three specific points:
  • Because I'm using the revised 2001 fourth edition not the original 1964 version; however, it is a simple matter to remove the year if it is unnecessary.
  • 109 is published by the Bank of Canada; the title of the page for 117 is the same as the publisher
  • That was deliberate because Massie's publishers give four different addresses in London, Victoria, Auckland and South Africa, and Phenix's give five different addresses in Toronto, London, New York, Victoria and Auckland. However, I have chosen the first listed in each case, which seems to correspond with the country of manufacture. DrKiernan (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab/EL check - No dabs, no link problems. --PresN 23:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read through a few days ago, and again today, and nothing jumped at me needing to fix in the prose. One sourcing concern, you need a publisher for current ref 117 (Ballerup Museum). I ran the article through Corenbot and Earwig, and no violations show up there. I'm sure that there could be prose niggles found, but it read fine to me. Interesting article on a very interesting lady. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks; the publisher and page name are the same. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Excellent article generally. It covers the subject thoroughly and reads very well. Just a few points and I'll be happy to support.

  • "In 1901, she married Duke Peter Alexandrovich of Oldenburg, who was privately considered by family and friends to be homosexual." Is "considered" the correct word, or should it be "believed"?
  • "were murdered by communists" Could this be tightened? It reads like a random killing by a group of people who happened to be communists. I think some suggestion of the "official" nature of the killings is called for here.
  • "She met Anna Anderson, the best-known Anastasia impostor, in a highly publicized visit to Berlin in 1925." During a highly publicized visit?
  • Train crash: this seems to be quite detailed and obviously would have been a big thing for her, but does Olga's part in it warrant a paragraph?
  • "The marriage, announced in May, was unexpected by many..." Needs to be either "was widely unexpected" or "was not expected by many".
  • "Olga assumed that Peter was pushed into proposing by his ambitious mother" Maybe change "assumed" as it was used two sentences previously.
  • "and was deeply trusted by both the Tsar and Tsarina" Not sure about deeply trusted. I'd prefer simply "trusted" or "highly regarded".
  • "and in 1913, while visiting England, she suffered a nervous breakdown.[43] On the way back to Russia, through Denmark, she recuperated.[44]" Second sentence seems a little abrupt and disjointed.
  • "On 1 August 1914, Olga's regiment, the Akhtyrsky Hussars, appeared at an Imperial Review before the Grand Duchess and the Tsar at Krasnoe Selo. Just a few days later, World War I began." What is the relevance of the Review? And the second sentence seems redundant; why not begin the next sentence "After the First World War began..."
  • "Only the Dowager Empress Marie, Olga's brother-in-law Grand Duke Alexander, four officers of the Akhtyrsky Regiment, two fellow nurses from the hospital in Kiev and the officiating priest attended the service on 16 November 1916 in the Kievo-Vasilievskaya Church on Triokhsviatitelskaya (Three Saints Street) in Kiev." Long sentence; it took me a few goes to work out what it meant.
  • "The fate of Olga's childhood confidant and brother Michael, the emperor's supposed successor, was uncertain. It was unknown to her at the time, but he had been assassinated near Perm on 13 June 1918." I don't think both of these sentences are necessary: either one would do, or a combination such as "Unknown to her, Olga's childhood confidant and brother Michael, the emperor's supposed successor, had been assassinated near Perm on 13 June 1918."
  • "In a rented five-roomed farmhouse there, their second son, Guri Nikolaevich, was born on 23 April 1919." The subject of the previous sentence is Timofei Yatchik, which makes "their" ambiguous. Also, "there, their" does not read too well.
  • Did Kulikovsky go to Denmark with Olga? It is not clear in the text.
  • "Olga said: ...in 1918 or 1919. If Mrs. Anderson ..." Why does the quote begin with a sentence fragment giving dates?
  • "Emigration to Canada": This section is a bit listy; Four paragraphs begin "In [year]" or "By [year]". The 1951 paragraph is a little short and some of the information in the section is a little trivial: "former officers and members of the Akhtyrsky Regiment celebrated the 300th anniversary of its foundation at Olga's home" I wonder how important this is.
  • "Legacy": Not sure this is a great section title as it is mainly about her paintings. Is this really the most important thing she did? I would have thought more about her personality or her work with Russian emigres may have been more important. The end of the section gets a bit listy again, listing where her work was and who owned it. And if her paintings are important, it would be good to have some independent assessment, rather than her family and biographer.
  • Given that Nicholas was not particularly supported by his family generally, is there anything about Olga's relations with other family members before 1917? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the detailed review. Changes made[13]; summarized below.
  • Changed to "believed"
  • Changed to "shot by revolutionaries"
  • Removed "highly publicized"
  • Coverage of Borki reduced slightly be removal of trivia like the pudding and the time
  • Changed to "not expected".
  • Changed to "suspected"
  • Removed "deeply trusted"
  • "On the way back to Russia..." removed, and replaced with sentence that links with the following paragraph
  • Sentences merged
  • Overcomplicated sentence broken up
  • Changed to your suggestion: "Unknown to her..."
  • Rewritten to remove "there, their"
  • Kulikovsky added
  • Fragment removed
  • If the short paragraph is removed, there's a leap from 1948 to 1952.
  • I couldn't find any truly independent assessment of her work. I'm happy to add it if some is found.
  • Her relationship with her parents, brothers and nieces are covered. I'm not aware of any other notable associations before 1917. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Seems fine now. I still think a few parts are a little listy, but this is not enough to prevent my support. Well done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Excellent read, just some minor nitpicks below: Sasata (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support On prose; I haven't checked sources for accuracy or other recent concerns (no access to them). Sasata (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • how old is she/what year is it in the infobox picture?
  • "… modest, even Spartan." I don't think it needs capitalizing, as an adjective
  • link Lent
  • endeavour, watercolour, labour, neighbours - British spelling not consistent with Am. English spelling of subsidized, recognized, hospitalized; similarly, the regional variant you choose will determine if "practiced" is simply a spelling mistake or used incorrectly as a verb
  • "Olga and Kulikovsky began to see each other more often" more often than what? The last sentence simply stated that they met.
  • link Epiphany, hemophiliac
  • how about increasing the Russian imperial family image size … it's pretty small now, so much so that the lengthy caption takes up an equal area
  • "… and decided to make for the Caucasus …" suggest using a different verb here, I think "make" used in this way is colloquial
  • "...she did not strike me" needs space after ellipse, says MOS
  • link troopship
  • is there a more specific date available for her husband's death in 1958?
  • "See also, Massie, p. 171." page citation aren't followed by fullstops in any other instances
  • "quoted in von Nidda, p.168" space after p. for consistency with others
  • "quoted in Phenix, p. 237–238" p.->pp.
  • ref 103 is "Vorres (2001), p. 225" why is the year given here and not of the dozens of others preceding it?
  • Thanks for such a careful reading, particularly of the notes. Changes made [14]; detailed below. DrKiernan (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of the image is unknown; most Bain pictures fall between 1900 and 1930.
  • My dictionary spells it with a capital only.
  • Linked
  • The article follows Canadian spelling, which favors -our and -ize endings. BTW, -ize is also used in British english, and is favored by publishers such as the OUP.
  • Ah, thanks for the link. I thought I had that Brit/Eng spelling thing figured out, but there's more nuances I guess (technically, being Canadian, I suppose I should have known this... I'll blame the public education system :) ). Sasata (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more often" removed
  • Linked
  • Enlarged image
  • "make for" removed
  • Space added
  • Linked
  • He died on 11 August. As this is given in Nikolai Kulikovsky, I'd prefer not to repeat it here.
  • Reference formatting corrected
  • Ealdgyth says above that she ran the article through CorenBot and Earwig. DrKiernan (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:51, 24 November 2010 [15].

September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the gulf of Tonkin incident, General Nguyen Khanh of South Vietnam decided to declare a state of emergency and give himself a lot of powers. This led to riots and protests, and he ended up on the back foot and weaker than before after being forced into making concessions. Then he had to sack a few supporters of slain President Ngo Dinh Diem from the junta to keep the protestors happy. As a result, some of the sacked generals, Lam Van Phat and Duong Van Duc launched a couop. They failed when the "Young Turks" of Nguyen Cao Ky and Nguyen Chanh Thi backed Khanh. After that, there was an amusing PR event where Duc appeared with some Young Turks to deny that any coup attempt had ever occurred and everyone was happy. However, a few days later, Khanh had them arrested, and tried them a month later, but then he deliberately acquitted them anyway to stop the Turks from getting too much power. Khanh also released a group of other generals he had overthrown in January so they could keep the Turks in check. Has passed a MILHIST A-review YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments 1c/2c:. 1c is good. 2c is good except fiddle. I didn't see this at MILHIST ACR previously, this is the first time I've reviewed footnotes / citations on this. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ABC-CLIO is pretty good for academic TERTIARY sources, I'm fine with the source particularly as it is supported by Kahin, but did you consult an individual article within the encyclopedia? (Tucker, Spencer C. (2000). Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social and Military History.) The fact that you cite one page (325) kind of indicates this. This would also allow you to cite the individual article author if there was one.
    • If we're going to New York City, New York, we may as well London, United Kingdom (Shaplen, Robert (1966)).
      • Not your fault, doesn't require correction here, but bloody irritating that cite core hasn't examined all necessary permutations: Yet again the quality of the cite core produces ugliness, compare Grose, Peter (1964-09-14).'s "The New York Times: p. 14." with "Coup collapses in Saigon"'s The New York Times. 1964-09-14. p. 1.
      • Actually there is a problem with "Coup collapses in Saigon" compare the display of the page number to the display in "Khanh arrests 5" or "Moscow Says Saigon" or "Dissident Said to Hold Out". I fixed it myself.
        • This arises from a difference in handling of the page parameter between cite news and cite web... I do kind of wish to take cite core out the back and shoot it.
I just decided to go for an extra karnow instead of tucker which has the same thing. I went to Greater London, the county/state/province equivalent. I originally thought London was just itself, but apparently not YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are as many rules about necessary containing locations as there are citation styles. Normally myself I go with US States, USSR constituent republics, Australian State comma Australia / Canadian Province comma Canada, and treat all other nations including UK and USSR successor states as Unitary. Your citation style for locations is now consistent, the FAC requirement! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concern for File:Tsn-1962.jpg: If this was obtained from the Agency directly, re-users are going to have a hard time inquiring them over the image if they have no forms of reference (ID or catalogue number); so I would say this is a non-compliance with WP:CITE#IMAGE. That said, since we are using Gradual Failure, there is an aerial photograph of Tan Son Nhut Air Base on page 80. All other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing Tsn-1962.jpg until better sourced YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 22:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information has since been provided. Images okay. Jappalang (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images re-added YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An excellent article, meeting all FA criteria in my opinion. Just a few tiny points: both UK and US spellings are used in the article (e.g. "favour", "demeanour" -v- "labor", "favorable", "armored", "defense"). Better to stick to one or the other. In the "Media conference" section you have "a airborne". The spell check thinks you should put an accent in attaché, and I agree with it. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2010 (UT
Thanks for pointing it out. I miss "favour" a lot these times YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Very well written, engaging and thorough. Just a few minor comments.

  • "Despite his survival, the coup was seen as the start of Khanh's ultimate political decline." Minor, but who is seeing this? If it was a contemporary view, then it does not make sense to say "ultimate" as they couldn't know that! If it is a modern view, should it be "is seen"? Is "seen" needed? I'm never sure on these ones.
  • "Khanh felt there was no choice but to accept since the influence of Tri Quang was so great that he not only turn the majority of the people against the government but could influence the effectiveness of the armed forces". Seems to be a typo: "so great that he not only turn".
  • "The Buddhists however, made no overt reaction to the pro-Diem coup, which would have dented their rights" Not sure about dented. And what would have affected their rights, the coup or their reaction?
  • "Ky consolidated the troops" Not sure what this means, unless it refers to Ky's actions in the following sentence.
  • "A stand-off of tanks and troops" A little clumsy. Between tanks and troops?
  • "There was then a lull in the power struggle." Again, a little vague. A lull in terms of rhetoric? Absence of fighting? Action?
  • "However, this was regarded..." By who? --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly a few too many howevers? --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well written, seems comprehensive and makes sense to a non-expert. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Performed light copyedit but generally prose seems very good, as do structure, referencing, coverage, and supporting materials; another fine addition to this series of Vietnam articles. I do have a few fairly minor queries/comments:

  • This deterred Khiem's group from enacting their plans. -- do you mean they were deterred from "acting on their plans", or from "making plans" at all; the current wording sounds like the latter but may not be the case.
  • Diem had tried to use the loyalist Phat to help thwart the November 1963 coup, but the rebels managed to thwart Diem's general and execute the president. -- can you think of another appropriate word to substitute for the second "thwart", maybe "overcome" or some such?
  • "so passive that they appear to have been either tacitly supporting or associated with his move by Duc and Phat". -- is the quote "his move" or "this move"; latter seems to make more sense in the context.
  • and American opposition to the coup was thought to have been efficiently conveyed to him" -- do we actually mean "effectively" conveyed to him, as in "in effect conveyed", or do we really mean "efficiently" as in "correctly" or "cleverly"?
  • Notably, Khanh and Taylor had an angry exchange... -- don't think "notably" is necessary, or desirable from a MOS perspective.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All good, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments. Looking very good, but just a few things:
    • I wondered while reading about the Dec 1964 coup as well, but are there no photos of Khanh?
    • Third para in Background: should the period be inside the quotation?
    • Likewise second-to-last para quotation, per WP:LQ
    • The numbered list in Media conference: does the sequence of items have some critical meaning? If not, they should be bullets. If you place the "to" at the end of the intro statement, it can be removed from each item.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done the last three. Unfortunately, from my US govt pdfs and the like, I havne't seen a Khanh picture YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:25, 23 November 2010 (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 01:46, 22 November 2010 [16].

Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almirante Latorre continued a trend in trying to upstage the other South American countries in obtaining larger dreadnought battleships. However, the ship was still being built in the UK when the First World War broke out, so she was purchased and used in the Grand Fleet during that time. Repurchased by Chile in 1920, she participated in a major mutiny in 1931 and served during the Second World War. The ship lasted until 1959, when she was scrapped in Japan. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sketchy on Royal Navy service - 3 years in the war, including the largest battleship battle ever, covered by about the same number of sentences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Footnote 7 reads POVishly and is not cited
  • In the short citations there is insufficient distiction between '"Schenia, Latin America" and '"Schenia, Latin America's Wars". I would advise adding dates, thus: "Schenia, Latin America 1987" etc. Incidentally, ref 45 shows "Schenia, Latin American: which one is this?
  • Ref 12: It is not immediately clear that Schenia, "Chile" refers to an article by Schenia in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1921, and this should be clarified. (Also ref 19)
  • Ref 17: Where is Henry Prather Fletcher being quoted from (who is he, anyway?)
  • Ref 38: what is the original source that is quoted by Schenia?

Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian,
  • Fixed, I moved it out of the main text and forgot to bring a citation with it.
  • Changed Latin America to Naval History, which appears to be fine per [17]
  • Chicago style uses the chapter names [18]
  • Additional information added.
  • It looks like he obtained it from ONI records in the National Archives. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Query thanks that was an interesting read, I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki.

  1. There is a whole load of information in the infobox, and while I wouldn't expect all of it in the article something on the ships layout would be interesting. Especially as to how the armour and guns compared to other ships.
  2. Can you add anything about crew conditions? At the moment you have the mutiny and a total crew size, I'd be interested in whether they were professional or conscript, was it a dry navy or a more English influenced one?
  3. If there were only 5 14" guns they would seem from the photo to be in two forward turrets, am I right in thinking that an unconventional design?
  4. Were the rear turrets for the lighter guns? I missed the x twin bit, but I think it could do with a rephrase - 10 14" guns in five twin gun turrets.
  5. Range info would be useful - both for guns and for the ship
  6. In terms of the rivalry, Brazil and Chile were both rivals of Argentina, but I thought Chile's rivals were Argentina and Peru (and Bolivia but she had lost her coast to Chile and was no longer a Naval power).
  7. As said above any info on who she was shooting at and whether she achieved anything at Jutland would be nice.
  8. An explanation re Aircraft launching platforms would be nice, I thought battleships of the era could only have seaplanes.

ϢereSpielChequers 18:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WSC! Thanks for reviewing the article.
1. I haven't added it to my other South American battleship articles, but I'm planning on adding it into the class article when I write it (think Rivadavia-class battleship and ARA Moreno)
I was thinking more that a section on layout and capabilities would be useful as it enables more context to be added than an Infobox can convey. ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to include that in my individual ship articles because it's so technical and detailed, while not directly related to the story of the ship. I can write the class article and leave a link to it at the top of the "Construction" section using {{main}}, however... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK that should work. ϢereSpielChequers 07:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hahah - the Chilean Navy was hugely influenced by the Brits, mostly due to the presence of a foreign naval mission, but I'm not sure if that extended to alcoholism. Schenia comments that "Favor such as Great Britain showed Chile found no parallel in the world's other important navies", while also remarking on the "strong ties" since 1839 and calling it a "special relationship." (Latin America: A Naval History, 138). This is certainly at least on of the reasons they were considered to be a very professional force. Another was their pivotal role in the 1891 revolution and their stability – the 1931 mutiny was the first since 1891. Having said all that, I'm not sure how relevant this is to Almirante Latorre. :-)
3. No, there were ten – five turrets with ten guns each. Five guns in two fore turrets would be an extremely unconventional design, though. I've added an image farther down in the article which I hope clarifies this.
Let me just point out that ten guns might be a bit much for one turret :P As for five guns in two turrets forward, it isn't all that unconventional - Nevada mounted her guns that way, and the Ersatz Monach class were intended to be the same. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two** , and I was thinking more along the lines of five guns in two turrets and no other armament. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Same as #1?
No same as 3, but that great image largely resolves this, thanks. Perhaps it could do with an explanation in the caption that the main guns are in the five turrets and whatever the other guns are? ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. The naval rivalry between the 'big three' ABC countries. Peru had almost no navy to speak of outside of two old cruisers. Still, it's probably misleading, as Argentina was far-and-beyond the biggest rival – the two had an on-and-off naval arms race going since 1893.
6. I've emailed Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Parsecboy (talk · contribs) about this.
Looking through John Campbell's Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting, it doesn't appear that Canada was heavily engaged in the battle. She briefly fired at the crippled Wiesbaden at 18:40, but made no hits. She engaged an unidentified target about 40 minutes later and fired 5 salvos, but again scored no hits. At around the same time she fired on some German destroyers with her secondary guns, but doesn't appear to have hit anything. That's it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can see there isn't much point in mentioning her in the Jutland article, but if that was the only time in her career that she got to fire her guns in anger then it should be mentioned. Unless that is her career as "Canada" is something separate? ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed Parsec and he should be getting me (a) page number(s) for that info. It'll be good for one more sentence, at least... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I kind of forgot about this. Campbell states:
"Finally, the Canada opened fire at 1840, but only got off two salvos and neither was seen to fall" (p. 157)
"Lastly, the Canada opened fire at 1920 at a ship seen very indistinctly on the starboard beam. Five salvos of APC were fired, of which the first, fourth, and fifth were corrected "Up 1000". Gun range was not recorded, but the range-finder increased from 10,000 to 12,800yds while firing. The Canada made nohits, and it is not known which ship she was engaging." (pp. 206-7)
"The Iron Duke joined in the firing [against German destroyers] with 6in at 1911 at 10,000-9,000yds, the Conqueror with 13.5in at 1912, and the Canada with 6in shortly afterwards." (p. 210) - no mention of any hits made by Canada
Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that solves that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. The first aircraft platform was tested onboard USS Birmingham in 1910 by Eugene Ely, and the first landing was done aboard Philadelphia in 1911. They were mostly impractical due to the space needed, and it was hard to use rangefinders when the platforms were placed on top of superfiring turrets, so seaplanes were the most common. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nuther one "two of the aft 6-inch secondary guns were landed after they suffered blast damage from the middle 14-inch turret" should that be removed not landed? ϢereSpielChequers 21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, 'landed' implies they were used as shore batteries, which I highly doubt! :-) Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great account of a noteworthy battleship. Well written. Dolphin (t) 06:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concern on sole image File:Almirante Latorre diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg: How does "artist not identified" mean validity for the the PD-old tag (life of the author plus 70 years) when the diagram was published in 1923? Could the art editor A. J. W. Burgess aka Arthur James Wetherall Burgess (1879–1953)[19] not have drawn it or the previously identified Plans artist S. W. Barnaby (see File:Brassey's Invicible-Indefatigable Plan (1915).jpg)? Since this is a 1923 publication (not pre-1923), it could still receive US copyright protection until 2019 if the artist was not dead before 1926. Jappalang (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What difference would it make if the book was not published with a copyright notice? (I don't see one, and archive.org lists its reason for "not in copyright" as "no visible notice of copyright.") Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No difference. If it (a foreign publication) did not comply with US copyright law (notice and such), then the URAA cutoff (PD before 1 Jan 1996) comes into play (thus my reasoning for the 1926 death of author). Why not use HMS Canada public domain photographs (Surgeon Oscar Parkes's SP 2743 and SP 1938 at IWM)? Jappalang (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a combination of PD-UK-unknown and PD-1996 would work here because the author is certainly not identified. Per the preface (page n37), it seems like the only work Burgess did was on the profiles, which appear later in the book. Still, I'll remove it. I was warned off of IWM images by an archivist at the NH&HC – "they are just down right nasty. I've heard many stories from researchers and friends dealing with them." – and I don't entirely trust that they couldn't find me, given certain overlaps between my real and wiki lives. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is by a known artist, S. W. Barnaby. The 1923 drawing (as Latorre) is exactly the same as Canada's in 1915. I have uploaded the 1915 drawing (File:Brassey's HMS Canada Plan (1915).jpg) to Wikipedia and inserted it into the article. Jappalang (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks Jappalang! I didn't even think to see if there was one in the 1915 version. Apologies, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Made a couple of small prose edits, check to see if they work for you.
  • Some places of publication for your refs have states, some don't. Pick one and standardize them.
  • Aren't places of publication needed for journals?
  • Article meets completeness criteria, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used states for the first occurrence of each town, but that seems silly now. No, not according to Chicago. Thanks for the review Sturm! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • a mast was added in between the two funnels to service the launches. I don't think that a mast itself could handle any boats, but it could support a derrick as is visible on some of the photos of Canada.
  • Were the times mentioned in the section on Jutland a.m. or p.m.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No issues with plagarism with Burt, Worth and Whitley, the only three sources I have on hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Derrick - fixed
    • Time - PM? It's in military (24 hour) time, so isn't this evident? Or am I looking at a different part than you?
    • Thanks for the review Sturm! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dana boomer (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • Preston is in References, but not Endnotes
  • I am confused about the chronological progression in the Background section. At the end of the first paragraph, you say that the Rivadavia class was sold, but then at the end of the second paragraph Argentina is building Rivadavia and Moreno. What's going on here?
  • Background, "responded by asking for tenders from". What does it mean to ask for tenders?
  • Construction, isn't there something we can link war scare to? Or do we even need it linked - it's a fairly basic term. Same for naval mission in the Early career section.
  • Early career, "for a British naval mission, which arrived in the following year." First, why not just say "arrived the following year" - in is redundant. Second, maybe I'm not understanding "naval mission" in this context, but how does a mission "arrive" - aren't they usually performed, completed, undertaken, etc.?
  • Early career, "Major alterations included the rebuilding of the bridge, updating the main battery fire control to more modern standards along with adding it for the secondary armament for the first time, a new mast between the third and fourth turrets, anti-torpedo bulges similar to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, the addition of anti-aircraft guns, and her steam turbine engines were replaced." This sentence is not only long, it is also not parallel in the least. You have a couple of "-ing" clauses, one "-ed" clause, and a couple with nothing.
  • Early career, "Nearly two years after the modernization began (5 March 1931)" Why the date in parentheses? Why not just "began on 5 March 1931"?
  • 1931 Mutinee, "All of their land gains were surrendered, leaving only the fleet in the mutineers' hands." Why were they surrendered? Did the mutineers just up and quit, or were the gains taken back by force?
  • Later career, "The offer, however, was rebuffed" Why?

I'll be happy to support when these are resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Preston - fixed
    • There were two Rivadavia classes, one class of armored crusiers that were sold to Japan before completion, and one class of dreadnoughts. I've clarified this in the text.
    • asking for tenders - linked to call for bids.
    • war scare - unlinked
    • on naval missions - I didn't think about this before, strangely, but a "naval mission" is not "navy going on a mission". It's more like a country's ambassador to a smaller nation, except that missions have a number of naval officers who are tasked with assisting the smaller country with their navy. They also tended to advocate for buying ships from their home country, which the smaller country tended to do. In this case, the British naval mission was very well-established and respected in Chile, making it nearly impossible for another country to win a large contract. I should probably start a stub on this...
    • Early career alterations - that's a horrifying sentence. It's still really long, but does it look better?
    • nearly two years - fixed
    • mutiny - fixed, they were taken back
    • rebuffed - the sources don't say why. Given that only a year earlier Chile was seeking to acquire acquire more warships, including two cruisers, from the United States to protect its (very long) coastline from Argentina and the growing threat of Japan (Schenia, Naval History, 163), I'd assume they were worried they would be drawn into to the war somehow and would need the battleship, but that's OR.
    • Thanks for the review Dana, it's much appreciated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'm really confused. Why does the Preston ref go before the Livermore ref? Dana boomer (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoops, that was a mistake. In the edit window, I thought "Seward" was the last name (because of the wikilink). Sorry! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, you managed to make me think for a while that I had completely forgotten how to recite the alphabet... Everything else looks good. I tweaked the long sentence a bit and split it into two - see if you like it; if not, feel free to revert me, although I still think that the sentence construction was awkward even in your tweaked version. A stub on naval missions would be much appreciated, as I (obviously) had no idea what the term meant, but that shouldn't hold the FAC up. Nice work, and I have added my support. Dana boomer (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry! :-) I added two commas before the "and"s, but your version is much better. I'll try to write one up asap! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Have to admit Chile isn't the first country I think of when battleships are mentioned, so this has some novelty value for me apart from anything else...!
  • Performed a light copyedit but generally structure, prose, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials look good.
  • Quibble, not affecting support: I don't see the point of cluttering up the infobox with citations when the figures are also referenced in the main body of the article -- in the lead you don't cite info that's referenced in the body -- but I seem to recall this is your standard practice and has been accepted at FAC before... ;-)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks Ian. Someone's got to tell the story of these awesome ships. :-) Thanks for the copyedit... just when you think an article can't get better, you come along. :P I've removed the citations. I think the last time I did that was with North Carolina-class battleship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this article meets the FA criteria. I've simplified the wording in a couple of places, and would suggest two further minor changes:
    • " she was in good enough condition for the United States to offer to purchase her soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor" - "to offer to purchase" is a bit awkward
    • "the ship spent most of the Second World War on patrol for Chile" - this indicates that she spent most of the war at sea, which is very unlikely to be the case. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Has this had an independent check for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO issues? --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define what you want from V, it's a wide-ranging document. If you want to know if everything is referenced to reliable sources, no check of the refs has been done, but all book references have passed past FACs, and the only online sources are from the New York Times and the Chilean Navy's official website. Sturm checked the sources we share for copyvios and found none, but no check has been done for Schenia AFAIK. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally just an spot-check for proper attribution, not that the sources themselves are acceptable—that's been done by Brian above. For copyvio, a spot-check for close paraphrasing, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sturmvogel has done a spot check on the refs for copyvio/plagiarism, as he notes above. Do you need more than that? Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2010 (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 01:46, 22 November 2010 [20].

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand[edit]

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC) and White Shadows[reply]

Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand was a pre-dreadnought Radetzky class battleship, which served a bit during World War 1, ultimately ending up in Italian hands. Not so much info is available, but I think User:White Shadows, User:Parsecboy and I have added as much info as we could find. This is the first non perma-stub I have created, and might become my frist FA. She has gone through a Milhist ACr, and has failed a FAC due to the absense of a major source. THe prose has not changed much since the last FAC, so I think this should pass with a tad fewer comments. I look forward to your comments. Buggie111 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. No problems with dablinks. ; one dead external link: [21]. PL290 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding my signature here to verify that this is a joint nom between us. Feel free to contact me, Parsec of Buggie.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 2c. Bibliography, shouldn't "– (2006)." be displaying as "——— (2006)." ? (re: Hore 2006b). If you're using states with Westport and West Lafayette, shouldn't Annapolis and New York have states? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ws has fixed the states, but I don't see the difference in what authormask the next Hore ref uses. Could you help show me how to fix it? Buggie111 (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citation/core is inadequately tested. Replaced |authormask=2 with |authormask=——— Fifelfoo (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ill remove. I believe it's cited in Hore. Buggie111 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been done? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, yes.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 10:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - comments now adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Comments per request on my talk[reply]

  • Be consistent in using US vs UK English
  • What is "complement" in this context?
    Her crew size.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ship's primary armament consisted of four 30.5 cm (12 in) 45-caliber guns... Eight 24 cm (9.4 in) guns...twenty 10 cm (3.9 in) L/50 guns...and four 37 mm (1.5 in) L/44 guns" - why the single mm measurement among the centimeters?
    Fixed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radetzky class or Radetzky-class?
  • "At only 14,508 long tons (14,741 t) displacement, the Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, like the other ships of the Radetzky-class was smaller" - could remove everything before the comma, as it repeats information given in the previous sentence. Also, need comma before "was"
    • What should be deleted, the tonnage or the statement the "Erzherzog Franz Ferdinnand"?Buggie111 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Austro-Hungarian navy was not satisfied with the operation; as the ships lacked cranes with which to lift the planes onto the decks, which were too small to accommodate the planes" - grammar
  • "Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and the rest of the fleet departed to bombard the Italian coast.[17] Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and the remainder of the Austro-Hungarian fleet bombarded the important naval base" - repetitive
  • "Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand bombarded the main coasal batteries in both Ancona and Montenegro" - repeats previous sentence, and "coastal"?
    • There was more than just gun turrets at Ancona. Several BB's bombarded barrackses, munition depots, and one even attacked the post office. I'll try and incorperate that into it Buggie111 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date formatting in both article text and notes
  • Austro-Hungarian navy or Navy?
  • Navy, fixed as well.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in page formatting: for example, ref 12 vs ref 14
  • Ref 21: retrieval date?
    • I'm assuming you mean the one about the loss of a destroyer? Done. Buggie111 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how/whether states are abbreviated in publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1a

  • References and accuracy not checked
  • Three minor typo fixes done, please check.
  • "casemated single mounts" -> "single mount casemates"? 'Casemated' is unusual usage.
  • "The Austro-Hungarian navy was not satisfied with the operation; as the ships lacked cranes with which to lift the planes onto the decks, which were too small to accommodate the planes." Clumsy, rewrite.
  • Spelling is American, primarily in "mobilization" and its variants. It may be worth noting this on the talk page to prevent future edit skirmishes. I see no inconsistency in usage.
  • A note on how her speed and range compared with contemporary battleships would be nice.
  • Overall, a concise and enjoyable article that appears to cover all significant aspects. Doug (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • General
  • Lead
    • Identify that the original name is in German. Should the English translation also be italicised?
    • As she and the rest of the Radetzky class were built after HMS Dreadnought was launched in 1906, it seems misleading to call her a pre-dreadnought. The Radetzky class article describes the class as semi-dreadnoughts. Perhaps describe her as a pre-dreadnought design.
    • If she was the first ship of her class to be built why was she not the "name ship" of the class.
      • Many ships in different classes did not have the name ship built first. The Tegetthoff-class is a good example.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 19:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. In many cases, the ship that was planned to be the first of the class and the ship that ends up being the first are different, simply because of obvious logistical issues and the difficulty of translating designs and plans into concrete action. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service history
    • Given the shortness of her operational career, I think the bits that are covered could be expanded. For example:
      • What type of seaplanes were used? If the ships had no cranes and the decks were too small, in what way were the seaplanes operated from the ships?
      • The wording of the first few sentences of the World War I section needs a bit of clarification. At the moment it could be read that the fleet was mobilised in anticipation of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Putting dates in for the assassination and the mobilisation would get the chronology clear for those who are not familiar with the causes of World War I.
      • May 1915
      • Confined to Port
        • Was the confinement to port only because of Admiral Haus's orders or was Pola also blockaded by allied navies?
          • Pola itself was not blockaded but the Adriatic was. Haus believed that his ships were needed in port rather than out at sea to counter any possible attack from the Italians. Even if he let the ships out, the EFF would not have been the first to go as coal was scarce and it was reserved for the newer ships of the Tegetthoff class.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might want to link to Fleet in being with regard to the strategy of keeping the ships in port.
        • There is no mention of her leaving port in November 1918 and the surrender to the US Navy mentioned in the Radetzy class article.
      • Post War - question asked at the first FAC but not addressed
        • What was the ship doing between the transfer to Italy and the scrapping in 1926?
        • Was she incorporated into the Italian navy or just left in dock awaiting destruction (the infobox states decommissioned in 1926, which suggests that she was commissioned into the Italian navy)?
            • By decommissioned, that means that the ship was removed from AH service and handed over to Italy. See my comment below, she was simply in Italian hands for those years. Technically, commissioned in a sense but only rotting away in a dock somewhere.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was she renamed to something Italian?
          • No, I've seen no evidence to suggest that the Italians changed the names of any of the ships that they were given after the war. They were not even allowed to keep them after the Washington naval treaty so they simply scrapped them. It's not like EFF did anything under Italian ownership....--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 02:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where was she scrapped?

--DavidCane (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Link to sister ship
  • What kind of seaplanes were used in 1912?
  • This is awkward and kind of redundant. On 23 May 1915, four hours after the Italian declaration of war reached the main Austro-Hungarian naval base at Pola, Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and the rest of the fleet departed to bombard the Italian coast,[17] namely the important naval base at Ancona,[18] and later the coast of Montenegro, without opposition. Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand bombarded the main coastal batteries in both Ancona and Montenegro--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concern for File:Erz ff colorcard.jpg: Why are we directed to Larry Nielsen's web page where there are no signs of battleship postcards? Furthermore, what states this postcard to be a US published work; i.e. first published in US? Alexander Kircher is German,[22] making it more likely his work would more likely to be first on a German postcard (if printed as such) unless a source states otherwise. As he died in 1939, his copyright lasts till the start of this year (2010); URAA restoration applies to his works that were first published outside of the US before 1977. Other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the painting for now.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Needs some polish. Specific suggestions: Sasata (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked several of the sources that were available on Google Books and didn't see any problems. Sasata (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. *her two sisters' - reads a little oddly, should probably be "two sister-ships".

  • Serbian reinforcements from supporting the siege at Scutari - this is abrupt, as we know nothing about the seige at Scutari; a sentence on the topic would be helpful (e.g. who was besieging whom, and why).
  • By 1913, the four new dreadnoughts of the Tegetthoff class - the Tegetthoff class—the only dreadnoughts built for the fleet— - the explanation of what the Tegetthoff class is should come where it's first mentioned, and only the first mention should be linked.
  • deploy it's forces - no apostrophe in "its" there
  • the Alps - should probably be linked, not everyone knows what they are.
  • Austria-Hungary valuable time to strengthen her Italian border - should probably be "its border", not "her border".
  • The only damage in the ensuing days - the only damage to the Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, I presume? This should be clarified.
    • K.
  • while attempting to avoid an aerial bombardment - while who was attempting to avoid an aerial bombardment? The Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand? The other ship? Both?
    • I will get at it.

In general, a well-written article. I'd like to see some information on the ship's cost; is there any available? Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really. I'd have to learn Hungarian. I'm sorry if no one has gotten around, but both WS and I are busy with RL. This will take a few days. Buggie111 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. I'd use the standard wikimarkup for things like italics, rather than html code like <i>. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after copy-editing the article. Brief and terse, yet informative. I left an inline query about "husbanding" ships. I'm also not sure about personifying the ship as a "she"—I know this is common in ship circuits, but didn't we used to discourage such tone? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:45, 15 November 2010 [24].

Petrified Forest National Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petrified Forest National Park has a deceptive name. Although best known for its petrified logs, its attractions include colorful badlands, petroglyphs, pueblo ruins, sandy washes, abundant grasslands, and a wide variety of wildlife. My thanks to Chipmunkdavis for a helpful peer review. Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sources comments

  • Ref 5 "ProtectedPlanet.net": This source derives its text from Wikipedia. Although its use here appears to be merely to confirm a category, it may be advisable to use a higher quality sources for this purpose.
  • Publication date missing for the second Parker & Thompson work.

Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these. The missing pub date was easy to fix, the IUCN category ref less so. I've replaced the Protected Planet link with one to a USGS map viewer that makes it possible to download a spreadsheet that includes the IUCN number for Petrified Forest National Park. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Your suggestions are most helpful, and I have responded to each of them below. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, helpful suggestions, kind words, and support. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Park headquarters... Petrified Forest is — I read something recently saying that the definite article is disappearing. Are these examples?
Yes, but it hasn't entirely disappeared. I changed the second sentence of the lead to start with "The park's headquarters are... " and the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead to start with "The Petrified Forest... ". However, in general my sources do not add "The" before "Petrified Forest National Park". If you see others that seem to need a definite article, please let me know. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 21st century, the Bidahochi Formation, laid down only 8 to 4 million years ago, rests directly atop — where was it before the current century, I don't understand this.
Thanks. I had not noticed this confusing construction before you pointed it out. I have deleted "In the 21st century" so that it does not clash with the 8 to 4 million? Does this make the meaning clear? Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...flora occur in the park, about 82 percent of which are native — native to what? Arizona? US? North America?
Good question. The authors of the source material do not answer this directly but use the phrase "non-native". In the context of the source material, which compares past floral surveys of the park with the 2005 survey, it's clear that the authors mean "not native to the park". I changed the sentence to read "A 2005 survey found that 447 species of flora, of which 57 species are invasive, occur in the park." (I'm glad I took another look at the source material because I had confused non-native percent of "new" species (about 18 percent) with non-native percent of "total" species (about 13 percent). Also, it may be more clear to say 57 invasive species than to convert to percentages. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • mariposa lily — isn't Mariposa a proper noun?
No. It's Spanish for butterfly, and in my English dictionary, "mariposa lily" appears without caps. It's capitalized in place names like Mariposa, California, but not otherwise. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - another fine article. Dincher (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Ruhrfisch - I find this is well written, beautifully illustrated, and nicely referenced and meets all the criteria. I have a few questions / quibbles, which do not detract from my support
  • First sentence - I know "of northeastern Arizona" is grammatically correct, but "in northeastern Arizona" just sounds better to my ear (and is the construction used in the first sentence of the Geography section). Petrified Forest National Park is a U.S. national park in Navajo and Apache counties of northeastern Arizona. Your call.
I have adopted your construction, which is better. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence stopped me each time I read the article An older Highway 180 crosses the southern edge of the park, but like Route 66 it has deteriorated and is closed. Would "The former" or perhaps "The historic" work better than older?
Yes. I've now modified it to say: "Historic Highway 180, an earlier alignment of the modern route, crosses the southern edge of the park. Like Route 66, it has deteriorated and is closed." Is this more clear? Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Fossils, does Silica need to be capitalized?
No. I've changed it to "silica". Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "coach" for clarity? In the late 19th century, settlers and private stage [coach?] companies followed similar east–west routes.
Yes. I've now added "coach" and linked the new word, stagecoach. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no dab links or dead external links. The images all have alt text.
  • Image review all images are all freely licensed, mostly by Finetooth or other Wikipedians, some freely licensed from Flickr, and one US government map.
I made a few edits as I read - please feel free to revert if I made errors or made things worse. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words, helpful suggestions, minor edits, and support. Thanks also for creating, years ago, the state locator maps and for your many good ideas about map-making. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome, and thanks for an enjoyable read. As for the locator map, the inset of the US in the corner threw me off, so I wasn't sure it was my version (in any case, the real credit goes to the US Census Bureau, whose maps I madified). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A great read with terrific images. Tiny nits only.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Petrified forest takes me to a disambig page.

Good catch. I have removed the link, which served no useful purpose. I think the meaning is clear without the link. Finetooth (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Should "maar" be italicized? I find it in my English dictionary.

Probably not. I meant it for emphasis, but that seems unnecessary. I have removed the italics. Finetooth (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* The sentence "The dominant plants in the park are grasses, more than 100 species, many native to the region" reads oddly to me. Would a dash here be better?

Yes, or perhaps eliminating a comma would solve the problem. I revised the sentence to say, "The dominant plants in the park include more than 100 grass species, many native to the region." Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, support, and suggestions.Finetooth (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab/EL check - No dabs, no link problems. --PresN 23:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking these. Finetooth (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a spotcheck for WP:V, WP:COPYVIO, WP:Close paraphrase (I'd like to get those at least once on frequent nominators, For Our Own Protection :). Could someone verify? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked three refs cited a total of 12 times. I started with ref 24, the park's History PDF, as it is cited 10 times. I also checked ref 25 from The New York Times] and ref 27 on fossil sites. All the facts are backed up by the refs, but I did not see any copyvios or any close paraphrases in these refs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Fisch! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:04, 14 November 2010 [25].

Robert Burnell[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it's a comprehensive coverage of yet another obscure bishop/archbishop wanna be! He's been hanging in the wings for ages while I waited to get one more article from the library, but I have received the article, and worked it into the wikipedia article, so we're now pretty much complete. Burnell's actually more important than he looks, he was one of King Edward I of England's trusted advisors, and oversaw a lot of Edward's legal and administrative activities. Another bad boy bishop, he's got a mistress and kids hanging out in the shadows. I've had it looked over for prose by a number of folks, including Malleus. CorenBot's tool shows nothing violationish, and he's clean on disambigs and everything I can think of. I present you with Robert Burnell, one of the most obscure bishops you've never heard of but really should have. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing comments and nitpicks

  • Greenaway or Greenway?
  • Be consistent in whether "volume" is capitalized or not
  • "Fryde. et al." or "Fryde, et al."?
  • Citation 45 should correspond to the first reference (title is different)
  • "Burnell did not accompany the prince on in late 1270" - accompany him where?
  • Boydell Press or Boydell & Brewer?
  • Be consistent in including or not including publisher location
  • "Cambridge" or "Cambridge, UK"? Be consistent
  • Be consistent in how states are abbreviated
  • Page numbers for "Correspondence of Robert Burnell"?
  • DOI for Jordan? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I got all of them except for the page numbers on the Correspondence (I haven't run that article down yet, but from reading references to it, it's a primary source (i.e. the letters themselves, not anything discussing them)) and the doi for the Jordan. I have run the article through the citation bot thing a number of times, and still no doi for Cistercian Quarterly Studies ... they are a bit more obscure than most journals. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: Nice article, impeccably researched. A few prose issues:-

  • "Burnell did not accompany the prince on in late 1270..." Did not accompany him on...what?
  • "During the regency Burnell supervised a parliament, dealt with raids on the Welsh Marches and a trade conflict with Flanders." This sentence doesn't quite parse - "and resolved a trade conflict" would do it.
    • Fixed per your suggestion (thank you!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a poorly placed "however" in te first paragraph of the "Chancellor and bishop" section
  • "from 21 September 1274 until Burnell's death" sends us back to the lead to recall when he died. Suggest add "in 1292".
  • The phrase "and also played a significant role in the legislative work enacted in Edward's reign" is redundant. You have just said that "Burnell played a leading role in the legislation introduced by King Edward", and "The king's major legislative acts mainly date to Burnell's tenure..."
    • Deleted that and merged the first part of that sentence with the next (short) sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "Burnell was also responsible..." is overlong, needs splitting up.
  • The words "in support of the king" in the penultimate para of "Foreign service" can be inferred.
  • "In these writs..." → "Through these writs..."?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, a wonderful article. Sources and images seem to be in order. I had a look at it a while back, and read it again after Malleus went through it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Read through the entire article, and just about all of it is great. The one little issue I had was that I had trouble understanding this sentence: "he witnessed documents in Rhuddlan in 1282, and subsequently at Conwy and Caernarfon." Does this mean that he saw the signing of the documents, or is their another meaning I'm not picking up on? Not enough to prevent my support, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means that he signed the documents to confirm that he had witnessed the other parties signing them. I can't speak for the US, but it's standard practice here in the UK that when you sign a legal document like a lease, for instance, a witness also signs it to confirm that they were present when it was signed. "Witnessed" is the standard way of describing that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's standard for US as well. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure we have an article that would link well to that, it's one of those "legal" terms that folks once knew better but any more most folks don't run into it except for rare occasions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2c fn45, "[Bishop's Palace Chapel] Palace Trust" is confusing for me as a short citation; I didn't realise I should connect the short title to the long title listed first in the references section. Maybe by using the quoted full title here, it would trigger the response to search references by title? In references "Studd, J. R. " lacks a date. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should both be fixed. I'd rather not do a "full" ref for the chapel page, but have expanded it a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab/EL check - no dabs, no link problems. --PresN 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well-written and engaging. ceranthor 12:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:04, 14 November 2010 [26].

Aylesbury duck[edit]

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Jemima and Donald most people have a vague "they were the big white ones that looked like swans, right?" idea of what an Aylesbury duck was, but the story of their rise and fall is barely remembered even in Aylesbury itself. This is another one that the squeamish might want to stay away from (I suspect it's the only article on Wikipedia to combine the phrases "Beatrix Potter" and "boil a horse"). This is the story of how the economics, technology and values of the Industrial Revolution intersected with the farming methods of the Middle Ages, and briefly turned an obscure English country town into an early example of large-scale factory farming.

Note: The Aylesbury is a variant, rather than a species or subspecies in its own right; consequently, a lot of the things like Latin names and taxoboxes that one usually finds on bird articles aren't included here. Likewise, this only covers the variations that make a duck an Aylesbury, rather than more general issues of behaviour and anatomy which would be more appropriate on Duck or Domestic duck. – iridescent 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment: The picture of Jemima you've chosen is hardly typical. I'm much more used to seeing her in her bonnet and coat. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the original Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck, she's shown naked on six occasions and in her bonnet and coat on 17, so although her "duckier" appearance is rarer it's not totally atypical. I've used this one intentionally as it shows her standing in profile, so it's easiest to see her Aylesbury characteristics (the curving neck, the horizontal posture, the exaggerated keel). If you look at the illustrations in TTOJPD, you'll see that Potter moves her legs right to the very back of her body when she's wearing her bonnet and coat, giving her an upright stance like a penguin (presumably to keep her at eye-level with the fox without having to give her foot-long legs), but they go back to the middle of her body when she's being a duck. – iridescent 23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precise origins of the breed are unclear — do we know if it is a Mallard, like most domesticated ducks?
  • Is the Common duck actually a breed? If not, why the capitalised "Common". If it is, why isn't "duck" capitalised?
  • this grit also gave their bills their distinctive pinkish colour — how?
  • salmonella — italics I think.
  • Topeka, KS — spell out state per MoS
  • The line of descent was mallard—Common duck—English White—Aylesbury duck; I've tweaked it slightly to make that clearer.
  • How one treats the Common duck depends on what one considers it to be. They were effectively mallards kept in captivity, and no longer exist as a breed. "Duck" shouldn't be capitalised in either case; this is on a British topic in British English, and in Br Eng only the first word of an animal breed is capitalised (cf. Shetland pony, Bagot goat, Cheviot sheep).
  • But Shetland, Bagot and Cheviot are all proper nouns that would be capitalised anyway, unlike "common" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncapitalised "common"; as far as I can tell, the common duck was effectively just what a mallard became if it was kept in captivity. – iridescent 19:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea how the grit gives their bills their colour—I assume either the bill absorbs a particular combination of minerals, or something in the grit somehow strips away darker pigmentation. All the source used says is "[the grit] was responsible for keeping the bills their characteristic flesh colour", without further explanation.
  • Expanded. – iridescent 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed to support, but you don't seem to have responded either way to whether Salmonella should be italicised. It definitely is in its own article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it looks very strange to italicise (or capitalise) "salmonella", unless one is talking explicitly about the bacterium rather than the illness. The UK National Health Service—which I'd consider the final arbiter on British English medical terminology—appear consistently to use the word uncapitalised and unitalicised. – iridescent 07:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, just checking it was a deliberate choice rather than oversight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment beginning a read-through - shtuff below. not much else I can find elsewhere which might have anything pertinent to add, so comprehensive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
link or explain "greaves" (ain't never heard of that word...)
On its first occurrence, it's both linked and explained—"greaves (the residue left after the rendering of animal fat)". I don't want to re-link or re-explain it every time it's used. – iridescent 11:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
d'oh!! Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some other things that come to mind - are they progenitors of any currently popualr breeds?
  • The only one I'm aware of is the Pekin-Aylesbury cross ducks, which are sometimes used on village ponds. Almost every meat breed in use worldwide descends from the Pekin rather than the Aylesbury. – iridescent 07:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anywhere have any actual numbers of ducks? (given they are critically endangered...)
  • As of a couple of years ago, the meat variety had two flocks in the US and one flock in the UK surviving; Richard Waller's flock at Chesham is the last surviving pure strain. There are also some others bred for showing on a very small scale. Aylesbury females don't have the instinct to go broody—Jemima Puddle-Duck is based on fact—so they don't breed in the wild. I'm not aware of an exact size for the flocks (it will very wildly as they get slaughtered each year, so I'm a bit reluctant to give one). – iridescent 07:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there seems to be a bit of an overlap between the middle paragraph of the "Pekin ducks" section, and the "Decline" section (they both talk about in-breeding, etc) Bluap (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with just a couple of niggles.

  • Origins:
    • Do we not have an article on the "common duck" or the "English White"?
  • No; because there weren't really such things as breed standards back in those days, I suspect such an article would be very hard to write. Per my reply above, a common duck is basically a mallard duck that's been domesticated, and an English White is the product of common ducks selected for white plumage. It would need a lot of delving in obscure "history of agriculture" books to source even a stub, and the articles would be so low-traffic it's not worth the effort. – iridescent 17:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the ducks have a time when they don't lay eggs? You say the A's lay from "early November" but it's unclear when they don't lay (if they don't lay..)
  • I can infer that their laying season was November–May, as their meat was traded February–July, but I can't find a source that explicitly gives the laying season. I thought it was better left out, rather than giving that rather convoluted explanation from what is sourcable. – iridescent 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How long are they in the egg? You mention that they fatten quickly after hatching, so they came on the market in Feb on… but don't say how long they were in the egg. Ah, I see you mention it in the rearing section, but a quick mention in the origins and description would be nice too.
  • Pictures:
    • Would it be possible to stagger the pictures left and right rather than have all the pics and side quotes on the right hand side?
  • I don't really like doing that, unless there are so many illustrations that they're causing clutter along the right hand side. I find it makes text harder to read, and either they interfere with the positioning of the following headings, or one has to put hard-breaks in to stop the headers wandering about the page, which results in big blocks of white space that look awful when printed out. – iridescent 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the article through Corenbot's copyvio tool, through Earwig's tool, and through the U of Maryland's plagiarism checker with no problems cropping up. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - I've enjoyed watching this article develop, especially as it's not often that I see a livestock breed article at FAC that isn't one of "mine"! Thoughts:

  • Lead, "Over the 19th century". "During the 19th century..."?
  • I have a slight preference for "over"—I think it makes it clear that it happened gradually, rather than a sudden change at some unspecified point during the 19th century—but not strong feelings if anyone prefers it the other way – iridescent
  • Origins and description, "Aylesbury ducks lay eggs from early November." Until when?
  • See my reply to Ealdgyth above; I can infer that the historic laying season ended in May, as the two-month ducklings were sold until July, but can't find anyone who actually comes out and says this – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins and description - generally, in horse breed articles, we don't repeat basic information about the species (in this case domestic ducks) as a whole unless there is a reason why a specific breed or type is different. I'm especially looking at the first three sentences of the third paragraph of this section - is this different from many duck breeds, or is it just general background information on ducks. It's not a huge deal if you want to include it just as general background info - the article isn't huge - I'm just curious.
  • I've tried to keep as much as possible of this out (see the nom statement). I'm not sure what's trimmable in that section; the first two paragraphs explain how the Aylesbury derived from the mallard and why, and the third on how an Aylesbury differs from a common mallard. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, it was the fourth paragraph. The three sentences "An Aylesbury duckling incubates...huskier quack than the female." As far as I know, these three sentences are true for all breeds of ducks. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of—there are some breeds like Muscovy ducks where the incubation period is different. To me, it's worth keeping the incubation period and sexual dimorphism in this article; the former helps readers (most of whom are probably interested in the history of Aylesbury, rather than ducks per se) understand the farming process, while the latter helps people work out just what they're looking at in images. The calls are actually unusual in Aylesburys—most male ducks don't quack at all. The size of an Aylesbury definitely warrants mentioning, as it's huge by duck standards (an fully grown Aylesbury drake weighs as much as a greylag goose). – iridescent 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I agree that the weight information is necessary, and if the other information can change by breed then that should be included as well. I didn't realize that drakes of some breeds don't quack - I have mallards and cresteds and the drakes of both are quite vocal, although not nearly as loud as the hens. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins and description, "Rouen ducks—which are not white, but have colouring similar to mallards—" Why does it matter what color they are?
  • Because in this period, white ducks had added value; the technology to bleach feathers didn't exist, and quilts were in fashion. Thus the Aylesbury carried a premium compared to the Rouen, the other meat breed. Rouen duck is in an awful state, but I don't want to include too much on this article that ought to be there instead. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps reword to "Rouen ducks, whose mallard-like coloration made their feathers less valuable,..." Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to the vaguer "whose mallard-like coloration made them less valuable". There's slightly more to it than just the cost of the feathers—duck meat is traditionally served with the skin on, and feather color also tints the surrounding skin, meaning cooked mallards and mallard-like ducks are covered in tiny green or brown dots which some customers don't like. However, that's a side-track I don't really want to go down in detail. – iridescent 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, I've never noticed the dots before. We'll be eating a (domestic) mallard for thanksgiving (yes, I know it's supposed to be turkey, but my family doesn't always do the "traditional" thing), so I'll have to check that out. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't expect Liechtenstein-painting dots; it's more a case of "tiny dots" vs "no dots". Plucked but uncooked Aylesburys also have the pink-white skin, which people used to chickens are familiar with, rather than the yellowish tinge of colored ducks. – iridescent 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rearing, "To break up the food and make this diet digestible" This makes it sound like an unusual practice - or like it was necessary specifically for this duck diet, but isn't for others. In fact all poultry must have grit as younglings - they eat it, it goes into the gizzard and stays there all their life to help grind up their food - otherwise they can't eat solid food. It is special that it made their beaks a distinctive color.
  • I know, but I can't see a way to reword it. If I just say "and grit was added to their feed" with no explanation, it raises more questions than it answers for people who aren't familiar with bird anatomy, but the grit needs to me mentioned given the effect on their bills. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "As with all poultry, Aylesbury ducks were fed grit to aid digestion. The particular grit they were fed came from Long Marston and Gubblecote; this grit also gave their bills their distinctive pinkish colour." or something of the sort? This keeps the important part (that the grit gave their beaks color) while making the rest of it less "hey this is a unique thing"-sounding. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rearing, last paragraph - how is this directly relevant to the Aylesbury duck? While it is interesting, was there any direct correlation between the ducks and the health/wealth of the area?
  • Yes; that comes up later in the article. Because it was a poor area with no sewerage and cramped conditions, the soil became contaminated and public health legislation meant the ducks couldn't be kept in houses any longer, so the industry died off. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you think about combining the two paragraphs (probably in the location of the second)? Where the first paragraph is currently placed it gives the impression of being dropped in randomly - there is no impression of why it is important to the general flow of the story. Later we learn why it is important, but I think it would be more powerful if all of the information was presented together. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about that. I want, if possible, to have the paragraph about the size of the operations (the one beginning "Although there were a few large-scale duck rearing operations…") in the rearing section, as I think that's where it fits most naturally. Because that talks about the "Duck End", to me it ought to be explained as soon as possible what the "Duck End" actually was. – iridescent 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slaughter and sale, "The arrival of the railway had a powerful impact on the duck industry, and up to a ton of ducks in a night" Every night?
  • "Up to" is intentionally vague; it would depend on the timetables and the number of ducks slaughtered. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slaughter and sale, "would collect ducklings" Is this one instance of "duckling" instead of "duck" on purpose?
  • Yes; the ones shipped to London were slaughtered at the time of the first moult. The "Up to a ton of ducks…" in the previous paragraph is anomalous because the source just says "ducks", so I can't be certain there weren't some older ducks included in that tally. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but in the paragraph "A routine became established..." you have ducks, ducks, ducklings, ducks - all from the same source. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardized on "duckling", other than one case of "the duck industry". – iridescent 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pekin ducks, "In 1873 the Pekin duck was introduced from China to Britain for the first time." "...for the first time" is redundant.
  • Disagree; non-native species were often introduced to new countries on multiple occasions. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pekin ducks, "the Pekin was hardier and a more prolific layer,[8] and fattened more quickly,[31] and was roughly" Three "and"s?
  • Can't see an obvious way to reword that, other than breaking it into very choppy sentences, which I'm reluctant to do. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, "the Pekin was hardier, a more prolific layer, fattened more quickly and was roughly..."? Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, "A salmonella outbreak in the 1920s caused duck eggs to go out of fashion." Were a significant number raised for their eggs? From the rest of the article it sounds like almost all of the eggs were allowed to become ducks... If so, the number of eggs eaten was probably incidental and this sentence becomes trivia that relates to the species as a whole rather than this specific breed.
  • Virtually none of these would have been kept for eggs—they're not particularly good layers. What happened in the 1920s was that the salmonella outbreak put duck breeding out of fashion. (Assuming you remember the Mad Cow Disease scare of the early 1990s, you'll recall the same thing happening to milk.) – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this be made more specific? Perhaps "...caused duck eggs, and duck breeding, to go out of fashion."? Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed it altogether, on reflection. While it killed the duck-egg industry, its impact on the duck-meat industry was probably negligible compared to the two World Wars. – iridescent 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy, "Britannia pub on the corner of New Street and Buckingham Road." Is it necessary to know where the pub is located?
  • I don't think so; someone else added that a few days ago. I don't want to get into an edit war over it so I left it in place; I'm more than happy to remove it. – iridescent 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be great. To me it looks like pure trivia. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left the "at the Britannia pub" while removing the address—it does no harm, and provides enough information that someone who wanted to see the thing for themselves can find it. I presume a disproportionate number of this article's readers will be from the Aylesbury area, so might make a minor detour to see it if they're interested. – iridescent 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice article, though. Dana boomer (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm quite fond of this one; I think it's an interesting variation on my usual "social impact of the industrial revolution" theme. – iridescent 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:04, 14 November 2010 [27].

Dendrocollybia[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The branched shanklet, Dendrocollybia racemosa, grows on the rotting remains of dead mushrooms. It is the only mushroom that produces little branches along the length of its stem; these outgrowths have minute drops of slime that contain asexual spores called conidia. This adaptation allows it to reproduce sexually via spores produced on gills, or asexually via the conidia. Clever or what? I think the article meets the FAC criteria, and welcome any suggestions for improvement you may have. Sasata (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - no dab links, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images All the images have acceptable licences, but the images illustrating the spore shapes are problematic. Whilst you might just get away with the ellipsoid in the absence of a free image of a spore, I don't think that Common Blackbird egg is an appropriate substitute for an ovoid spore. I think you need either to create an ovoid to match the style of the ellipsoid, or, preferably, remove both the unnecessary shape images Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments A few queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy — two consecutive sentences begin with "Based on..."
  • adnexed — link to wikitionary means you have to click through, not just hover. Can you gloss the term please
  • 16–20 long by 3.5–4 µm wide — I'd remove "long" and "wide" for consistency with the other measurements in this section. If you keep the extra words, I think you need to repeat the units after "16–20"
  • A number of your refs have retrieval dates for on-line copies of real journals and book. Dates are only required for web-only sources
  • I've fixed all above. I'm still a bit confused about retrieval dates for "web-only" sources. If a source is a PDF that is found only on the web, is that web-only? Part of my confusion stems from the documentation for template:cite journal, which has a parameter for adding an accessdate for any external link, and it does not make a distinction between web-only (does web-only mean the document is in HTML?), or other documents available on the web (like Google Books links, or scans of journal articles). Is this inconsistent with the MOS "For web-only sources with no publication date you should include a "Retrieved" date instead, in case the webpage changes in the future."? That MOS page does not (as far as I can see) state that one should not include access dates for other web-based documents. Any clarification would be appreciated. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • We've discussed here, here, and here. Kuo is a published author (has written several popular mushroom books), and in at least one instance I know of in a peer-reviewed journal. Admittedly, he is an English teacher, not a mycologist. Sasata (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sources seem to be comprehensively covered; no other problems left. Ucucha 02:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

  • Could the cladogram include some more of the related genera? As it is, it doesn't really show why Dendrocollybia was raised to generic rank.
  • This one is difficult: the cladogram I've drawn is a simplified version of the consensus tree obtained for the four (3+1 former) Collybia species; they tested several specimens from various geographic locations, and I reduced them to single branches. In the paper, they have a separate, larger tree with a greater sampling of species from the Lyophyllum clade, but it doesn't emphasize the clear relationship between the four species as well. Am open to suggestions on how to improve this. I did, however, add the sentence "They were not able to recover a monophyletic clade that included all four species of Collybia." to clarify why they decided to split off Dendrocollybia. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the relationships among the three remaining Collybia species are of much relevance to this article; it's more important to show that they recovered Clitocybe connata sister to this fungus. Ucucha 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm convinced, added a new cladogram. Whaddya think? Sasata (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, thanks. Ucucha 02:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes that Gray quote so particularly insightful that it needs to be shown in a big bold italic box?
  • I put it in more for flavor than insight. Didn't really seem to fit in the description as a quote, but I thought it was an interesting add-on. Will remove if consensus dictates, but I'll shed a tear. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the bold-italic to make it a little less big; no real problem with it now. Ucucha 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cordoned off that sentence and the following paragraph into a "Similar species" subsection, does that work? Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was Dendrocollybia made a genus?
  • I guess the "Dendro-" part refers to the branches on the stem; do the sources explicitly make that point?

Ucucha 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see this was also mentioned in the GA review, but are there no further details on distribution? Ucucha 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the GA review I've explicitly mentioned "The fungus is widely distributed in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere", but cannot find anything more detailed than that, but no evidence that it is in the Southern Hemisphere. Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Northern Hemisphere is a big place, though: how far north does it occur? Has it been found in North Africa, Japan, China, Europe, Mexico? Ucucha 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NA distribution was already given; I've added some more details about European distribution. It's probably in more European countries, but I don't have access to highly specialized regional distribution literature, and the websites that have snippets of this information aren't reliable enough to use here. No indication of it being in Africa or Asia. Have also revised a lead a bit to summarize distribution better. Sasata (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, and sorry for missing the piece about the NA distribution. I guess it has the reverse of the classic eastern Asian–eastern North American distribution. Ucucha 02:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from J Milburn

Comments from J Milburn-

  • Perhaps it would be worth specifying in the caption of the lead image precisely what we're looking at? At first I thought it was just the branches, not the mushrooms- I'm assuming the brown matter they're growing from is a former mushroom?
  • Caption now more descriptive. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although neither his suggested binomial change nor vernacular name "racemelike high-stool" were adopted in subsequent publications." Ref? I appreciate it's hard to reference something like that; perhaps it would be best to say "was not adopted in x work" or something? It really catches my eye when there's no ref at the end of a paragraph.
  • Yeah, it was one of those "obvious, but OR" things; I shifted it around so it's properly sourced without losing any info. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • God, I'm glad Umbo (mycology) finally got written... Hadn't noticed that until now.
  • "inward against the gills" towards the gills would be better?
  • "lamellulae" Why italics?
  • "From Das System der Pilze und Schwämme (1816)" Who drew it? Or whose book is it?
  • Christian Gottfried Daniel Nees von Esenbeck, now mentioned. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "structures called conidia." You've already introduced us to conidia
  • Removed "structure called" Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fruiting on the fruit" repetition
  • "Dendrocollybia is one of four agaric genera obligately associated with growth on the fruit bodies of other fungi, the other being Squamanita, Asterophora, and Collybia.[4]" Seems to be out on its own- perhaps merge with similar species, or merge with one of the previous paragraphs?
  • Fit it in after the mention of saprobism at the beginning of the section. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "confirmed Russula crassotunicata as a host for the species." Why do we care about this particular species? You've already specified that it occurs on Lactarius and Russula
  • Before the publication of this paper, the hosts were only assumed to be Lactarius and Russula, this publication proves it. I think it would be remiss if I didn't mention it. (And, it allows me to justify including a picture of the host) Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could spell out the way it feeds a little more explicitly? Even if it's just defining "saprobic"? It's pretty damn interesting, and I think a lot of casual readers would miss it.
  • Added a definition, and moved that other stray sentence nearby. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looking lovely. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments, JM! Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, another great one. I still think the Russula crassotunicata issue is a little weird- perhaps clarify what you said to me in the article or something, but I am happy to trust your judgement on the issue. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. I added a little more about the Russula host. Sasata (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – From Taxonomy and phylogeny: "Hughes and colleagues were not able to recover a clade that included all four species of Collybia." Unless I missed something (a distinct possibility), I don't see Hughes' first name given anywhere in the article. If it isn't in already, it probably should be. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Karen; I added her first name. Ucucha 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was reduced to very minor tweaks. good to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments on the phylogenetic analysis section. I'm not sure what is meant by "well-supported" in reference to a monophyletic group. Similarly, I find "recover a clade" a little odd. Does it mean "discover" a clade or "identify" a clade. I see the Hughes paper mentions the use of restriction fragment length polymorphisms, I quote: "Simple diagnostic RFLP patterns were identified for the four species and were used to validate morphological designations and distributions." Would it be useful to mention this in the article? Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the sentence "Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of the ribosomal DNA from the four species corroborated the results obtained from phylogenetic analysis.", and also swapped "identify" for "recover". "Well-supported" means a high bootstrap value, which implies that the data set was sampled many times in the analysis, and the same clade kept reappearing. It's standard jargon in phylogenetics, but I'm receptive to ideas on how to change the wording to make it more friendly. Sasata (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought bootstrapping might be the answer ;) How about saying "repeatedly showed" and deleting "well-supported". Just a suggestion. You will have noticed that I have added my support—another engaging and well-written contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it some more, I just removed "well-supported" for simplicity. Most casual readers won't notice the difference, and the few that are wondering about the statistical validity of the phylogenetic analysis will also have the know-how to check out the original publication for themselves :) Thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that anyone has spotchecked sources for WP:V and [WP:COPYVIO]]; I'd like to see that done at least once for every frequent nominator, so someone get after it on the next one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [28].

Edward Elgar[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added to it and, I believe, refined it, since its promotion to GA. The article, I believe, now meets all the FAC criteria, and gives a rounded picture of the composer's life and music. I have been much helped by Wiki-colleagues Brianboulton and Barnabypage at peer review, Ssilvers with copyreading beyond the call of duty, and Nikkimaria with getting the images documented. P0mbal contributed the section listing Elgar's works. – Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Ref 107 is broken. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to fix it and will try again, as there doesn't seem to be much wrong here. Full review and further comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links; I was able to fix the dead external link. Ucucha 11:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An extremely thorough and well researched article on this major English composer. I peer-reviewed it before its GAN, thought it was near FA quality then. I have just two minor (and partially related) caveats:-

  • Length: The article runs to a whopping 109 kb. The wordcount, around 9,500, is large but not excessive; the main surplus baggage is the "Selected works" listing. Is this list necessary? There is a link to a subarticle that contains an exhaustive listing of all Elgar's works, so why do we need a separate, partial listing here? Losing this section immediately reduces the kb count to below 100.
    • I agree, but hesitate to blitz it as it was not my contribution. If other reviewers take the same view I will do so. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: You certainly haven't stinted on the illustrations - there are nearly 30 of them, besides musical examples. However, some of the images are of pretty marginal relevance: Newman, the modern ROH, Binyon and Kipling (maybe one but why both?), the "composers who admired Elgar", etc. They all add to the kb count. I would advise a cull of some of these less central images, which would give the more important illustrations a greater impact as well as reducing the kb.
    • Pictures culled here and there. I've left the quartet Sibelius/Strauss/RVW/Stravinsky in place really to break up a slab of text, but will happily zap it if other reviewers think it should go. Thank you very much for your support. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These reservations do not amount to reasons for withholding support, but perhaps you would consider them, particularly in the light of any related comments from other reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Note that I have proofread and commented on this article twice over the past several months. The article is a comprehensive presentation of this leading English composer, including an interesting biography, with musical analysis of his most important pieces. As usual, User:Tim riley's prose is clear, and the reader gets a balanced view of the subject, with a good feeling for what is most important about him and his work. I agree with Brianboulton that the list of selected works is not needed: The major works are discussed clearly in the narrative, and there is a complete, searchable list of Elgar's works in a separate article, so this is redundant and simply adds to the length of the article. I would rather keep the images, however, except maybe the modern image of the ROH. I heartily support this nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few pictures pruned, but point taken! And thank you very much for your support. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No comments to make; I've been watching this one from a distance for quite a while. – iridescent 19:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this! An unexpected bonus. Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent article. A small remaining concern is that there's a lot of blue, so perhaps you could consider removing any low-value links, such as town names, but that's a minor preference issue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A pleasure to read, Tim. I noticed a few quotations where it's not clear who is being quoted, or why it's a quote. For example, "Elgar has been described as 'the first composer to take the gramophone seriously.'" And "Elgar's mother had 'a taste and inclination for the arts' ...". SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been working on this article on and off for so long that I too am not sure why I have put quotation marks round either of the quotes you mention. I've removed them – many thanks! Are there any others you noticed? Tim riley (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove anything where people are quoted without saying who they are; either remove the quotation marks (be careful not to end up inadvertently plagiarizing if you do that), or add in-text attribution. I noticed an odd sentence: "She also inspired him with a discerning taste for literature and a passionate love of the countryside." She had a discerning taste that inspired him? Or he ended up with a discerning taste thanks to her inspiration? I would check the source and rewrite. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is most helpful, and I'm grateful. I'll comb through the text and look out for all such quotes. Tim riley (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. A few others:
  • Elgar arranged "dozens of pieces by Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, and other masters" for the quintet, honing his arranging and compositional skills.
  • Stockley had invited him to conduct the piece, but "he declined, and, further, insisted upon playing in his place in the orchestra. The consequence was that he had to appear, fiddle in hand, to acknowledge the genuine and hearty applause of the audience."
  • Alice's faith in him, and her courage in marrying "beneath her class", were strongly supportive to his career. (And "supportive to" needs a tweak; "supportive of" perhaps, but better to reword.)
All done as suggested. I've added inline attributions to the majority, and reworded the others. A distinct improvement – thank you! – Tim riley (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - excellent article apart from some inconsistencies in reference format. For example, "(Moore (1986), p. 440)", "Kennedy (ODNB) and Grove Online" vs "Kennedy, ODNB", etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this - and for your earlier help, too. I'll comb through the refs for inconsistencies. – Tim riley (talk)
      • Now done. I think I have eliminated any remaining inconsistencies. – Tim riley (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image/File review All images/sound files look fine now. Hekerui (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have spotted the work you have done on the labelling, and am most grateful. Thank you. – Tim riley (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No I don't think the article is too long YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re above, I have not suggested that the article itself is too long. I have suggested that the list of selected works adds unnecessary kb when there is a comprehensive list of Elgar's works here. None of the present composer biographies which are featured has a "selected works" section, all have links to a complete works list. Is there a stronger reason for the retention of this selected list than that presently offered, that it was another editor's contribution? If not, I am convinced that it should go. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm delighted to support this nomination. Just a few comments:
I agree that the "selected works" should go, as per Brianboulton above.
See note below about this. I propose to remove it tomorrow, having given notice on the article talk page and drawing the original contributor's attention to the consensus and proposed action. Tim riley (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the lede, 'enduring popularity' sounds rather weedy: how about 'have entered the British and international classical concert canon' or something like that? You might also give the date of his knighthood which as a mark of his status is probably rather more significant in his biography than his appointment to the sinecure of Master of the King's Musick.
Both done. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you sometimes give names and details of sources in the text e.g. 'The result is described by Diana McVeagh in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, as "his first major work.." ' This rather distracting for Wikipedia, when the details are in the reference. Why not, e.g. ' The result has been described as "his first major work...." '
I agree on the whole, but at PR and FAC on this and other articles the majority opinion is that if you quote someone you should say inline whom you're quoting, so I go with the majority. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Smerus, and I wonder if there is a middle ground. For instance, if the person saying it is notable, then it would seem to make more sense to say their name. Otherwise, the info in the link should be sufficient. Sometimes commenters at PR can be impractical.... As Smerus say, though, this is a minor issue and does not affect my hearty support of this nom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But these are minor carps about the article as a whole which is a substantial acheievement and certainly deserving FA status. --Smerus (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support.

Support: It's a great article. When I peer reviewed it before it's GA I already said I thought it was near FA. I agree that it might be an idea to very much shorten the list of selected works. I know there are some suggestions that there may be too many images but I would have thought that a photo of Garrard's Enigma statue would be nice.--Kudpung (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this. I don't think I know the Garrard statue, and will look into it without delay. If I can lay hands on a properly available copy I'll do the necessary.

Note from nominator – "Selected works" section: in view of the consensus above, I have given notice on the article talk page that I am proposing to delete it imminently. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Selected Works As initiator and main contributor to the List of All Compositions, my visualisation of the List of Selected Works was that it should be selective by the criteria of accepted *popularity* and *quality*, as would be found in a good English condensed encyclopedia (e.g. Grove Concise Dictionary of Music 1994), but as feared the list here has 'growed'. The problem is how far should the selection go: the Symphonies, the Variations, the Concerti, Intro and Allegro, Gerontius, Land of Hope and Glory, Falstaff ... where to stop, and how and if to stop people adding their favourites. I think it is possible and desirable to include a top 30 or so (as in above Grove) and then stop. P0mbal (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good! I hope this will be a generally accepted as a sensible and practical recourse. I suggest we leave the section as it is, pending completion of the article's consideration for promotion to FA, after which (successful or no) P0mbal could trim the section on the lines of the Concise Grove, as prescribed above. Tim riley (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: For some reason this has been overlooked. I will do it now and post shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are generally of high quality, and the footnotes section is particularly impressive. There are a few problems with the organisation of the citations and references, however.

  • General point: There are inconsistencies in the ways in which citations to newspaper and magazine articles are formatted. Sometimes we have author, title, journal and date, sometimes author, journal and date, sometimes just journal and date. Authors' names are not always known, I know, but when available they should be given. For example, in ref 42 the author is Geraint Lewis. Citations should always be to a specific article title, rather than just to The Times, The Musical Quarterly etc.
    • Thanks for this. All done as recommended, I think. Grateful for thoughts on refs 138, 139 and 143: all three refer to the same article (the first two mentioning it along with other sources), but I have not repeated the full list of authors at second and third mentions – it seemed unhelpful. I am in some doubt about attributing ref 39 to the four musicians mentioned: the article is arguably an aggregation by an anonymous journalist of quotes from eminent musicians – perhaps it ought not to be attributed to anyone. The Observer writer mentioned at ref 12 signed his initials A.F.S., and the Manchester Guardian writer mentioned at ref 81 is initialled "F.B.". I can't recall any critics' names that fit either of these sets of initials. The "W.R.A" responsible for the notice mentioned at ref 85 may be W. R. Anderson, familiar from The Gramophone of yore, but I don't think one can assume. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you have done what you can with the information available, and I think each of these sources is fully identifiable now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few other specific issues, mainly minor:
    • Refs 1 and 16: the ODNB articles by Kennedy (2004) and Maine (1949) are formatted ever so slightly differently (date positioning): Should be made consistent.
    • Ref 15: The source appears to be a manuscript relating to the Powick Asylum, held by the Elgar Birthplace Museum. For verification purposes, this seems a rather inaccessible source for confirming the composition of the asylum band. The same information, with slightly more detail, is available in Young's biography, p. 47: "...piccolo, flute, clarinet, 2 cornets, euphonium, three or four 1st and a similar number of 2nd violins, occasional viola, cello, double bass and pianoforte". Suggest you promote Young from Further reading and use this source instead.
      • Done. Thank you very much for digging it out. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 44: give date of press release (7.9.09) and access date.
    • Ref 136: "see The Musical Times 1931 issues, passim" seems very imprecise. What am I being directed to, for verification purposes?
      • I have added half a dozen MT references, from 1932 as well as 1931 – the row rumbled on that long. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two books [Cox and Moore (1979)] lack publisher location
    • I wonder why there are so many "Further reading" titles? Was there any basis for selection, other than that they are books about Elgar?
      • Most of the publications listed explore particular aspects of Elgar, outside the scope of this "life and works" type of encyclopaedia article. Although I have not drawn on them for the present article, they are worth reading by anyone whose interest is engaged by their particular topics. The Adams 2007 book is a collection of essays, again on specialist aspects of Elgar, and the same applies to the Cambridge volume. Of the general "life and works" books, Rosa Burley and W H Reed are interesting as memoirs by people who knew EE personally, but are useful side-lights rather than detached biographical studies. (Reed's technical comments in his other book are very much ad rem, and I have quoted them in the article.) The Moore 1972 book is a splendid photographic collection, and the Mundy a short, very readable alternative to the bigger and better-known Moore (1984) and Kennedy (1987). – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [29].

Talbot Baines Reed[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talbot Baines Reed has been described by the acerbic critic and saxophone player Benny Green as a hereditary prig and religious huckster. The first is maybe truer than the second, but whatever Reed was, even Green concedes that he was a first class writer of fiction for boys. His school stories set the standard for generations, and were widely and enthusiastically read in middle class households throughout the Empire. Among Reed's admirers was the schoolboy P.G. Wodehouse; I am most grateful to Mr Timothy Riley for bringing the Wodehouse material to my attention. Thanks, too, to others who gave the article a thorough examination at Peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - no dab links or dead external links; may offer further comments in a day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I reviewed this during the PR process and any issues I found were addressed. The licensing on all images looks fine to me. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this is as good an article as I can imagine on one of the forgotten titans of the late Victorian era. One very minor thing "in 1869, Reed left the school to join the family firm at the Fann Street foundry, beginning the association with the printing trade that would continue for the rest of his life"—if his father was a printer, did he not have this association from childhood? – iridescent 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, indirectly I suppose he did. But... my father was a lawyer, yet I have never felt in any way associated with the legal profession. It's an arguable but, I would suggest, minor point. Thanks for your comment and support, which are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was a peer reviewer for this, and as the last of several, found very few quibbles with it just a few days ago. All of those issues were addressed, and I find it more than meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Declaration of interest: as well as helping to PR this article I also dug out some material for Brianboulton's use in it. I have not contributed directly to the article, and so feel at liberty to support its promotion. I can't see any FA criteria that it doesn't meet; and it is well-balanced, well-proportioned, a good read, and neither too long nor too short. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full credit to you for the Wodehouse material, which definitely enhances the article. Thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have a short list of text quibbles I will post on the talk page hopefully later today, but see no reason to clutter this page or withhold my support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, I've not been able to spot the text quibbles on the talk page - have they transpired yet? Thanks for the support anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after further consideration with one small nitpick: Quigly or Quigley? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "Quigly" - thanks fo spotting this and for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A well-paced, comprehensive read of an author who entertained a substantial number of youths in those days. Disclaimer: I was part of the peer review; the images are unchanged since and are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Is the page xv1 a mistake? Also there is a stray "Morison. p." and a ",p." and one where "and" is used but there is a comma in another place YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the above, except the ",p.", which doesn't appear to exist - can you pinpoint? Thanks for your sharp eye. Brianboulton (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must have been seeing things or it has been dealth with or something YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi Brian, excellent article as always. Two niggles:
  • This source: "Morison, Stanley (1960). Talbot Baines Reed: Author, Bibliographer, Typefounder. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press." I've not been able to find a CUP publication of this. I can see it cited in a few places as privately printed in Cambridge, e.g. here, footnote seven.
  • Yes, you are right, my apologies. The book was privately printed and bound at the University's press. Morison was a renowned typographer; the book's foreword, by the printer, says: "Printing a book for Mr Morison is always a stimulating and exacting experience. His willingness to allow the work to appear in the University Printer's lengthening series of Christmas books adds yet another stone to the edifice of our indebtednes." I have made the necessary changes to the publication details. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also about the point that his workload may have contributed to his death. Do the sources themselves make that point? It jumped out at me because it's in the lead, and I'm wondering how likely it is. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cox says: "By his fortieth birthday in 1892 it was clear that Reed was grossly over-working. In January 1893 he was forced to tell his friends what the family already knew, that his health was breaking down under the strain..." Morison: "The author was badly overworking even by his own exacting standards. In January 1893 Reed informed Copinger that his health was giving him trouble...". So I think my wording is well justified. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and thanks for fixing the ref. Interesting comment from the printer. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment job well done Fasach Nua (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this. Three sources (Cox, Morison and ODNB) refer to Reed's "cousin Edward Baines", which suggests the existence of a third with that name. Reed's Uncle Edward, born in 1800, would have been in his eighties when Reed was writing for the Mercury - was he still editing the paper then? I don't have access to a Mercury history, but unless there is specific contradictory evidence, I feel I should stick with the existing sources. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That seems completely reasonable. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [30].

Mauna Kea[edit]

Nominator(s): ResMar, Iridia, Hamiltonstone

Hello again. Today I present to you Mauna Kea, a dormant Hawaiian volcano that is a signifigant ecological zone, a climber magnet, a major astronomical center, and by the count of dry elevation, higher then Mount Everest. It's taken peer reviews from 3 editors, some insightful comments from several others, and a nice clean ce by Malleus Fatuorum. So, have at it! ResMar 02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

restart Note that I left the last declaration as it was added after the article had been greatly redone. I can't make heads or tails of what happened before that. Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've just been through the entire thing with a monocle and fixed a bunch of stuff. WP:ENDASH, WP:CAPTION, etc. and other copy edits. I removed an easter-egg wikilink here in a decidedly inelegant fashion, so someone might want to rework that. Basically, don't make the link go somewhere completely unexpected. I also changed instances of "height" and "altitude" to "elevation" since that is the term normally used for geographic height. Anyhoo, I think it's up to par now. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Just one query on ref 21, which seems an odd choice of source for the statement that "Mauna Kea is home to Lake Waiau, one of the few permanent lakes in Hawaii and the highest lake in the Pacific Basin." Most of this factual information does not appear on the link page. Apart from this, the sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. That source has been removed, and a reliable source, actually cited on that webpage, has been located as source for key claim; the part of the sentence in the WP article that wasn't covered by the new source has been removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2: this time with sticky comments =) ResMar 01:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image comments:Most look okey File:SaddleLele.JPG may have Freedom of panorama issues depending on it's age and wether we consider it an artwork or not. File:Mauna Kea observatory.jpg is making me paranoid since the flickr comment is odly phrased for someone who took the photo. On the other hand the metadata mataches the other pics in the photostream as does the location so it should be okey.©Geni 02:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response re File:SaddleLele.JPG. My understanding is that there is no FoP in the United States. I would not have thought this would be a work of art - "art" would arise through distinct creative attributes of the example of an object, rather than the creation of an object per se. To give another example, a church pew would not be a work of art per se - only particular designs that decorated it, or caused it to be constructed in a unique way, would be. The other possibility is to treat the altar as a building, in which case it can be photographed under US Law: See Gorman, R.A.: Copyright law, 2nd ed., U.S. Federal Judicial Center, June 19, 2006, pp. 48, 166. accessed 2010-10-20. In all, I would say this photo is fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't an artwork it would be building so no FOP issues. Since I doubt it has a copyright notice or was ever registered it would be fine if the thing was built before 1989.©Geni 22:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping Jappalang (talk · contribs) or Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or another image reviewer for another opinion on the images; copyright law deals with authorship, not whether something is a work or art. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take advice Sandy, but I'm inclined only to bother the experienced reviewers for thorny cases. Unless anyone is disputing my suggestion that this is not a work of art, there is no image issue. I'm not sure what you mean about copyright law not being about "whether something is a work or art". Whether or not something is a work of art is crucial to whether the US Copyright Act applies, and therefore whether this photograph is free use or not. What am I missing? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is a stuffed animal a work of art? Many would say not, but it can still be subject to copyright by the author. If a monkey creates a work of art, can it be copyrighted? No, it lacks "authorship". In the context of the conversation above, copyright deals with "authorship", not the subjective determination of whether something is "art". The image is marked as needing review on Commons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what the argument is. It is a photograph of what is apparently a centuries old Hawaiian lele, and the author of the photo released it under a free license. What's the big deal? ResMar 04:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err in the relivant area of copyright "is it a work of art or a building?" is a valid question. If we treat it as a building then there is nothing further to worry about. If we treat it as a work of art we need to know it's age and potenialy if it has a copyright right notice/ had it's copyright registered and renewed.©Geni 15:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic ("if we treat it as ... if we treat it as") reinforces the point, that whether we treat something as art is subjective, hence the point of "authorship". Your final clause speaks to the authorship issue that needs to be evaluated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to conduct carbon tests to see if the centuries old sacrificial alter really is centuries old. Just don't get what the argument here is, and I'm sure whatever Ancient Hawaiian that built the alter, he sure hell didn't try to renew its copyright. And I rather don't see evidence of recent construction. Am I missing something o_O. ResMar 22:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now looked at this more carefully. There are two main reliable sources summarising data about the prehistory and history of the mountain: this and this (both cited in the existing text). Neither source mentions lele / altars. Both mention "shrines", but the descriptions of these do not resemble the object in the photo. I found a photo of a contemporary lele online here which obviously bears no resemblance to the object in the photograph. My first conclusion: we have no reliable evidence to describe this image as a lele, and I have amended this both here and at Commons. However, there appears no reason to question that the photograph does portray one of the structures that is reported in the archaeological surveys of the mountain: the most likely candidate in my mind is one of the ten "stone markers / memorials" reported in the second of the above sources at p. 5-20. However we cannot be certain. What we can be certain of, based on the sources, is that this structure is prehistoric (ie. pre 'contact') in origin. There is therefore absolutely no doubt that this image is free. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as previously (mainly focusing on prose and comprehensiveness). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this in the lead:

  • ... its erupted lavas are more viscous, and have created a steeper profile ...

"Erupted" and "have created" are past tense; how can they be "are"? But changing it to "were" isn't correct either, because the sentence seems to refer to ongoing eruptions. I really don't know what this phrase means or how to fix it. Can someone tell us what this is saying, so we can understand how to fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it. "Erupted lavas" was redundant too. --Avenue (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have a couple of concerns:
Extended content
 
  • While the article covers the negative ecological effects of European settlement, it takes a much rosier view of native Hawaiian impacts; e.g. "its upper slopes [...] provided them with vegetation and bird life" and "the lower koa–ʻōhiʻa forest gave the natives wood for canoes and ornate bird feathers for decoration." This does not begin to hint at what I gather was the massive ecological destruction caused by prehistoric Polynesians in Hawaii, including drastic changes to the makeup of lowland forest and the extinction of roughly half the existing bird species. See e.g. The Impact of the Prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian Ecosystem, by Patrick V. Kirch, 1982. These changes must have greatly affected the ecology of Mauna Kea.
Good catch: I had assumed otherwise =) ResMar 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. ResMar 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This addition follows the source (particularly its structure) too closely, and needs to be reworked to avoid plagiarism-- basically, a few wording changes were made to the abstract. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had also hoped we could find and incorporate some sources relating to Polynesian impacts on the ecology of Mauna Kea itself, not just Hawaii in general. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When is the plagiarism going to be cleaned up? If not soon, could we comment it out in the meantime? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 22:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please have someone else look at it (I'm not a plagiarism expert)-- the structure still follows that of the source very closely, with word juggling. See Dispatch: Let's get serious about plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely revised this para, introduced a new (more recent) source, eliminated one that turned out to be a bit peripheral, and corrected a couple of facts. Hope this para will be OK now. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the article only mentions Mauna Kea once, and in passing reference. Considering the island was one big forest at the time, I think 'tis is enough. ResMar 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article covers the evolution of Mauna Kea's volcanism over time, and how its lavas overlap neighbouring volcanoes, but doesn't seem to give any perspective on how Mauna Kea fits into the broader pattern of Hawaiian volcanism, e.g. the twin tracks trending ESE over time.
I figured that was better suited for Hawaii hotspot. Will do. ResMar 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Any issues with the source? It's well cited, if exceptionally conservatively leaning. Writing a whole article on it is a no-no, but a half a para seems ok. ResMar 02:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no concerns about the source, and I agree the topic only needs brief coverage here. I do wonder if it might fit better into the Geology section than History, e.g. before the paragraph starting "Lava flows from Mauna Kea overlapped ...". I think it would help the reader understand the other text and maps there. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...ResMar 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 18:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind ResMar, but I was concerned about some issues (see talk page) and have revised that para once more. Basically, the overall explanation is the same, but I've removed the historical information, and dimished reliance on MantlePlumes.org, which I thought may present some neutrality issues.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Avenue (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. much better than before. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • It'd be nice in the lede if you said how much taller Mauna Kea was than Mount Everest
      • This was in the lead but was eliminated because we needed to make it more concise, and this is already mentioned in the infobox and the body. ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, actually, nowhere in the article does it say how much taller Mauna Kea is than Everest. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great, that means it was deleted somewhere. ... ResMar 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • (ec) Unfortunately, it may not be that simple. Here's the main source text on the subject (National Geographic Society): "The summit of Mount Everest, at 29,035 feet (8,850 meters), is the highest point on Earth. The tallest mountain measured from top to bottom is Mauna Kea, an inactive volcano on the island of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. Measured from the base, Mauna Kea stands 33,474 feet (10,203 meters) tall, though it only rises 13,796 feet (4,205 meters) above the sea." Note that, while it states the height of Mount Everest, it does not describe this as its height "from the base", as is the case with Mauna Kea. As a consequence, while the source allows us to describe Mauna Kea as the tallest mountain measured from top to bootm, it does not permit us to compare the two statistics and report the difference. Hence the way the text is currently written. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, if you have the figure for how tall Mauna Kea is from its base, and the height of Everest from its base, you can just put in the difference yourself. That would qualify under a routine calculation, which is perfectly fine. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, but my point is that the source doesn't give a height for Everest "from its base", only a height above sea level. Unless someone finds a source that actually refers to the "base" of everest, then I don't think we're comparing apples with apples, so the calculation becomes a subjective or unreliable one. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mauna Kea last erupted 6,000 to 4,000 years ago." - the sentence seems awkwardly on its own.
      • Again, we shortened it for length concerns. I don't see what to add here. ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "is one of the best sites in the world " - best seems to be a rather opinionated word to be in a featured article. IDK, I think that sentence could be better worded, or at least say who considered it the best.
      • But it is. This is widely regarded to be one of the best if not the best site in the world: while others are higher, the Mauna Kea site is more stable and better positioned (both in the astronomical and accessible context). ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you can't call something the best. That's inserting POV. If you say who considers it the best, then that's more encyclopediac. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is considered in the field of observational astronomy to be one of the world's best sites. This isn't a point of any contention: that's the word astronomers use to describe the site, eg. this. (For background, the only other ones that compare are in Chile, and, theoretically, in Antarctica. Canary Is are close but get dust from the Sahara). I'll add more site-testing citations down in the relevant section. Iridia (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec)Hurricane, this is one of those cases where one is saying plain English what is a generally held view. The lead says "one of the best", not "the best". There are three cites to the relevant sentence in the body text. Here are examples of what references say:
            • "Mauna Kea is probably one of the most significant cultural and astronomical sites in the world." (executive summary, MK Comprehensive Management Plan) [31]
            • "Hawaii is Earth's connecting point to the rest of the Universe. The summit of Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaii hosts the world's largest astronomical observatory, ...Mauna Kea is unique as an astronomical observing site. The atmosphere above the mountain is extremely dry -- which is important in measuring infrared and submillimeter radiation from celestial sources - and cloud-free, so that the proportion of clear nights is among the highest in the world. The exceptional stability of the atmosphere above Mauna Kea permits more detailed studies than are possible elsewhere, ... Starting in the 1960s, the UH Institute for Astronomy provided the scientific impetus for the development of Mauna Kea into the world's premier site for ground-based astronomical observatories..." (University of Hawaii website) [32]
            • "Armed with an array of cameras and video recorders, amateurs Masao Kinoshita, Takuya Maruyama and Toru Sagayama chose to observe the 1997 Leonids from one of the world's best astronomical viewing sites: Mauna Kea, Hawaii at 3500 m elevation..." (NASA Science News) [33]
            • "The world’s finest locations for a stable atmosphere are mountain top observatories, located above frequently occurring temperature inversion layers, where the prevailing winds have crossed many miles of ocean. Sites such as these (La Palma, Tenerife, Hawaii, Paranal etc) frequently enjoy superb seeing much of the year" (Cloudy Nights article) (may not be RS) [34]
            • "The large optical-infrared telescope “Subaru” is located on the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The reason why Subaru is located in such an isolated environment, high atop a mountain 4,200 m above sea level, is that the summit offers incomparable advantages for astronomical observation in terms of the high number of clear nights throughout the year and transparency of the atmosphere because of low humidity. The summit of Mauna Kea is famous as an observation site that satisfies astronomical requirements. It is no wonder that there are various telescopes there from all over the world." (Nikon website - they are the makers of one of the summits telescopes) [35]
            • " The JCMT is situated at the summit of Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano on the island of Hawaii, at an altitude of 4092m above sea level. This is one of the best astronomical observing sites in the world, partly because the atmosphere above Hawaii is particularly stable and unpolluted." (University of Lethbridge Institute for Sapce Imaging Science) [36]
            • "Mauna Kea...was just starting to demonstrate its credentials as a superb astronomical site. Among other things, the MK planetary patrol telescope was giving the best crop of planetary pictures..." (ESO Workshop on Site Testing for Future Large Telescopes, La Silla, 4-6 October 1983: proceedings, Volume 1983)
            • "Mauna Kea's elevation and location make it one of the very best astronomical observing sites on the surface of the Earth" (Guidebook for the scientific traveler: visiting astronomy and space By Duane S. Nickell)
          • ...and so on and so on. To qualify the phrase with "X says" would be to imply a defined scope to the opinion that simply doesn't exist. Everyone who knows anything about the subject would agree with the statement. Ask them which one is the best - well, then you would get a debate, probably between MK and Cerro Paranal - which is why the article doesn't say "the" best :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • IDK. I won't argue too much more, but here's an analogy from my world (hurricane articles). Some sources say Hurricane Katrina was the worst to hit the USA, but "worst" is POV-based, and it is much more encyclopediac to say "most damaging". Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, I see your point now. I was probably missing it due to my over-familiarity with the term being applied to the site. What that sentence actually needs to do is explain that given Mauna Kea's particular combination of environmental factors, the evaluation process that astronomers use when deciding where to site observatories classes it as one of the world's "best" places. Which means that we need an article on site testing. Lo, a stub will appear! Iridia (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • version-in-progress is here if anyone wants to see; will have references in it shortly. Iridia (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the creation of an access road in 1964, thirteen telescopes funded by eleven countries have been constructed at the summit, conducting many research projects, and comprising the largest facility of its class in the world.
      • Careful with the wording. At first it seems like the subject is the access road, then the telescopes, then the countries, and then the countries again. The current wording implies the telescopes conducted the research projects. Going off my previous comment ("is one of the best sites in the world"), perhaps this section of the lede could be rewritten for better flow.
        • Paragraph rewritten. Please see if that now reads better. Iridia (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is the highest point in the state of Hawaii, and makes Hawaiʻi the second highest island in the world."
      • Two things. First, that's unsourced, and second, it'd be nice to have listed what the highest is (since I'm sure many are curious).
        • Removed island height, sourced point height. ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks ResMar. Hurricane and others: I don't like the removal of the "second highest island in the world" bit. This is one of the most notable features of Mauna Kea. It is frustrating that there isn't a really outstanding source for this claim, but I don't believe it is disputed or in doubt (the highest being Puncak Jaya in the Indonesian section of the island of New Guinea). The best source I have at present is Peakbaggers World Island High Points above 2000 meters. If that is acceptable, we can re-insert. Views? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which erupted between 250 and 70–65 ka." - I clicked on the link provided for ka, but that merely said "is a unit of time equal to one thousand (103) years." Does that mean it erupted for 70,000 years, or that it erupted 70,000 years ago? Clarification would be nice.
      • I agree that "ka" is not intuitive for a lay person, and the link isn't as helpful as we needed it to be. Actually, a different way of expressing years had already been used in this WP article, so I changed this to "years ago" (and added zeroes as required). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Together with volcanic ridges, these give the summit a "bumpy" shape, making Mauna Kea less well defined than other Hawaiian volcanoes." - again, needs a source. And what is the source of the quote? Did someone prominent call it bumpy? It's not that POV of a word, fwiw.
      • Sentence deleted. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you work something out? This is rather one of Mauna Kea's most important characteristics. Like, majorly so. ResMar 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Suggest raising it on article talk page - it wasn't in the sources I consulted, and as it now stands, the FAC concern is addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mauna Kea has seen no historic eruptions; the volcano's last eruption was about 4,600 years ago." - would you reword so you don't have "eruption" used twice in five words?
    • "The first foreigner to arrive at Hawaiʻi was James Cook, in 1778." - technically, the Ancient Hawaiians were foreigners when they arrived. Perhaps "first westerner" or something like that?
      • By that time they were the natives; considering there were no humans on the island before them, you can't technically call them foreigners, because, foreigners to who? ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But wouldn't foreigners also include people from, say, Oahu and Maui? I just find the wording subpar, that's it. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know. Foreigner didn't bother me, though I agree it was an unusual choice. I don't want to use "European" because by this time (late 18th century), it would also be possible for Americans to be travelling the Pacific. I tend to see "westerner" as colloquial. I'm leaving as is for now, but if others have a view, then "westerner" would be my preferred option. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By 2009, the number of sites had risen to 223" - does that mean, the number of burial sites? Later it says few burial sites were confirmed. It needs confirmation either way.
    • In "Ascents" - "He noted three to four regions in passing from its base to its summit" - what sort of regions?
      • Regions was the term used in the source, but what was meant was what we would now call "ecosystems" and I have changed it accordingly. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I'm technically opposing now for the unsourced sections, but also because more work is needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm satisfied now to support. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

  • The way the pronunciation is presented in the infobox makes little sense. It is apparently the infobox template's fault, but that is no excuse.
  • Sorry, can you give me more clues as to why it makes little sense? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brackets surrounding the entire pronunciation. Also, the English pronunciation is in slashes (suggesting phonemic transcription) and the Hawaiian is in square brackets (suggesting phonetic transcription)—which seems consistent, but perhaps defensible because the reader may be expected to know English but not Hawaiian phonemes. Ucucha 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...how am I supposed to fix it? Can you do it yourself? ResMar 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I had a look at Template:Infobox mountain. This has a notice indicating that the "pronunciation" optino should not be used, and that such information should be included in the lede. I have made the relevant change. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be consistent with capitalizing or not capitalizing species names (for example, "Hawaiian crow" versus "Hawaiian Hawk").
  • This is a product of inconsistency of capitalisation in WP article titles and ledes, but I've started to go through and fix regardless. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have not capitalised "bug" in the name "Wēkiu bug", as this seems to be more a descriptor, though I admit it is reported as part of the common name: [37]. Any views? "Wolf spiders" are a group of species, so "spiders" is not capitalised. All other caps now done I think hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ensuring the air on the summit is pure, dry"—what is pure air? The article also says specifically that it's free from pollution.
  • "in the late first decade of the 21st century"—awkward; why not just give the specific years?
  • The reason was that it wasn't simple to interpret the data in the source, but I've taken a stab and said "by 2007". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief! Gone. "Sacred mountains" is I think what was meant, and that category is retained. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most mountains in that category are actually real, even though it's a subcategory of Category:Fictional mountains. Weird. "Sacred" is certainly more appropriate. Ucucha 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 23:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, where are we heading now? It appears to me that all issues have been handled. ResMar 19:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of what I am seeing: 5 supports (AndyW, Casliber, Avenue, Rlevse and Hurricanehink); a tick on sources from Brianbolton; no image issues by my assessment, but then, Sandy appeared to have a concern that the image reviewer did not - we may need her view on whether she is satisfied; image review tag on the image at commons now cleared; Ucucha's concerns addressed, though for some reason he hasn't struck one - he may not have been back since it was done. We'll see what the new week brings (delegates don't usually pass through on weekends). hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My image concern was resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(now struck) Ucucha 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to modify some of the text of the last three paragraphs in Summit observatories - IMO it's oddly focussed on UH's viewpoint. Will work in my sandbox and move it across in paragraphs. Iridia (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Observatories modifications are now completed. Iridia (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything left to do? ResMar 20:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [38].

Illinois (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jujutacular talk 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC) and —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last FAC closed September 22. Substantial editing has taken place to address concerns. Diff comparing version of article from close of last FAC to now: [39]. I feel that it is now up the comprehensive standard required of a featured article. Jujutacular talk 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom I have added myself as co-nominator: I have not put as much work into this as Jujutacular, but I regularly edit it and will be watching this page to amend it per any requests. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 22:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2c: There may be other citation or reliability issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes Tape Op a HQRS? Tape Op 70 has a publication date: here Linking to a possible copyvio by outside party.
Reliability Tape Op is published by Larry Crane, who is a recognized professional (see citations there for the person and the magazine) and has published at least one book on the topic. As far as copyvio goes, you can just remove the URL and keep the rest of the citation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed link to potential copyvio. Jujutacular talk 01:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Roberts, Rafter. "Sufjan Stevens: So Right and So Wrong". Tape Op Magazine 70: 45." is still lacking the publication date that can be found at the site linked above; thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added date Jujutacular talk 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double check mdash: "Interview — Sufjan Stevens"
Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it might be his greatest commercial and critical success, your not describing how it still performed very poorly. I mean it reads kind of biased, considering that you write only how its his best seller to make it sound good, when in fact it was beyond a commercial failure. I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude, trust me that is not my intention at all, I'm just trying to give a few pointers and opinions :). I'd say express it more from a third person point of view, to me it seems a bit biased, at least in the sales section. Fix this and I'll give the article a deeper look.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point to a reliable source that characterizes it as a commercial failure? I assure you I am fully committed to maintaining a neutral point of view. Jujutacular talk 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: added sales information. Jujutacular talk 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commercial failure? Where did you get this idea that it's a commercial failure? It's certainly the best-selling Sufjan Stevens album or Asthmatic Kitty album; I'd be happy to have a reference that says it lost money or was disappointing in terms of sales. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Yes I'm sorry if you don't agree, but not even charting in the top-100 is not a success. The album didn't reach the top twenty anywhere in the world, and in the US the worlds biggest market, it peaked at #124, I'm sorry thats a commercial failure. Trust me, there are allot better things I would call that as well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • NPOV If you consider it a failure, that's fine; it's just not encyclopedic. If you can find a reputable source that calls the album a commercial failure, I will gladly add it. Otherwise, this is actually a huge success when one considers how the artist and label were complete unknowns. If (e.g.) Van Halen released an album that charted and sold like this, it would be a failure. If I did, it would be a huge success. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)|content=[reply]

Illinois -> wikilink
by Illinois authors Saul Bellow and Carl Sandburg[1] and -> by Illinois authors Saul Bellow and Carl Sandburg,[1] and
Queens -> where?
Brooklyn -> where?
New Jerusalem Recreational Room in Clarksboro, New Jersey -> where?
I was pretty nearsighted in ... —Sufjan Stevens, 2006 -> not enough for an own quote
  • Illinois themes
Many of the lyrics in Illinois make references to persons, places, and events related to the state of Illinois. -> remove the link and change it to and events related to the state of the same name.
  • Artwork

"Cum on Feel the Noize" -> though is almost unneeded to fix redirects, "on" is not a preposition in this case.

The album cover reads, "Sufjan ... to Come on Feel the Illinoise or Illinoise." -> [citation needed]
  • Critical reception
Paste and Michigan are overlinked

In general excellent work. TbhotchTalk C. 05:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done Brooklyn isn't a dab page, so no further explanation is necessary. I don't understand your criticism of the quote or your note about fixing redirects. There is no need for a citation for the name of the album; just look two inches to the right. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the redirect, and I believe I have the quote how you want it now. Take a look and let me know. Jujutacular talk 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering that the quote I was pretty nearsighted is too short for have its own paragraph. It shoukd be merged in another para. TbhotchTalk C. 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other quote on Musical style and thematic elements was OK is bigger so it could have its para. TbhotchTalk C. 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. fixed now. Jujutacular talk 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really looked. That thing I mentioned caught my eye. Well you still have to source the liner notes. Look on other album pages thats how its done even on GA.--AlastorMoody (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Source the liner notes"? The liner notes are listed in the references section. The 'Personnel' section does not include a citation, as is the standard practice in all FAs and GAs. I listed 3 FAs above, and picking 3 GAs at random, they likewise do not have a citation in the personnel section: Loose (Nelly Furtado album), Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One, The Division Bell. Jujutacular talk 05:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2a. I'm sorry but there are quite a few basic problems present here, and it is a long way from FA quality. It requires additional research, quite a bit of rewriting, and attention to MoS issues (in that order). Examples:
    • Prose problems evident even in the lead. For example, misplaced modifying phrase: "The album was praised by critics for its well-written lyrics and complex orchestrations, noting Stevens' progress" and redundant words: "Besides numerous references to Illinois' history and locations, Stevens also included multiple references to his Christian faith."
    • "Musical influences for the album cited by reviewers" This seems problematic. How do the reviewers know who influenced the album? Later, you write "Reviewers of Illinois have compared Stevens' style to" which seems far more accurate.
    • The one sentence for which I checked the sources for accuracy is misrepresented: "Stevens utilized unconventional techniques in the composition of Illinois, with a 5/4 time signature appearing in 'Come On! Feel the Illinoise!' only to revert back to a standard 4/4 later in the song." Where precisely do those two sources state that is "unconventional"? I'm not saying it isn't—but you can't make that determination on your own. One of the sources says it's "tricky" but that's not the same thing.
    • One of the glaring items is that you describe the release dates in the lead; however, you never write about them again except for a mention in the infobox. There is nothing at all in the article about the release, promotion, and touring support of the album.
    • There is relatively little examination of the musical elements present on the album. It sounds relatively complex from the limited description, but what is the music on this album actually like?
    • After work on the research and prose, attention will be needed to punctuation within quotations; please see WP:LQ.
Recommend withdrawing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have addressed several of these issues in my most recent edits, including:
    • Prose problems in the lead
    • Possible OR with regards to the reviews
    • Possible OR with regards to the section on time signatures
    • A paragraph on the tour-its geographic scope, length, and costuming
    • Fixing prose around quotation marks.
I do not think that the problems that you addressed are so critical as to require withdrawl--this article can be amended as-is and it has already gone through a peer review. With regards to your criticism that "there is relatively little examination of the musical elements present on the album" I honestly don't know what more could be written. The music is examined from technical/recording, lyrical and thematic, music theory, genre-based, and comparative perspectives. What more would you have in mind that could or should be written about the music itself? Anyone reading this article will learn about how this music sounds in terms of its time signatures, recording fidelity, relationship to musical influences and genres, and lyrical themes present throughout. I'm willing to allow that this isn't exhaustive, but I don't know what more one would want. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The issue with the release dates only being discussed in the lead is still present. I know the July 5 date is mentioned in the Artwork section, but check an album FA like Mother's Milk to see how the "Release" section is handled. Here, it might not be that substantial, but we still want to write about the release in the body. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Acceptable? I personally prefer a release history section a la the one presently at WP:ALBUM, but they are usually difficult to source. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not exactly. The July 4 and 5 dates are explicitly discussed in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, they should be in the text as well. Currently they are simply alluded to. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked - moved the more specific explanation to the body, while maintaining a brief mention in the lead. Jujutacular talk 05:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks As you might know by now, text is my weak point. This is why we're co-nominators. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some good progress has been made. I consider this particular issue addressed and struck a few others above. I need another read-through but hopefully we aren't too far off. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it, but it needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor. Not a big job. Here are examples from the top.
  1. I ask you, why would an English-speaker want to go look up a list of US states in the opening sentence of an article on this album? There's even a link to the state of Illinois two words further on. Why are NYC and US linked in the infobox? Both are universally known quantities, and are linked in the "Astoria, Queens" article anyway. Better to focus the reader on a single patch of blue. See MOSLINK on bunched links.
    Removed links Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wouldn't mind a comma after NYC. The longer the sentence and the fewer other commas hanging around, the more likely you are to use one like that. But it's on the mandatory side of the scale even in a short sentence.
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WP:HYPHEN: can you pipe "low-fidelity" please?
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "in a world tour" better than "with" (like you strike "with" a baseball bat). I think the motivation for the tour is pretty clear without the agency preposition, with. Wow, you mean his tour lasted for ... more than a year? Impressive; you don't actually give the start-date; perhaps it doesn't matter.
    Changed to "in". Removed the part about lasting through Nov. 2006. It actually happened in two separate tours, as explained a bit further down in the article. I couldn't think of a way to summarize that. Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "for its well-written lyrics and complex orchestrations and reviewers noted": comma required before the second "and", which is on the highest structural rank in the sentence. When there are multiple ands, check for whether a comma is needed. Reasonably long sentence too: you could be a little more aware of the influence of sentence length on punctuation in your style.
    Removed the second "and", placed a semicolon. I think it reads better, let me know what you think. Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. well-written, but then best reviewed in the next sentence?
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. multiple reviewers ... somehow a bit impersonal for people (multiple factors, yes). Could it be several or many? Unsure. "Also" could be dropped.
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Possibly "greatest public success: it was his first ..."?
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Why is "Christian" linked? I think WP:OVERLINK suggests not to (can't remember specifically, but why is the article on that anchor focused enough to divert?).
    Removed link Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. leap,"—MOS says the comma goes after the closing quotemark. Final period is often OK before the quotemark, if it's in the original, of course.
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "low fidelity" again a compound adjective and needs a hyphen. Why link it again so soon after?
    Done Jujutacular talk 04:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I boosted the first image size (church) to 240px and removed the final period from the caption, per MOS. It's just a nominal group, a thing. It's not an indicative statement. Tony (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments:
    • I'm troubled by the characterization of the Rolling Stone review. The "creative-writing workshops" comment was made about one song in particular, but that's not really what you write in the article. Also, the reviewer writes "But for a musician like Stevens, going too far and trying too hard is the point"; that, however is hardly "praise" as you write. Sheffield no doubt liked the album, but I don't think you've accurately represented his comments.
    • Can I get a copy of the Roberts article from Tape Op Magazine? The mention of 8-track tape is odd, as is the statement about "two tracks at a time" linked to multitrack recording. I'd like to see what exactly the source says about the recording mechanics, because the section reads a bit like it was paraphrased by someone who didn't necessarily understand it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response The Tape Op issue is available here: http://www.thebuddyproject.com/news/sufjan_tapeop_0309/tape09_0309_1.jpg . As far as the rewording, it's probably best left to Jujutacular. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded the Rolling Stone review. I believe it to be a better characterization. Jujutacular talk 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support—I'm not completely satisfied with the prose, but it's probably good enough to pass. Some minor nitpicks:
    • and it topped the Billboard "Heatseeksers Albums" list — maybe it's just my insanity, but I'd prefer it as "Billboard list of..." or "Billboard's list of...".
    • Awkward use of prepositions. I fixed one in the lead, but here's another that stands out: ...to retain creative control and keep costs low on recording Illinois." Something just doesn't seem right about that one.
    • ...several tracks that were recorded during these sessions were — many users try to avoid "that were" as much as possible, and I'm one of them. It's more of a personal preference than anything else; it's not an earth-shuddering redundancy. Same with "which were".
  • I think another pass would help greatly, but I'm not going to oppose over it. Also, the references seem fine on a quick skim. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Deckiller. Good to have you around again. I will be making another pass at it tonight, and then hopefully it will be at 100%. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks of prose:

  1. "Reviewers have found similarities between this album and musicians and composers in several musical genres—from pop music to contemporary classical. In addition, the lyrics and their rich ..."—I guess we need the recent-past tense "have"? False comparison: album vs musicians and composers, let alone genres (all mixed up ... I think the comparison is between one genres and other genres). Please remove "In addition,". The same false comparison a few inches below.
  2. MoS—comma after the closing quotemarks: "regressively twee communalism," but found
  3. "utilizes"—why not the less ugly "uses"?
  4. MOS—no hyphen after -ly ("classically-trained").

etc.

I have to oppose, unless this is thoroughly copy-edited. Tony (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touché, Tony! :) A weak support was probably too dull on my part... —Deckiller (t-c-l) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now. This needed quite a bit of work, but I think it's been pulled up to standard now. I've gone through it a few times with an eye toward prose, but also toward accurate reflection of the sources, and made several revisions along the way. I believe the article now accurately reflects the sources used. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's OK for Andy, I'll go with it. Sorry, I don't have time to look again. Tony (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note: I have gone way past spot-checking and have actually looked at most of the sources used here by now. I'm satisfied there are no issues with plagiarism, nor with statements in the article misrepresenting the sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably just my personal preference, but I'd love to see more commas. Some sentences are marathons. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 15:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [40].

Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec[edit]

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the first articles I created on Wikipedia (after some months of just editing existing articles). It describes an adventure (and one of Benedict Arnold's less familiar exploits) that was at the time barely mentioned in other articles, like Invasion of Canada (1775). It's come a long way, helped by reviewers at GA and MILHIST ACR, and most recently with helpful copyedits by Malleus Fatuorum and Auntieruth55. I hope no dog lovers are upset by it, and that it is worthy of your approval. Magic♪piano 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose only. Really good stuff. Please check my three edits. Only ... when I pulled up this article, I was half expecting to see one of Arnold's adventures. Have you considered a title of Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec? Also, I had trouble with this part: "... forced to a halt by a significant accident. Fooled by the swollen river, a party of men had mistakenly turned up one of its branches, and on their return after realising their mistake seven bateaux overturned, spoiling their remaining food stores." Was the accident taking the wrong path, or losing their food? - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support; your edits look fine. As far as naming is concerned, I imagine that in most contexts where this article is linked, its name won't be a problem. On the other hand, I'm happy to defer to consensus on name changes -- it could also be something as simple as Quebec expedition (1775) (to distinguish from the already-existing Quebec Expedition of 1711).
In re the "accident": I'd say the loss of supplies (i.e. the overturned boats) was the accident. This bit has been through several incarnations of phrasing by various editors; I'll have another go at it. Magic♪piano 15:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Kingsford is not a cited work, should be listed as Further reading
  • Smith (1907) is listed in both References and Further reading. Also on this book, the presence of an ISBN suggests that you are using a later edition. You should use the appropriate year, and add a note of the original publication details.

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Kingsford, and folded the Smith references together. The ISBN was for a recent reprint; I've removed it. Magic♪piano 21:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not crazy about the image set-up - on my screen, there are huge amounts of white space in Disaster on the Dead River, and some bunched-up edit links
  • More an issue of personal taste, but I feel that section headings 6 and 8-9 are more suited to title chapters in a novel than sections in an encyclopedia article
    • 9 seems fine to me, 8 seems a little dramatic. What would you use in place of 6? - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • St. or Saint Lawrence?
  • "poorly-known properties of the route" - wording
  • "on the 22nd" - per MoS, dates shouldn't include "nd"
    • MOSNUM says to use "June 9" rather than "June 9th". We've used "the 22nd" in lots of articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Great Carrying Place" or "The Great Carrying Place"?
  • When did Arnold get to Fort Western?
  • "Quebec's Lieutenant Governor Cramahé" - use his full name
  • Be consistent in referring to Enos and Greene as either Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel (after first mention)
  • Be consistent in using MA or Massachusetts in publisher locations
  • Spider Lake is mentioned only in image captions, not in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your eagle eyes. I've made changes to address these except for these:
  • I got complaints about the image layout for the maps in the ACR too; however, I've never seen what I consider gross amounts of white space, unless I widen my browser to its full width, and have yet to find a decent alternative (I think it somewhat useful that the maps are (1) relatively large and (2) side by side to emphasize the comparison). It maybe that using a floating box to hold the two maps (so that text can wrap on one side of it) might work, but this will risk short lines of text in other browser setups.
  • Sources (omitting creative 18th century spellings) generally use "the Great Carrying Place" or "the Great Carrying-Place"; the latter occurs mainly in older sources like Smith. (If you're objecting to "The" in the section head, this is to me a taste point; I think it reads better with than without.)
  • I've toned down the other section heads. Magic♪piano 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment. I am a bit concerned about the map at the top. I'm sympathetic to the idea of using a contemporary map, since it avoids anachronisms, but unfortunately this one (like so many old maps) is rather hard to read. I don't think this is a problem with the 1760 map, lower down: you include that specifically because Arnold used it, so it's an exhibit. The map at the top is supposed to be a guide for the reader, and it really doesn't serve that function. Without clicking through almost none of the text is readable (on my size screen, anyway) and if I click through it's little better. To be able to read it I have to click again to get to the image alone, and then unzoom that. Three clicks to get me to a map that is then very readable but so enormous that I can see less than 10% of it at a time, making it hard to get a sense of the terrain. I'm also curious to know if the boundaries, which look like state boundaries, might be anachronisms; were those boundaries in those positions on the date of the expedition? The map was drawn after the declaration of independence, after all, and the expedition was before it. I don't want to oppose just on this, so can you tell me why this is OK? Or have you considered getting a modern topographic map, and perhaps adding whatever the most important cities, boundaries and other features are, and drawing the route on that? User:Kmusser is a terrific resource for maps, if you feel it's worth it. I'll have a look at the rest of the article too, while I wait for a response. Other comments below as I read:

  • Shouldn't it be "endeavor", not "endeavour"? Presumably this is in American English.
  • In the Planning section, the comments about the inaccurate maps are a little confusing. First you mention Montresor's map, which had deliberate errors; then at the end of the next paragraph you discuss other maps and then go back to Montresor's to say Arnold didn't know it was inaccurate. Surely you could say Arnold didn't know it was inaccurate when the map is first mentioned? It would be interesting to know why the map is deliberately in error, though perhaps that's just footnote fodder. A separate point: unless the sequence you give (Arnold gets Montresor's map, meets Colburn, meets Goodwin, gets Goodwin's maps) is definitely chronological, I would put all the discussion of the maps together to make it less confusing for the reader. I wouldn't reorganize if Arnold is known to have had Montresor's map before he met Colburn though; the sequence of events is worth preserving.
  • In the "Cambridge to Fort Western" section, wouldn't it be better to switch the first and second paragraphs? Is there a reason to flash back in that way?
  • I think the 1924 map would benefit from an indication of scale, either on the map or in the caption. Reading that men were lost for days, I immediately wondered how big the area was that they were lost in.
  • I can only see it in snippet view in Google Books, but it appears from what I can see that Randall gives the date (Oct 7) on which Admiral Graves received news about the expedition. I think this is worth including, unless the snippet view has misled me.
    • Well, the ship's captain wrote a letter on October 7, according to said snippet; when Graves got it is another. I'll be in a library with a copy of Randall probably Friday; I'll check to see what more he has to say. Magic♪piano 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I missed that. If the date Graves gets it can't be sourced then it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Randall, Graves wrote his letter on October 18; I have updated accordingly. Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. It was not my intention to make the map at the top be particularly readable; this is why there are large red letters highlighting the important locations and a legend explaining them. Even if I were to make an SVG map, it would be reduced to much the same information, albeit without the distraction of the fine print. (If you think there are other things that ought to be more clearly labelled, I can do so.)
OK. I'll think about this some more. To be honest I don't think using an old map has a lot of value if you don't expect readers to read the writing on it; it is atmospheric, but not much more. I do think the fine print is something of a distraction. Do you feel the age of the map adds value? Would you object to an SVG version? Mike Christie (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular objection to using an SVG map, although I did put in some effort to find a reasonably attractive period map, and creating SVG maps also takes time (at least when I make them...). I can also edit extraneous features out of the background map, but that's also somewhat time-consuming. Magic♪piano 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On balance I think this is an issue of personal preference and not something I could oppose on, but I do think an svg map would be an improvement. It would be possible to create a map showing only the features of interest to the narrative, without distracting the reader with unreadable text. Still, that could be done later if other editors think it's worthwhile. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will act on your other comments in due course; your point on providing a scale of the 1924 map is particularly good. Magic♪piano 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made edits pursuant to your comments, and added a scale indicator to the 1924 map. I've not seen any indication of exactly when and how Arnold acquired Montresor's map, but he didn't get Goodwin's materials until he arrived in Maine.
In re Montresor's map: I read this in a source long ago and far away, that the map was some sort of file copy, and that it was British army practice at the time to omit and/or misdraw information on such copies. (Thus Montresor's original might have had distances and the locations of rapids marked on it, but the file copy might be either missing those things, or have them in the wrong place.) This was defense against them falling into hands of people that did not know how they'd been altered.
In re the top map borders: the map dates to 1780, at which time all of the relevant borders would not have been different than they were in 1775 (still being wartime and all). Map accuracy from these times is somewhat spotty, but this one accords reasonably well with what I know about borders of the time. (Maine's borders with Canada were not formally fixed until the 19th century; see Aroostook War.) Magic♪piano 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK on the borders and the sequence of events; I think the tweak you made worked well. Can I ask what the source is for the 1780 date? The Boston Public Library page doesn't give it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; the first version of this image used as its base a 1780 map, and I didn't update the image description when I changed it to the current map, which is from 1795. I'd still be surprised if there were any important border changes in the interval. (Vermont became a state in 1791, but this didn't change any of the visible borders.) Magic♪piano 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; glad the date is corrected. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I've noted is addressed; I'll have another read through tonight or tomorrow for MOS etc. and hope to be able to support. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The caption "Artist's depiction of Benedict Arnold, 1776 mezzotint by Thomas Hart" seems a little odd; if it's an artist's impression, rather than a depiction from life in some way, then that could be mentioned, but every painting is a depiction. Shouldn't this just be something like "Benedict Arnold, 1776 mezzotint by Thomas Hart", or even just "Contemporary portrait of Benedict Arnold" if there is no particular reason to mention Hart?
    • The depiction is clearly inauthentic when compared to portraits taken from life (see image at top of Benedict Arnold, and compare to similar Hart depictions of other people at e.g. David Wooster and William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe). If it had been taken from life, I would describe it as a portrait. Magic♪piano 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that "depiction" doesn't mean that it's not a portrait. I've cut down the caption a little; feel free to change it if you don't like what I've done but if the point is to tell the reader that it's inauthentic it needs to use a different word than "depiction". Mike Christie (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you did is fine (it's better than "inauthentic representation of"...). Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add a sentence or two to the Legacy section about the relevance of this action to the wider conflict? If it was an irrelevance, then say so; as it stands I can't tell whether this episode had any impact on the larger military issues.
    • Offhand, I don't recall seeing any sources that ascribe an impact (or lack thereof) on the rest of the war, beyond the presence of Arnold and his men in the rest of the campaign. To make a statement one way or the other smacks to me of original research. Magic♪piano 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      If there are no sources, then there's nothing to be done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support above; everything looks good now. I will just reiterate that I think a reader would be better served by a modern map than the 1795 one. I feel this might be a personal preference on my part though and will not oppose on that basis. Mike Christie (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did some prose-hacking with this but nothing more. On balance I'd prefer that the article was called Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec; surprising as it may be to some in the US I doubt that many in the rest of the world equate "Arnold" with Benedict Arnold, more likely Arnold Schwarzeni Arnold Schwarzi the governor of California. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. I had a poke around in Google Books after my last post here, and found this comment about the expedition: "On the success of Arnold everything depended. If he failed to take Quebec, Montgomery's success at Montreal was useless; and the situation was so critical and delicate that a very slight change of circumstances might alter the course of history." This is from The Struggle for American Independence by Sidney Fisher (1908); I've no idea whether Fisher is a credible historian, but it makes me think there might be more to say about the importance of the expedition than you currently have in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's certainly worth some consideration, but as you know, historical analysis has moved on since the early 20th century. I've seen editors criticised for relying on sources before about the 1960s. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can certainly wrap some words around that. I'll have to look at contemporary thoughts on Montgomery's arrival in Montreal. He ran into the problem of expiring enlistments at the end of November, and relatively few men wanted to reup for the push to Quebec. Fisher's is certainly a reasonable post-hoc analysis, but when the critical nature of Arnold's contribution was realized is an interesting question. (In re old sources: it really depends. In the US, for the revolution there are some fairly high-quality sources from the 1870s on that are often "right enough" and are often cited by modern authors. In this affair, Smith actually retraced the expedition's steps, and there are reprints available of most of the extant expedition diaries; see Roberts in the further reading.) Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon consideration and research, although Fisher's line is interesting, it is clearly post-hoc reasoning, because of the sequence of events. (Fisher writes as if Arnold is expected to independently attack Quebec, which was not the plan.) Arnold arrives at the St. Lawrence on November 9; Montreal falls on November 13, after which Montgomery has to deal with expiring enlistments (the force he brings to Quebec is about the same size as Arnold's, despite starting with more than 2,000 men). An attack on Quebec could only happen under the circumstances if Arnold succeeded, but by the time that would have been recognized as critical, he was already there. If I can find a historian who says something like "the attack on Quebec could not have been made without Arnold's men", I'll put it in. Magic♪piano 14:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is a good read, but I was on the fence about whether it meets the criteria. The maps aren't great, as mentioned above. (I found the simple black-and-white map in Martin's book to be far more useful; it's the kind of map we'd really want.) But my real concern is about comprehensiveness (1b), and possibly the research (1c). The question is: where does one draw the line between being comprehensive and being too detailed? The article strikes me as being a bit bare-boned. No mention of Return J. Meigs, Sr., or Aaron Burr, or the various pay and command disputes. The presence of Burr is arguably just trivia; the other details are not trivial, but featured articles are sometimes too damned long, so we can't have everything. Personally, I wouldn't have been able to resist mentioning the grave-robbing of George Whitefield's tomb that inaugurated the expedition! I also prefer featured articles to briefly discuss the historiography of the subject. What are the assessments of historians like Martin and Desjardin? Do they disagree in any significant ways? How do they part company with earlier generations of historians? The best history featured articles give readers at least a taste of what the historians get worked up about. —Kevin Myers 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insightful feedback. In working my way through the sources, I didn't observe a great deal of what I would call significant historiographic interest; otherwise I'd probably have included something on it. (Someone, I think Desjardin, comments on Smith's criticisms of Codman's work, which was published a few years before his and may have stolen some of his thunder.) I also don't recall Meigs or Burr doing anything specifically notable during the expedition (although it had an important role in Meigs' later career). There were quite a few people on this expedition that went on to later notability; perhaps this should be called out in the recruitment and/or aftermath. Magic♪piano 15:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a simple roll call might fit well at the end of the "recruitment" section: "Other men in the expedition who went on to later notability included Return J. Meigs, Sr., Aaron Burr...." —Kevin Myers 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [41].

Pedro Álvares Cabral[edit]

Nominator(s): • Astynax talk and Lecen (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because a major overhaul during the last month has been completed. We have, hopefully, learned enough here to have ironed out most issues to bring it up to FA standards. Cabral was a major early Portuguese explorer who deserves wider recognition, and we have summarized the limited sources as best we can. • Astynax talk 18:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The history of exploration of the world is one of the underrepresented topics in Wikipedia, and Cabral certainly is one of the most important figures of the Age of Discovery and indeed deserves wider attention. The article is well-written and well-illustrated, and quite comprehensive in covering the topic. I really enjoyed reading it. Formatting of footnotes and references seem to be all right, as well as the quality of the sources. There is only one problem that I see in this article, it is minor one and perhaps easy to amend: there are three red wikilinks to the commanders of Cabral's ships and one Spanish explorer. Personally I prefer not to see red links in the quality articles. Greyhood (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RED; articles that meet notability should be redlinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In some footnotes there is an inconsistency in whether the years are bracketed. and one has "and" instead of a comma for multiple pages YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Those footnotes have now been fixed. • Astynax talk 08:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. congratulations for the work: there's been a great improvement in the article, which is now comprehensive. I would support it if the choice of images is less centered on modern illustrations, favoring contemporary documents (Caminha's letter being one of the most notorious testimonies of Cabral's discovery), which I think is much more informative than the present romantic recreation of the discovery.--Uxbona (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that your personal wish would be to add the letter (you've tried to that before) but I can't do that for some reasons. The article is on Cabral and Caminha is not mentioned at all in it. The former is the focus of the article. The letter would make sense in the article (which there is) on the voyage. The romantic recreation is an iconic image of Brazil's discovery as the painting of Pedro Américo despicting the declaration of Brazilian independence[42] is regarded as the most iconic on Brazilian independence. I hope you can understand that. Lastly, I would like to thank you all for commenting here. --Lecen (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Ok, I understand. Thanks for your effort to complete article.--Uxbona (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Endnote B should be cited to a source
  • What does the word "gallery" mean, in ref 84? A pity it pushes the page ref into the next column.

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian. Thanks for taking a look in the article. In "Return to Europe" section, the last phrase, taken from historian Bailey Diffie and which is sourced, explain why Cabral was the responsible for the birth of the Portuguese colonial Empire. The book used as source has a gallery between pages 222 and 223. The pages that are part of the gallery are not numbered as pages. Below on of the images which is part of the gallery there is a text which says that the carracks were used in Vasco da Gama, Columbus and Cabral's voyages. --Lecen (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning oppose - an important and under-represented topic, but still in need of some polishing.

  • Spell out numbers under 10
  • "Cabral was christened Pedro Álvares de Gouveia and only later, supposedly upon his elder brother's death in 1503,[4][7][8] did he switch to using his mother's surname rather than his father's" - I'm confused, isn't de Gouveia his mother's surname?
  • Approximately how much is 30,000 reias in modern currency?
  • What is "fidalgo"?
  • "was as tall as his 1.90 meters (6 ft 2.8)[18] father" - measurement should here be in adjective form
  • The first two paragraphs of "Arrival in a new land" seem to belong in the preceding section
  • Provide conversion for 30 tons
  • "2nd[66] or 3rd[64] of May 1500" (and similar) -> "2[66] or 3[64] May 1500"
  • The article is in need of some minor copy-editing for clarity and flow
  • "before the merchantmen were set afire" - the ships were set afire, or the merchants?
  • I think some of those quotes would be better paraphrased and cited - you use quite a few, which tends to reduce their impact
  • Does the book title beginning "Revista" include the word "Trimestral" or not?
  • Use a consistent formatting for sources with multiple authors
  • José Olympio or J. Olympio?
  • Boxer entry: remove doubled period
  • Be consistent in how volumes and editions are listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
  1. Numbers under 10 spelled: done
  2. Surname changed from mother's: clarified
  3. "30,000 reias in modern currency": Conversion of pre-modern currencies is next to impossible, as authorities debate and propose new calculation methods constantly. None of the sources give even an estimate, and references giving conversions from 15th–16th century Portuguese currency to modern currency are unknown to Lecen and me.
  4. "What is fidalgo?" As explained at the first instance of the term's use, fidalgo is "a minor title then commonly granted to young nobles".
  5. Reference the height of Cabral's father: reworded
  6. "Arrival in a new land": The preceding section deals with the equipping and departure of the fleet, rather than the voyage and its goals. I've retitled the subsection to "Goals and voyage"
  7. "Provide conversion for 30 tons": done
  8. "2nd[66] or 3rd[64] of May 1500": both occurrences fixed
  9. "the ships were set afire, or the merchants?": A "merchantman" is a type of ship in modern English. A "merchant" is a person. Regardless, some of both were torched.
  10. "Revista" journal name: fixed
  11. formatting for multiple authors: done
  12. José Olympio vs. J. Olympio? fixed
  13. doubled period in reference note: done
  14. consistent format for volumes and editions in reference citations: done
Thank you for taking time to go over the article. • Astynax talk 09:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies and further concerns

  • "he was named moço fidalgo (a minor title then commonly granted to young nobles)... He was given the title fidalgo" - fidalgo seems to be a separate title from the one that uses your explanation
  • I would argue that the "Discovery of Brazil" section would be best served by being divided into only two subsections
  • "equaled his father's 1.90 meters (6 ft 2.8) height" - grammar
  • Date issue discussed above has only partially been fixed
  • Issue with volumes is not fixed
  • There are several places where the wording is awkward, making comprehension difficult. Suggest copy-edit to improve clarity and flow
  • Combine identical references per WP:NAMEDREFS
  • "Battered by tempests, attacked by pirates and finally forced aground on the Eritrean coast, in a desperate search for water and food for his rapidly-dying crew" - not a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
  1. As in English knighthoods, fidalgo had grades (including moço fidalgo) which varied through history. If there is an article detailing 15th century Portuguese grades of nobility, we could certainly add a link. Is anyone really confused by this or think that the various titles used need to be expounded upon further? If so, then it is going to take some time to track down a reference.
  2. Lecen combined the subsections under "Discovery of Brazil".
  3. I disagree that "equaled his father's 1.90 meters (6 ft 2.8) height" has a problem with grammar. I've changed the wording from "equaled" to "matched", however.
  4. I've made another change to the dates you indicated.
  5. Obviously we're not understanding your point about the volumes in the References section. Please feel free to be more specific, or just reformat them as you wish. My personal view is that they should have been left as given in the references themselves.
  6. Again, please be more specific about what wording makes comprehension difficult.
  7. I have just wasted nearly an hour poring through the footnotes again, and found no instances of identical references.
  8. The incomplete sentence has been fixed.
Thanks again. • Astynax talk 18:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has Nikkimaria been asked to revisit the Oppose?
Sort of, but I'll AGF that "pretend" was a result of a language barrier. In any event, I've struck my oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment:

  • We have only the barest outline of the criteria used by the Portuguese government in selecting Cabral to head the expedition to India. - as I mentioned in my hidden text, this wording is a bit awkward, could it be reworded? I've taken a few stabs, but I can't come up with anything I like. Connormah (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Informative, thorough, broad, interesting details. I fixed a few minor things along the way. Magic♪piano 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and complete. I would change the footnotes section (overly long) into a two-column format but that's a very minor nitpick. -- Alexf(talk) 12:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (all really minor)

  • The article uses historian "William Greenlee"'s full name but historians "Newitt" and "McClymont" only get a surname; either can work, but it should be consistent. (NB: James McClymont gets his first name again later on!)
  • "was headed to Calicut (or Kozhikode) in India" - is Kozhikode another name for Calicut, or is it another place altogether? (I'm guessing the former, but it's unclear from the wording).
  • Stylistically, there are some bracketed sections that feel like they should be integrated into the main part of the sentence - e.g. "Dom Manuel I (who had acceded to the throne two years previously)", "Afonso Lopes (pilot of the lead ship)", " Nicolau Coelho (a captain who had experience from Vasco da Gama's voyage to India)", " a third vessel (commanded by Pedro de Ataíde)", "found in today's Venezuela (northwest of Brazil)," etc.
  • "could result banishment (as it did for one of da Gama's supporters)" Missing an "in", and the brackets probably aren't necessary.
  • " Despite a desperate defense by crossbowmen, more than 50 Portuguese were killed (according to other sources, between 20 and 70 were wounded or murdered)" - there's a full stop missing at the end of the sentence I think.
  • Support. with those minor bits fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Thanks. Changes and fixes have been made per your comments. • Astynax talk 08:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nicely done. However, please look at the sentence, "the factory suffered a surprise attack by some 300, perhaps even thousands, of Muslim Arabs and Hindu Indians." The word "thousands" makes the sentence grammatically incorrect—depending on what the source says, it should say "perhaps as many as a thousand", "perhaps as many as several thousand", or "perhaps even several thousand"—or anything else that involves "thousand" and not the plural. Then drop the "of". --Spangineerws (háblame) 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Thanks for going through the article and your suggestions. I have reworded the sentence. • Astynax talk 20:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was wondering what's the point of having a section 4. Later Years followed by subsection 4.1 Fall from grace and death with no text in between and no 4.2 subsection. Wouldn't it be better to just rename section 4 as Fall from grace and death and do away with 4.1?¨--Victor12 (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Yes, I agree. I have removed the subsection heading. • Astynax talk 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an image review yet? Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I asked J Milburn to do that. I'm waiting him to respond me. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Nice work on this. It is a very interesting read. Where I went to school we learned much about Vasco de Gama but virtually nothing about Cabral.
    • "His fleet sailed far into the western Atlantic" Do you think it goes without saying "Atlantic Ocean"? I'm just wondering if "the Atlantic" is too colloquial for readers from some parts of the world.
    • "The Portuguese retaliated by looting and burning the Arab fleet and shelling the city." Can you add a little context to the lead here? The statement is baffling on its own because we have no idea why they would shell a non-Arab city. It's readily apparent after reading down, but you could add a bit more here.
    • Despite the loss of human lives?
    • It is necessary to have 3 or 4 citations for statements such as his birthplace or number of brothers and sisters? Are these likely to be disputed?
    • "an annual allowance worth 30,000 reais" Do we have any indication of whether that's a lot of money for the time? Would he be considered wealthy based on that sum?
    • Has WP:LQ been consulted for punctuation of quotations? If the period is part of the quotation, it should be inside the closing quote. I'm looking at the second para of "Fleet commander-in-chief". There are other places, such as "Posthumous rehabilitation", where the periods are inside.
    • "So both parties viewed moves by the other with extreme suspicion." Can you rewrite this without the awkward interjection?
    • File:Cabral voyage.png This doesn't look too good. The original image is a vector image the new route lines are raster. It's all pixellated at any decent resolution. Can you get someone to redo this as a vector image?
Not too far to go, I think. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to answer the ones related to the subject. I'll leave the other points related to grammar and style to Astynax, who is far better than I on that.
"His fleet sailed far into the western Atlantic" You're free to add "Ocean", if you believe it would be better.
"Are these likely to be disputed?" Perhaps. Cabral's life before and after the voyage is very obscure. Some historians mention that he was the second eldest child, but others say that he was the third eldest male. Some give his birth in 1467 and other in 1468.
"an annual allowance worth 30,000 reais" Unfortunately, we don't. That point was raised in here before and the best we could would be to guess how much was worth it. I am pretty sure that is was very large sum to the time, since 100,000 reais was the amount needed in Brazil in 1824 to be able to vote. Although 100,000 reais was easily acchieved by anyone who had even the most simple job, 324 years before 30,000 reais was surely a lot of money.
File:Cabral voyage.png This doesn't look too good. I don't think so. --Lecen (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new map which is far more detailed than the other one. Is it better? --Lecen (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's detailed but the quality is still not good. If you do not understand the difference between vector and raster graphics, it might be better to find a graphics person to fix it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The Portuguese retaliated by looting and burning the Arab fleet and shelling the city." has been expanded to read "Cabral took vengence by looting and burning the Arab fleet and then bombarded the city in retaliation for its ruler having failed to explain the unexpected attack."
  • You are correct that the punctuation should be inside the quote marks for the quotation from Newitt. I have adjusted a few others at the same time.
  • The sentence "So both parties viewed moves by the other with extreme suspicion." has been reworded to "The Portuguese and Arabs were extremely suspicious of each other's every action."
I have an older program which is supposed to export svg, though I don't know how many features it supports. Will try converting it tonight. • Astynax talk 22:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At Lecen's suggestion, I made a request here to get the route map vectorized. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting now. My concerns have been addressed, and we have a fine article. I can't wait to read others in the series. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still waiting for an image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've asked Jappalang and J Milburnto review it (the same who did that in Pedro II of Brazil), but none of them answered me. --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written, well sourced. I made some small copy-edits for clarity etc. Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well sourced, researched, informative, all in all, good work!--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: All images are in the public domain with acceptable sources list, except:
    • File:Cabral_voyage_1500.svg, licensed cc-by-sa 3.0 and derived from a public domain source, acceptable
    • File:Bernardelli - Monumento a Cabral.jpg, licensed cc-by-sa 3.0, but could be problematic, since there is no indication of when the monument was constructed. If the monument is still under copyright, this can't be used without proper licensing from the artist.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concerns and questions:

  • File:Pedro alvares cabral discovery of brazil 1500.jpg
    Aurélio de Figueiredo died in 1916. Was this work published during his lifetime? From 1916 to 1987, his heirs (if any) have the rights to authorise publication of his works. Did he have any heirs? Was this work reproduced anywhere during that time? What year is Revista de História da Biblioteca Nacional (Issue 55)?
    The only way this could qualify for US copyrights (because his works are in the Brazilian public domain before 1 Jan 1996) is if Figueiredo's heirs registered and renewed his works in the US. I was unable to find any signs of this at their website or in the tomes of available Copyright Records on Google books. Therefore, it is a very unlikely case. I had to plow through Brazilian websites just to find a simple answer to which year that magazine is: the answer—April 2010—which the nominators could have simply provided such. Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Miniature of Pedro Alvares Cabral.jpg
    Roque Gameiro died in 1935. His copyrights persist until the start of 2006. Any of his work published from 1923 to 1977 are granted 95 years of copyright protection in the US by the URAA agreement. First publication in História da Colonização Portuguesa (1923) would mean it is still protected in the US until 2019.

Just the above for the moment. Most (the ones in italics) should be resolved before promotion to FA. Jappalang (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cast in italics the images that are more of a "concern" than a "question". Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • File:Carrack 1565.jpg: The referenced source (Boxer, Charles R. O império marítimo português 1415–1825. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002) doesn't assign a name for the map, just a date and the artist (Sebastião Lópes). Perhaps there is another source which gives a name (if a distinct name exists), but seems an unnecessary bit of info.
  • It might be, but it would be more helpful to anyone who seeks to reuse this image. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link was missing (now restored), was this report the Livro das Armadas? Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern is to clarify that da Silva or his heirs (if any) did not authorize publication of this work before 1978 since that could create the possibility of US copyright protection. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern is that his heirs would have authorized publication of the work before 1978 and have registered and renewed copyrights in the US for it, thus getting the 95 years of US copyright protection. If there is no such publication, then there would be no worries. (http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm: Works Published Abroad Before 1978, 1923 through 1977, Published in compliance with all US formalities (i.e., notice, renewal), 95 years after publication date) Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was asked when was the miniature first published. The answer was that a 1923 publication was the earliest publication found, this is not a 1800s (of which 1814 is a valid date, before the birth of the author) work the words led me to believe (underlined words inserted per clarification below 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)). As already explained, a 1923 first publishing would qualify it for the 95-year US copyright protection. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the work was first published in 1923. What I did say was that the earliest book I could find was one published in 1923. Do not change the meaning of my words, please. I have another book that says that the miniature was from the 19th Century. That is why is written "19th Century". --Lecen (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for misinterpreting your words, I have amended the above. Jappalang (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pedro alvares cabral 01.png: Nossa História is a journal (now defunct). It reproduced the lithograph, which was originally published by George Mathias Heaton and Eduard Rensburg. These were two foreign illustrators and publishers active during the 1850s in Brazil. Rensburg was born in 1817 and died in 1898. Heaton was born in 1804 and must have died sometime prior to that.
  • The point is to clarify the period of the journal since the image is scanned from it. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cabral voyage 1500.svg: The map's status is as noted. The Wikipedia editors mentioned helped create the map and/or created the PD map from which this map was adapted.
  • From which public domain or "free" map was the geographical outlines copied from, or which set of geographical co-ordinate data set was used to create the underlying map? From which sources were information on Cabral's routes taken from? Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the above will help clarify. • Astynax talk 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting rather tired of repeating the same things across the board. If you upload items to Commons, then abide its policies. Per commons:Commons:Licensing:

Wikimedia Commons accepts only media

* that are explicitly freely licensed, or

* that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

If you upload to Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain states,

Wikipedia pages, including non-English language pages, are hosted on a server in the United States, so U.S. law governs whether a Wikipedia image is in the public domain.

A work might be public domain in Portugal or Brazil, but US law determines what copyright it is in the country of the server (US). Just like how Popeye is in the public domain outside of the US, but is still copyrighted in it.[43] Any uploads of images to either Wikipedia or Commons must satisfy US laws.

The primary aim of the projects is to establish a repository of free material (compliant with at least US law) for others to re-use. The point of providing specific correct information for those images are to help re-users verify for themselves whether or how they can safely use the images in their country. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Perhaps the repetition is needed because it is difficult to match what we read in Wiki's image policies with what seem to be your statements. Maybe policy is too vague or just wrong, but it is what we go by:
  • Insistence on additional "helpful" information: If we had that info, we would have added it. We don't. Were such additions required by Policy, I'd just withdraw the nomination until someone with access to better resources (or a big legal and travel budget) came along to gather, verify and tag the images with that "helpful" data (that would never happen, IMO). But unless I've completely missed something, that sort of info is not required.
  • Reproductions of older 2-D works: Off-Wiki links notwithstanding, Wikipedia's position seems very clear: "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain" (see the PD-art template and talk).
  • Some comments seem to be projecting provisions of current law backward to cover works which were copyrighted under different rules. Those old rules still apply. I'm fairly certain that the current rules are generally not retroactive for older works, those are under the copyright provisions in force at the the time of their creation/publication. If that isn't the case, then policy needs to be changed/clarified. I don't see anywhere that Wiki agrees with efforts by some to privatize works that are in the public domain—far from it.
  • The apparent contention that works which are public domain in other nations may not be in the public domain in the U.S. (or on U.S. servers) also does not seem to be policy. Policy states that a work is public domain in the U.S. if its copyright has expired in the nation of origin: If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of 1 January 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
  • Did you even bother to read that section in its context? Specifically, "However, being in the public domain in its home country does not automatically mean that the work was also in the public domain in the U.S. because the U.S. does not follow the "rule of shorter term"." in the first paragraph and that the statement you quoted is "For works (photographs and others alike, but excepting sound recordings made prior to February 15, 1972) not published in the U.S., the following rule applies: If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.)" Did you even bother to read the later problems the later six paragraphs illustrate, and the final statements of that paragraph, "And strictly speaking one would also have to verify that a non-U.S. work was not covered by copyright in the U.S. by virtue of some bilateral agreement of the U.S. and the foreign country (see [5] and "Circular 38a" in the "external links" section below). Country-specific public domain tags must therefore be used with the utmost care only."? Jappalang (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the map, again, the map in the Cabral article is based on another map placed into the PD on WikiCommons. I have no idea of how they drew their original map, nor would I probably know what they were talking about if they told us—we take their statement that it is their own work in GF. As for the route drawn on the map being questioned (my head is spinning), it simply follows the narrative in the article.
If the policy and the comments you've made are supposed to be in alignment, then either the policy or your explanation of policy needs to be clearer. The day only IP law students are allowed to edit here or contribute material will be a sad day indeed. Editors must rely on clear policy, and only on clear policy. I would respectfully suggest that if Wiki policy needs to be changed or clarified, the place to do it isn't here. • Astynax talk 05:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we are not to talk about changes to policies or guidelines here and I have certainly not done so here. I am instead pointing out the misinterpretations and thus violations of the policies. Jappalang (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Astynax. As I said before, Commons' rules are misleading if Jappalang's point of view is the one correct. In fact, if we take in account his near impossible demands to prove that an image (including one of the 16th Century!) is in free public domain, all images in history-related Featured articles wii have to be erased. All. --Lecen (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had decided to bow out on this unresolved issue, since I did not contribute these images. However, since the insinuation has been put forth that we have violated and misinterpreted policy, I will note that no evidence to back that up has been put forward. Again, I don't see the granularity being demanded here for 120+ year old images and works based on PD work created by Wiki contributors as being at all supported by policy. Indeed, what is being demanded itself seems to violate Wiki's position as explained in the PD-art and PD-old templates. Name searches at Google Books copyright search and the US Copyright Office sites turned up nothing registered under the 2 artists names (Oscar Pereira da Silva; Roque Gameiro) who died early in the 20th century. There were also no results for Eduard Rensburg and/or George Mathias Heaton to whom the mid-19th century lithograph was attributed. Angilicization possibilities for the titles are endless, and the names of any heirs are unknown, so those are useless. Those 2 sites are hardly comprehensive for graphic art, but they are the only places available to most Wikipedia editors and reviewers. If there are better databases available to Wiki contributors and reviewers, please do tell so we all can learn—seriously. • Astynax talk 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the tags in the paintings available in Cabral's article:
The ones related to US-Copyright were changed to others that are more clear and taken in accord with Wikimedia Foundation's policy. Since some of the works were also made in Brazil, I added tags which reveals their copyright status in their country of origin. Lastly, I added a little bit of information (along with sources) to the year of the two maps above. I hope that was what you were looking after since it will make them far more precise as to their copyright status. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues resolved; all are verifiably public domain or appropriately licensed for the project. Jappalang (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on intellectual property

Lecen and any others:

Some recent developments have made it advisable to ask these questions. Please do not take them as indicating any doubt about your work; they are just one more step in the review process.

  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies about copyright? Do you believe this article complies with these policies?
  2. Is there any verbatim sentence or phrase in the article which is not encased in quote marks and attributed to the specific source?
  3. Is there any sentence or close paraphrase of a source?
  4. Is there any translation which is a verbatim transcriptions or close paraphrase of a (even if idiomatic) translation of the original source(s)? If so, can you tell us which ones?
  5. In writing this article, did you adopt the sentence structure or organization of any source?

I recognize these questions come late in the process but they are necessary to ensure the integrity of the FAC process. Thank you, and good luck with this nomination. Kablammo (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:
  1. I believe the article complies with Wiki policy on copyright.
  2. I believe all verbatim sentences/phrases are encased in quote marks and attributed to sources.
  3. If there are any close paraphrases, they are not intentional. The difference between a close paraphrase and a summary must be a very fine line, and the article does summarize and attribute its sources.
  4. Is there any translation which is a verbatim transcriptions or close paraphrase of a (even if idiomatic) translation of the original source(s)? There are such translations, but they are in quote marks and attributed.
  5. There was no intentional adoption of sentence structure or organization of any source.
Qualification (as these are broad questions): When reading through source material, the brain sometimes picks up on something which can affect wording and organization, so I cannot state absolutely that something of that nature could not have crept in. I also cannot speak to wording in sources which may be out there that I haven't read. I cannot speak for every editor/contribution to the article. There are cases where existing material gets rewritten or improved during copyedits which could introduce/reintroduce such issues. However, when going over the article, I do not see anything which sticks out as material from those sources I have read. • Astynax talk 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick and helpful response, Astynax. It would be helpful to have other principal contributors also respond. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All words said by Astynax can be called my own. If it does help in anyway possible, most books used as sources in the article can be easily found in google books and are even written in English, despite the subject being a Portuguese explorer. In other words, I assume complete responsability for the text of the article is it is written now. --Lecen (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: many of the sources are in Portuguese, which makes it hard on reviewers to do the (now necessary) source checking for WP:V, plagiarism and copyvio. This is not guideline or policy-- it is my suggestion for how to better handle non-English sources, to make it easier on reviewers, and it is what I do when citing Spanish sources.

You are currently formatting sources like this:

  • Bueno, Eduardo. A viagem do descobrimento: a verdadeira história da expedição de Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 1998. ISBN 8573022027 (in Portuguese)

If you will switch the pt icon to the front of the source, it is much easier to scan the sources and determine how many are non-English:

  • (in Portuguese) Bueno, Eduardo. A viagem do descobrimento: a verdadeira história da expedição de Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 1998. ISBN 8573022027

Again, this is not required by any guideline, but it certainly makes article review easier, and I also think it makes article reading easier, since readers will know right up front if a source is in English.

One followup question to our (new) plagiarism checklist: are you aware that literal translations from Portuguese to English would also be considered plagiarism, and that non-English translations also have to be reworded to avoid close paraphrasing? Just clarifying ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Spanish surely is not Portuguese. Or as far as I know, German is not English, depite having a common origin. And no, I did not simply translate a Portuguese phrase into English. Don't worry about that. Also, most of the text was created from English-written sources, available at google books. Anyone is free to check it out there. A few examples: [44], [45], [46] and [47]. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [48].

Lavanify[edit]

Nominator(s): Ucucha 23:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about two teeth from an animal that lived on Madagascar about 70 million years ago. It is part of the gondwanatheres, the earliest mammals to evolve high-crowned teeth (possibly in order to eat grass). This article was improved by a GA review by Sasata and some further comments by Hamiltonstone, and I am looking forward to any reviews at this FAC. Ucucha 23:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - No dabs or dead external links. Sasata (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Have you tried contacting David Krause for a picture of the specimen, or even the collection site? How about File:MG-Mahajanga.png?
  • In this interview he hints at how the discovery of these (both Lavanify and the other gondwanatheres in India) fossils, in combination with plate tectonics, are giving us clues as to how and when mammals evolved on Madagascar. Does he go into more detail about in this in his publication? A quote from the interview "... it seems the mammalian fauna that existed on Madagascar during the Late Cretaceous ultimately went extinct without issue." There's no mention in this article about Lavanifys extinction, maybe a sentence or two would be worthwhile? Sasata (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a little. I'm not sure much more would be appropriate; I don't think there has been much specific discussion about Lavanify's extinction. The Madagascar terrestrial mammal fossil record is very spotty: we have Ambondro from the middle Jurassic (~165 Ma), then this guy and its friends from the latest Cretaceous (~70 Ma), and then nothing until 1 Ma or so.
    • I will write to Dr. Krause; I'm not sure there's much use in a map showing exactly where on Madagascar this thing was found. Ucucha 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (as GA reviewer) - I looked, but can't find anything to complain about. One small suggestion would be in the sentence "... as the latter name was published first, it is the correct name for this genus." to pipe a link to (or mention) Principle of Priority somewhere. Sasata (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, and done. Ucucha 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images and references No images to review. References 1 and 13 look odd because they combine an existing separate ref (2 and 14 respectively) with a new ref. wouldn't it be better to separate the repeated refs from the new ones? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    out of completeness there doesn't appear to be any copyright problems with File:Abyssal Brachiopod 00148.jpg.©Geni 15:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is in the paleontology portal template (took me some time to figure that out). Thanks both for the check and comments. When I cite multiple sources for a single sentence, I always put them in a single ref.
  • It is classified as a member — last subject was teeth
  • "The animal is..." now.
  • Matrix — no link or explanation
  • Explained.
  • "long tooth" in Malagasy and the specific name, miolaka, means "curved" in Malagasy — could be rephrased to avoid repeat of "Malagasy"
  • Got rid of the first "in Malagasy"
  • Prasad and colleagues, however, who named Bharattherium, — Not sure that "however" adds anything

Comments:

  • The Krause, Prasad et al ref - lacks the journal name.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is there; it's from Nature. Thanks for checking. Ucucha 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is why NOT italicising titles is so freaking annoying... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments readng through now and looking good. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. Ucucha 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...in 1995–1996 during joint expeditions of the State University of New York.. - sounds a little ungainly to me, but I honestly can't think of an alternate way of saying it, so not a deal-breaker.
I agree; the source doesn't say whether the Lavanify teeth were found in '95 or '96. Ucucha 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am right in assuming not only is it only known from teeth, but anything it is even closely related to at all is similarly enigmatic? If so, I think the article would be much clearer with some encompassing statement to this effect - but if you haven't come across one no need to put it in.
Added. There are a few pieces of jaw of other gondwanatheres. Ucucha 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything at all in the literature on the strata the teeth came from, such as speculation about the paelo-environment or associated critters etc...?
See the last paragraph of the "Discovery and context". I don't think we have anything about the paleoenvironment. Ucucha 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will be interesting to see what the undescribed skeleton is when it is described. ok, good to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Not as interesting as the gondwanathere teeth, though. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 02:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [49].

Dustbin Baby (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second time lucky. Everything from last time was/has been resolved, and I've added some little titbits/tidbits. To copy from my original nomination- I feel I have gone above and beyond on this article for a number of reasons. Firstly, I bought the DVD, and watched the film several times. This isn't my normal choice of film. I wrote several pages of notes after watching the making-of feature. I managed to successfully request the release of some high-quality images to illustrate the article, one of which is now a featured picture. I wrote a good number of articles about topics related to this article, including some of decent quality. I've nurtured this article from creation on a sleepy afternoon after watching the film because I was bored, through DYK and GA, to where it is now, and I now feel it is ready for featured article status. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - no dab links, no dead external links.Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The plot summary should be shorter. This is a relatively straightforward drama, so the summary shouldn't be much more than 600 words. —Coder Dan (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are you plucking that number from? I was told 700 words last time, so cut it down. (It's actually not wildly simple, due to the backing-and-forthing, but yeah, it's no spy drama). J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • WorldScreen articles need a subscription to access, this should be noted. Also what makes this a high quality, reliable source?
    • The archives do- subscription wasn't needed when I first used them. Noted. It's run by World Screen Network, who also publish The International Emmy Almanac, which is the official publication for the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. I thought that showed it was a reliable source for information on awards at least. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 31 (Powerplay Direct) http://www.powerplaydirect.com/asp/itemdetails.asp?prodID=1783752&currsec=dv gives an error page.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time! J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I actually watched this on YouTube last time it was at FAC, intending to give a review (is that reviewer dedication or what?), but got distracted with other things and it was archived before I had a chance. Although I think WIAFA criteria 1b and 1c are fine, I think the prose needs some polish; here's some specific comments/suggestions: Sasata (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Read through it again, the prose seems fine now; consider all my comments below struck. I think the article meets the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dustbin Baby is a BBC television film directed by Juliet May first broadcast on 21 December 2008, based on Jacqueline Wilson's novel of the same name." The lead sentence seems a bit awkward to me. Perhaps splice out the broadcast date to the following sentence. Isn't that that link Easter eggish?
  • maybe link flashback, as it such an important device in this film (I see it's linked later in the Plot section)
  • "…for her screenplay for the film" ->screenplay of ?
  • "On April's fourteenth birthday, she argues with Marion, her adoptive mother, after receiving earrings instead of a mobile phone as a gift." maybe make it more explicit that she wanted the phone, which led to the argument (rather than assuming the reader will figure it out)
  • "Meanwhile, Marion talks to April's friends, and realises that April has lied." about what? Also, I'm assuming she telephones April's friends, as the next sentence says she leaves Pat's home (or were April's friends at Pat's home?)
    • Rephrased to make it clear that it is April at Pat's, and that Marion is at April's school. I've also expanded the earlier mention of the lies. I am gonna have to cut down the plot section again, so I'll do that after working through your suggestions. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a flashback, an eight-year old April's time at the children's home is recounted." awkward construction
  • "Mo introduces April to a girl of her own age called Pearl" whose own age, Mo's or April's?
  • ….Pearl attacks April, holding her head under water, and then tears up April's paper dolls." might want to mention the emotional attachment she has to these paper dolls
    • "beloved"- strong, but I'd say I'm justified in using the word. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "April confronts Pearl, and pushes her down a flight of stairs, and is told off by Mo." doesn't look elegant to string these clauses together with "and"
  • "moved on" sounds like a British expression. If I hadn't seen the film I wouldn't know what it meant.
    • It's a direct quote, I'd imagine it was in the book. The connotations are clear. I've stuck it in quote marks- that enough? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Resedential ->fix spelling
  • "Students are writing their family tree and April fights with Marion." This doesn't imply the causality… she was fighting because of the family tree assignment
  • "Marion reads April's records, and, after a lesson, apologises to her." do we need to know it was after a lesson? Again, can we fill in more of the cause effect with something like "Marion reads April's records, and, after learning of her past history, apologises to her."
  • "… and was written by Helen Blakeman, who had previously worked on Pleasureland." why is this particular work so significant as to warrant mention here?
    • Similar themes? Claim to fame? Only other TV work? Any source that mentions her mentions Pleasureland, I thought it was worth a mention here. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a production company specialised in children's television." specialised=past tense, do they no longer do children's TV?
  • "Juliet Stevenson said she was attracted to the part of Marion as "it's very boring playing versions of yourself", and the fact that she does have a 14-year-old daughter." the connector after the comma doesn't match the first part of the sentence; maybe swap "and the fact that" with "because", and since here daughter is no longer 14 (I'm assuming) change to past tense.
  • "…to earn money to help support his family…" is this vital info? Don't most people with families earn incomes so they can support them?
    • I kind of like it- it's very "real". Appearing in DB was his 9-5 (for the wife and kids) while he got on with stuff he actually cared about. I guess the implication is that if he didn't have a family to support, he wouldn't have done it. J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wilson discussed the central theme of adoption, saying that "lots and lots of people will identify with" it." that preposition tagged at the end of the quote looks awkward
  • "She explains this by saying that at fourteen" here the perfect tense is used, but next paragraph "Stevenson described the character of Marion" past tense. I think it would flow better if it stuck to one tense in this section.
  • "This view was a reflection of producer Anne Brogan's view." reword to remove a repetitious "view"
  • implausabilities ->fix spelling
    • That was a direct quote... I have no idea how, firstly, I managed to do that, and, secondly, that no one noticed... J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Stevenson played her part as a kind of updated Jean Brodie"." Links in quote are to be avoided, and I don't know who this character is, and hovering over the link doesn't help much.
  • "Dustbin Baby was watched by 2.3 million viewers, giving it a 15.4% share of the audience." I'm sure that the way this is written is standard for these types of articles, but does this mean 15% of the viewers watching TV at that time slot in the UK?
    • I believe so, yeah. Do you think it should be rephrased? J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah, just wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments. I have given the plot a further polish/trim, and it may need to go down a little further yet... J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments The current version of the plot seems about right to me; I haven't seen this drama, and if it were any shorter I think I would lose the plot... I can't comment on the sources, this isn't an area I know well, but the prose reads well now. Only one quibble, do you really need to link London? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delinked. Thanks for taking the time to take a look! J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reads well, seems comprehensive, no problems that I noticed. Ucucha 12:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: Photographs and logo from Kindle Entertainment have been previously processed with the OTRS ticket (amazing work in getting them by the way). The photograph of Jacqueline Wilson has been released into the public domain by its author. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looked good after the first nomination, and after a few fixes, the article still reads as FA quality this time around. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [50].

HMS Indefatigable (1909)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dank, Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time through for this article. It was archived last time for lack of support, although all of the other comments had been dealt with. This has passed a MilHist ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Indefatigable (1909) and is a co-nomination between myself and Dank--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • It may be worth noting that the line-drawing is actually for the Invincible class, and that Brassey's made a mistake.
      • It's labeled for both classes and is close enough since the layout was generally the same for both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Pursuit of Goeben section, it would be more clear to specify what types of ships Goeben and Breslau are - you mention "all three battlecruisers" but you don't ever state that Goeben was a BC but Breslau was just a light cruiser.
      • Is "cruisers" or "ships" better? - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is that it's not clear what we're talking about with regard to the "all three battlecruisers" line. We know it refers to Goeben, but there's nothing in the section identifying Goeben as a battlecruiser. Parsecboy (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done.
    • Did the ship sortie as part of the response to the Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft?
      • Probably, but I don't have anything specifically listing any of Beatty's ships then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotta love it when the sources are insufficient to answer a relatively simple question like that, right? Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Jutland images are sandwiching the text something awful, any way to fix that? Maybe split the bottom paragraph and move the photo down?
      • How does it look now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better now, though I imagine you'll soon have someone complain about it spilling over into the next subsection. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other thing: between February 1915 and April 1916, I assume the ship was just conducting routine patrols in the North Sea. Could you make that clear in the article? I know there weren't any major operations, as the Germans largely remained in port under the cautious von Pohl, but I assume Beatty was still out patrolling. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Read the article from beginning to end and found no glaring issues to report prose-wise. Seems well-written and sourced. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Lead - second para says "returned in February to the United Kingdom". I think "returned to the United Kingdom in February" would be better syntax. Third para says an explosion hurtled parts of the ship. Parts of the ship might hurtle, but an explosion would hurl things. The article looks very interesting. Dolphin (t) 10:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find support in style guides or dictionaries for what you're saying, but I'm not familiar with BritEng style guides ... can you find it? I swapped in "hurl", but I can't make the other change ... "in February where" doesn't work. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the change to refine the syntax. My version: "returned to the UK in February" matches "defending the Dardanelles on 3 November 1914" earlier in the same sentence. Dolphin (t) 22:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have read the complete article and made all the refinements I consider will improve it. It is now ready for FA status. Dolphin (t) 02:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - is there any way to turn up the contrast on File:Invincible&IndefatigableSketch.jpg? It's rather hard to view.
    • Note 1: 20 [in the text] or 30 [in the note] cwt?
      • Good catch, damn computer is supposed to know that what I meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "blended into the haze." -- what haze? You didn't mention it before.
      • It was wasn't a factor earlier, and may not have been present at all.
    • Any reason why "protected place" is in italics? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "No battlecruisers were ordered after the three Invincible-class ships until Indefatigable became the lone battlecruiser of the 1908–09 Naval Programme." This sentence confuses me - No battlecruisers were ordered... until they were ordered?
      • No BCs were ordered between two particular times; makes sense to me. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Seems to be an overuse of commas? Some run on sentences would be better split up e.g.
    • "A new Liberal Government had taken power in January 1906 and demanded reductions in naval spending, and the Admiralty submitted a reduced programme, requesting dreadnoughts but no battlecruisers."
      • Nope. "and" here is called a "paratactic" construction, and it deals with objections that have been raised at FAC in the past when we try to use two sentences, as you're suggesting ("What's the connection between the two sentences?") or a "therefore" ("How does the first sentence imply the second?"). - Dank (push to talk)
    • "Indefatigable, accompanied by the battlecruiser Indomitable and under the command of Admiral Sir Berkeley Milne, encountered the German battlecruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau on the morning of 4 August 1914, which were headed east after a cursory bombardment of the French Algerian port of Philippeville."
      • It would be longer as two sentences, so some say it should be one. I've got some sympathy with your position. - Dank (push to talk)
    • "The Germans sortied from Messina on 6 August and headed east, toward Constantinople, trailed by Gloucester." I don't think there's a grammatical rationale for the comma after east. Just a couple of examples but the whole article needs checked.
      • There is in AmEng. "east towards Constantinople" means the same thing as "towards Constantinople", with some added information. "east, towards Constantinople" means "east", with some added information. Which is more accurate, I don't know. I plead ignorance on BritEng. - Dank (push to talk)
    • What was the "1908–09 Naval Programme"? - I'm not saying the article definitely needs a short summary of it, I'm just saying personally I wondered what this is about.
    • Overlinking? Some low value links such as astern, knots, km/h & mph. Also does one speed need two conversions? 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) This is six extraneous links when you count the Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau & Battle of Jutland sections.
      • If you're saying we shouldn't link at first occurrence, there's more support than not for that. If we're linking the same terms or abbreviations twice, that's different. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I searched "knots"; it's currently linked twice in the text. Personally, I link any term in the text just once, but I don't fail articles in A-class reviews for linking twice, and I'd get bonked on the head if I did. Sturm, your call on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
        • Considering the infobox and the main body separately, my policy is to link once and convert each individual measurement on first occasion. I'll delete any excess links. And, yes, the triple conversion is absolutely necessary as most people have no idea how knots and mph are related.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also link first instance - speed links above these examples not linked.
    • Is "half-sister" a recognised term? i.e. does a sister ship become a half-sister in a different navy?
      • I've asked the same myself. Sturm's position is that the term is used often enough in high-quality sources that we do a service to the reader to use the term. - Dank (push to talk)
        • I'm not sure I understand your question. Does one of a class of ships in service with a different navy mean that it's no longer a sister, but a half-sister? If that's what you meant, then the answer is that it has nothing to do with what navy a ship belonged to, but only refers to differences between them. A half-sister has less in common than a "full sister".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On 3 November 1914, Churchill ordered" - Churchill is just linked with no explanation of his job (First Lord of the Admiralty). I would be very surprised if any reader didn't know who Churchill was, however few will know his full career history.
      • I don't think there's support for omitting a link to a notable person. Feel free to add ", then First Lord of the Admiralty," if you like ... it wouldn't hurt, but I can see Sturm's logic, too; we don't pause in the middle of the narrative to explain the current rank and function of everyone involved. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Is "recoal" a word? Refuel would be better perhaps?
      • I can see Sturm's point, but "refuel" is fine with me, I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk)
        • Perhaps I should have put re-coal instead, but it's a perfectly good word, albeit much out use these days, with most everything oil powered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is Hipper? No explanation given in the five times he's mentioned. A quick Google search tells me he was a German Admiral, however a FA shouldn't require the reader to revert to a search engine to explain important points.
    • The article seems to have gone for 12 hour clock format. Personally I prefer 24 hour, especially for a military subject. However for 12 hour make sure every time has an a.m. or p.m. - in some instances this isn't the case.
      • Nope, we usually get reverted if we say "at 8 a.m. blah, at 8:30 a.m. blah, at 8:45 a.m. blah". It's clear enough what's meant by 8:30 and 8:45 in such a context. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Red link (SMS S68). Mark83 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no firm requirement to avoid red links. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not clutter up the page with response to everything, most don't need it. Just a few things:
  • The first point - no BCs ordered between two times. Yes but the article raises the gap so the article should quantify it. Was it 2 years? 5? 10?
  • I'll add it.
  • My point about "link first instance" which got the "sorry?" reply - MOS says link first instance of a word, not latter instances. Knots was linked on its second occurrence.
  • Quite right, but I've cleaned out the extraneous links.
  • And I added link to first occurrence of "knots". - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Churchill link - Of course I wasn't suggesting omitting a link, my point was that in this case a job title would be beneficial to the reader's understanding of events.
  • Recoal. Yes coal is a verb but surely then re-coal is correct?
  • I've changed it to re-coal.
  • SMS S68 - I was under the mistaken impression that they were frowned upon for FAs. Apologies. Mark83 (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to worry, thanks for taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Any minor quibbles I had have been dealt with. Mark83 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review concerns:

  • File:Invincible&IndefatigableSketch.jpg
    Brassey's Naval Annual is a UK publication. Where is the tag that justifies it is public domain in the UK? Were "reasonable [enquiries]" made to ascertain the identity of the artist? Which page was it printed in Brassey's Naval Annual (1915)? Move it to Wikipedia with {{PD-1923-abroad}} after obtaining the page number.
    • Here's my response from the first FAC that you may not have seen: See [51]. Which references [52] which states that commissioned or freelance work belongs to the artist unless otherwise agreed and that work done as a condition for employment belongs to the employer. So, without an attribution, I'm inclined to think that this is out of copyright in the UK as it was likely done by a staff artist. And here's a link to the title page: [53]. Brassey's makes no exception to copyright for any artists. And the drawing in question, about p. 227, does not list an artist or show any copyright by said artist as it would have to do if the artist retained his copyright.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Elcobbola had not stricken his concern in the previous FAC, and coincidentally, I had consulted him over a similar issue now at User talk:Elcobbola/Archive12#Work for hire - UK. The point, however, is that was a reasonable inquiry made to the owner of Brassey's (which is still in publication) to ascertain the identity of this unnamed artists? If it was a freelancer or commissioned artist, then there is still the possibility of copyright protection. Moving this image to Wikipedia avoids all this concern. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg
    Why would "Photographer not identified" qualify this as a PD-UKGov work? IWM is like the US Library of Congress, collecting various works from all sources to preserve for properity. Their hosting of an image does not necessarily mean it was by a UK government employee.
    • Here's the link to the page on the IWM website discussing (very briefly) the collection: [54] I've added the photographer to the license; he was in the RN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It states "DAY H T (LT CMDR) COLLECTION", basically stating that the photograph comes from the collection donated by Lieutenant Commander Day. It does not really identify Day as the photographer; rather Day donated the item in his possession. That said, might I suggest using File:Indefatigable Blowing Up.jpg instead? It is verifiably in the US public domain (by virtue of pre-1923 publication). As a side note, in the book that the suggested replacement was found, File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg is rendered as a pen-and-ink sketch (p. 17) rather than the use of the photograph itself; a method that hints of avoiding copyright claims. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the two above, the other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang, I curious about your objection to the second image. It was taken aboard a Royal Navy vessel during the battle; I don't think the RN ever allowed "embedded journalists" (or anyone else) on their ships during the war. Which pretty much just leaves RN personnel as the only option for the author. How does not knowing the author's name prevent it from being a work of the British government? Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To perhaps illustrate my point more clearly, I think it would be the same as preventing File:SBDs_and_Mikuma.jpg from being used in an FA because the author is unknown. Thus it cannot be proved with 100% certainty that a member of the USN snapped the photo. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at User talk:Parsecboy#Re: File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [55].

Liberty Head nickel[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the standards. The Liberty Head nickel had a thirty year life, but is best remembered for the mysterious 1913 nickel, of which five are known. It's an interesting story, both for the inception of the nickel, how it came to be replaced, and the strange 1913 piece. It's a good article and, I think, well researched. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2c looks good. Looking at other US coin articles, Liberty used to be free and disheveled with a blood red cap and wild eyes. So sad she's become a plump matron watching the Pinkertons bash strikers... anyway. Richardson, William Allen, ed (1891): is Volume 1 part of the title? Do you feel any need to cite the section contained in this work (the statute?). Yeoman, R.S. (2010): extraneous fullstop after ISBN. Peters, Gloria; Mohon, Cynthia (1995): is the Ampersand part of the title? Possibly check title page? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Charles Barber is not well regarded as a designer of coins. I have taken care of those things. Yes, the ampersand is part.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! All the other citations / bibliographic entries look good to me on 2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the state abbreviations be spelled out in principle YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in the "location" field in the citation template in the bibliography? Is there a MOS way of doing it? All I know is that however I seem to do it, someone objects. I used to use postal abbreviations, it was objected to. This is one of those areas in which I am entirely content to do whatever the reviewer wants, as long as I am not at risk of being tugged between two reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the about page, that indicates contributions by big names in numismatics, and representatives of well-regarded companies such as Stack's and Bowers and Mesena. There are staff writers as well, and editorial oversight. They are also members of the American Numismatic Association, the main umbrella group in the field. I would not say that an individual being an ANA member is much to write home about, but a publication is another matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a link to something showing what this particular author has written in the numismatics field? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the site is only used once, perhaps it is simpler if I just switch it to a news article, so I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I reviewed this article against the Good Article criteria (which it passed), and support based on content, referencing, and language. I still think that the table should be made into a six column table, to shorten it, but this doesn't really factor into its quality against the FA criteria. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support: This went through the GA route rather than PR, so this has been my first reading (though I am becoming quite knowledgeable about American coinages). A few prose issues for consideration:-
    • Non-American readers may be glad of a brief explanation of E Pluribus Unum, rather than being required to use the link
    • In "Folger instead rejected...", the "instead" seems redundant
    • "After heavy coinages of the nickel in 1883 and 1884, there were much lower mintages of the coin..." I appreciate the need to avoid repetition, but this phrasing still reads rather awkwardly. I've played around with it: "After heavy mintages of the nickel in 1883 and 1884, production was much lower in 1885 and 1886", possibly?
    • In the same paragraph, "due to" occurs twice (and again in the first line of the third para of this section)
    • "The first information that there might be a 1913 Liberty head nickel came in December 1919..." sounds a little vague; I was momentarily flummoxed. It would be clearer if the words "in existence" were added after "head nickel".
    • Somewhat convoluted: "The coins remained together until dispersed in 1943, after spending fifteen years in the hands of the eccentric Col. E.H.R. Green, the famous Fort Worth, Texas, area collector." To me a simpler sequence would be "After spending fifteen years in the hands of the eccentric Col. E.H.R. Green, the famous Fort Worth, Texas, area collector, the coins were finally dispersed in 1943."
    • "It is uncertain how the nickels came to be made." Suggest: "It is uncertain how the 1913 nickels came to be made."

Will be happy to support after these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are done, though I modified the language slightly in two cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My concerns expressed above have all been addressed satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Origin: End of the second paragraph needs a period.
  • Space needed after reference 6.
  • 1913: "After spending fifteen years in the hands of the eccentric Col. Col. E.H.R. Green." Double "Col." here.
  • "The Mint's records shows no production of 1913 Liberty head nickels". "shows" → "show".
  • Second word of the Mintage Figures section heading shouldn't be capitalized.
  • The publisher in reference 37 (China Post) should be italicized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Notwithstanding the very minor issues I found (which are now all fixed), I found this to be a fine piece of work, and an interesting read to boot. I'm satisfied that the FA criteria are met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images are appropriately licensed or declared photographs of coins minted before 1923. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all reviewers. Three supports, no opposes, the nom's been up for a bit, and I think all checks are done. If there are remaining issues, I'd be grateful for comments about them.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nice article, no concerns although the Josh Tatum link is a bit of an Easter Egg imho Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but if I left it out, it would not be serving the reader well. Perhaps someone will improve the Tatum article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [56].

The Story of Miss Moppet[edit]

Nominator(s): Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article, though short, meets the criteria. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review No issues. One PD old image, the rest are PD in the US, not in the UK, and must not go to Commons. I tweaked two image descriptions for clarity. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links No dabs, no dead ext links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a read through. Good luck! I remember this one!

  • "The Story of Miss Moppet is a children's story" Repetition
  • (In anticipation of criticism) "a humanized rabbit" According to the OED Online, "humanized" is the correct British English spelling.
  • Do we have anything more on influences, writing and such to talk about before the release?
  • "She is made fun of by a mouse" passive voice?
  • "vignette" Link? Not the most familiar term
  • "she worked best" x argues she worked best?
  • "generalized" Again, though it caught my eye, the OED says this is correct
  • The "merchandise" section is a little listy at the moment.
  • I think {{reflist|3}} would look much neater than the current {{reflist}}
  • There have been objections in the past to using more than 2 columns, I'd go for {{reflist|2}} to avoid problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is such a tiny little book, this is an impressive article. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the recommendations above. I've revised the Merchandise section to rid the section of the list aspect. Sadly, I don't have anything else on influences and writing but I will continue to look. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at the images, are you sure the date on File:Frontispiece Moppet and Mouse.JPG is correct? If so, I think the article is wrong... J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the date is correct. Warne discontinued the panorama format and reprinted the story in book form in 1916. Potter provided a frontispiece at that time. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image page says it was published in 1906? J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image page has been corrected. The date the frontispiece was published is 1916. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Ref 9 lacks "p."
  • Ref 23: hyphen in page range should be dash
  • Some books lack publisher locations. For consistency, this should be either all or none.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ''made fun of — I'd prefer something more adult like badger or taunt
  • safely out of reach — perhaps once safely out of reach
  • toy books — What is a toy book?

Sources don't define. Reworked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The format was popular with readers but unpopular with booksellers — popular/unpopular, two instances. but not with booksellers would be better
  • perches — this archaic unit needs a link or replacing by a decimal fraction of an acre

36 perches = 590 feet. Too much peripheral detail for this article. Belongs in an article about Hill Top. Deleted. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • and first and only published — and published for the first and only time
  • Because he has teased her, she decides to tease him — repeats "tease", perhaps replace second with "torment"?
  • Potter avoided painful pictures — add in her books. She wasn't squeamish, having shot Squirrel Nutkin and boiled Peter Rabbit
  • but it wasn't — was not is more appropriate

Completed. Thank you for the review! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, changed to support above. FWIW, there is an article toy book, but the phrase seems to have gone anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and though it was pretty much at FA quality then. I like the additions and changes since, and am glad to support. I provided the original conversion for acres and perches, and since perches are now out, I added a {{convert}} template for the acres and fixed another so the order was more traditional. I have a few quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
    • Should the section "Background" have a more accurate name? The last three paragraphs are about this book, so perhaps "Background and publication" or "Background and composition"?
    • In the Illustrations section, try to avoid the word "model" in two sentences in a row. Since one is in direct quote, change the first one here to something like "subject"? The kitten she borrowed from a mason working at Hill Top in July 1906 was a feisty, difficult model [subject?].
    • In Style and theme section avoid "writes ... writing" in M. Daphne Kutzer, Professor of English at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, writes in Beatrix Potter: Writing in Code (2003) that Miss Moppet was more successful than its companion piece ... perhaps use "observes" or "notes" or "states" instead of "writes"?
    • Does this need a comma? Stuffed toy manufacturers had sought licensing rights as early as 1906[,] but it was was not until the 1970s that an English firm was granted worldwide rights.
    • I see on Amazon that the book is still in print, which should probably be mentioned as most books this old are out of print. I also know that some of Potter's works in the US have been reprinted. I have seen Peter Rabbit with her illustrations and simplified text, or with her text and new ilustrations. Has anything similar been done for Miss Moppet? Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and thank you for your support! I deleted the perches because I thought it was too much detail for this article but I'm open to returning it if you or others think it so. I did keep your conversion of the acres and thank you! As far as I know, Potter's complete works have never been out of print in the UK or US. She was and still is Warne's best seller and it would not be in their best interest to retire any of her works! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with leaving perches out in any article except the one on the farm itself. I would definitely mention that her complete works are still in print in the US and UK, and if you have a reliable source for it, that they have never been out of print. I would also add that they are Warne's best sellers.
  • If you know anything about translations into other languages or the number of countries in which her books have been published that would also be good to add (just thought of these). I do not think it has to be a detailed list (no need for the date of the 3rd Albanian edition of Miss Moppet) but some sort of general statements about languages and countries would help show the worldwide popularity of Potter's works (and I imagine this could be a statement about all of her works and not just Miss Moppet, since her works seem to be treated as a set).
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the official Warne "Peter Rabbit" website on Potter and her works could be added as a useful External Link.
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like the new Translations section, but think it might be better titled as something like "Reprints and translations". I also think it might be better to have the first sentence of the section be moved to become the first sentence of the second paragraph - as it is now, it has a sentence on translations, then talks about the history of the Warne firm and The Original and Authorized Edition of the 23 little books, then goes back to translations in the second paragraph. I think I would also add to the first paragraph the fact that, as of 2010, all of Potter's books are still in print, including our own Miss Moppet. Finally, I am pretty sure that MOS would refer to Ruth K. McDonald as just McDonald here, as she was already identified by full name earlier, so In 1986, Ruth K. MacDonald argued that the Potter books had become a traditional part of childhood in both English-speaking lands and those in which the books had been translated.[29] Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of my concerns have been addressed now. Nicely done and I think that this will be a good model for other articles on Beatrix Potter works. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would remove the word "argues" almost every time that it occurs, eg. In 1986, MacDonald argued that the Potter books had become a traditional part of childhood in both English-speaking lands and those in which the books had been translated.[28]
Unless you are going to produce a "case", the word is inappropriate. It's an encyclopedia article, not a university paper in response to a question. Amandajm (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My first reaction is that there are a lot of images, a lot of which seem to be distracting because of the way they collide with section headings. Consider using the clear template to put some space between the end of the image and beginning of the following section heading. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have this problem but I'll enter the clear temp for those who do! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I have the same problem as the person above me (I don't know if it's just my web browser...). Might I suggest making the images smaller if the "clear" templates prove to disruptive?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks much better, however there are still like two or three images that run into the next heading.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the problem so it's difficult fro me to see exactly what's going on. But I entered a clear template at the end of each section. Hope this helps! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2010 all of Potter's 23 small format books were still in print, and available as individual volumes, collected in a single 400-page hardcover volume, or as individual hardcover volumes packaged as collections in presentation boxes."--all the grammatical breaks in this sentence make it hard to understand, I think one or more commas could be removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Concerning the "footnotes"...can't you do that thing where they all link down to their respective books? Like here?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They link both up and down for me. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant how you click on the name and year, Ex. Ref #9 "Linder 1971", and it sends you down to the corresponding book under "bibliography."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NYMFan69-86, there is no requirement in FAC for an article to use a specific style of reference footnotes, just that it be well cited and that the footnotes be done in a consistent style. Just an FYI, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but its awfully more convenient. If the nominator doesn't want to change it I don't mind, it's an easy switch though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if integrating the material in "Illustrations" across the article would be wise? I think this section is slim. Actually I think all the material in "Illustrations" could be incorporated into the "Publication" section after the first paragraph. This would mean eliminating the frontispiece image which is OK with me. I'm going to set this up the way I think it will work. If others like something else or change back to the original let me know. I expanded the Bakcground section taking the reader all the way back to Potter's birth. I like this expansion. It provides context and where Potter was "coming from". What do you think about these changes? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new material and changes in general, but now the article needs to have references added for the first two paragraphs and the didactic verse sentence in the Background section. I tweaked the image layout and added the frontispeice illustration back in (this way the images all alternate right/left, and there are no sections without an image). If I had to remove an image, it would be the one of Cruikshank's Comic Alphabet, not one of Potter's. I am not sure Amazon.com and Abebooks.com are the best reliable sources. I assume at least some of the Amazon material could be sourced to the books themselves (i.e. cite the omnibus edition of all of Potter's works, and the Braile and Kindle versions). One problem with citing abebooks is that it singles out one group of antiquarian booksellers over others - not sure the ref is needed, but will let others weigh in on this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get busy with those references. No problem. And I like your layout of the pictures and the revisions to the captions! Thanks! I wondered about Abebooks but thought "Put it in. Reviewers will give their expert advice about its reliability." Thank you again. I look forward to your comments and advice! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-Concerning the first paragraph under background...how much of that information is necessary?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cut some of this section. What remains is context. It tells the reader where Potter was "coming from" in her art and her interests in nature. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it reads much better (the bit about her brother's education was what I was talking about specifically and it's now gone).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NYMFan69-86:

  • "Potter's adolescence was as uneventful as her childhood."-I think uneventful is as bit of an odd word. I know in the last paragraph you said quiet, perhaps another word could be used?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done "quiet" ... "quiet". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • In the first sentence, can "Victorian" be linked?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence, "published for Christmas 1906"--published for the holiday? Time period? I just don't know what "published for" exactly means here.
Done. "Published for the Christmas season 1906" Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sometime after 1913 Miss Moppet"--comma after 1913.
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kindle edition"--can something be put int parenthesis to explain quickly what this is (something like [electronic format])?
Done "electronic format". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1954 and a plush toy Miss Moppet was"--"of" between "toy" and "Miss Moppet."
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in general, the lead says nothing of Potter's background.
Done. Expanded the lead. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • More of a question: "born on 28 July 1866"--when written in this format, is a comma needed anywhere (I just don't know)?
No, a comma is not needed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "last governess Annie Carter Moore"-link governess
Linked earlier in the text. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see it now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1900 Potter revised a tale"--comma after 1900
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 25 August 1905 before a marriage"--again, the comma thing (I'm unsure)
No comma needed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before a marriage took place."--What marriage?
Their marriage, but I've deleted this line. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I still don't know how much of this information is totally necessary. When I think of "background," I think of course of the author's history, but also some background on the actual book itself.
I might be able to drop a word or two, but I think it's needed to establish background and credentials. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reading back over it, I'm fine with the information and I now notice some of the content I wanted is currently in the "Development and publication" section (which is fine).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope this helps to better the article. More to follow.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development and publication

  • "1906, Potter was occupied with developing The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher,"--wouldn't it suffice to say, "was developing The Tale..."?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She typically worked on two projects at the same time for variety, and, while developing Jeremy Fisher, began experimenting with book formats for very young children just acquiring verbal skills."--it seems like this sentence has two main ideas, which leads to confusion.
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She developed three stories – The Story of Miss Moppet, The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit and The Sly Old Cat."--was this still in 1906?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Potter's Miss Moppet catches a mouse but Potter avoided painful"--repetition of "Potter"
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit was published in panorama format in December 1906 alongside Miss Moppet but was later published in the small book format."--is this sentence saying that both or just "Bad Rabbit" were later sold in the small book format?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "facing the reader because Warne was republishing the story"--just a suggestion, maybe here, since its been a while since this has been mentioned, you could say "Frederick Warne & Co. "?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " she thought Appley Dapply a book for the very young."--is the word "was" supposed to be between "Dapply" and "a"?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All these concerns have been answered. I just thought one "Done" would be sufficient. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot:

  • "The page is turned"--since the chronology isn't based on page numbers throughout most of the rest of the summary, I don't think this phrase is necessary here.
I've changed "the page is turned" in all instances because the first edition was a panorama without actual pages to be turned. Page turning is an important aspect of designing children's picture books. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comes sliding down the bell-pull"--knowing that I may very well be called an idiot, what's a "bell-pull?"
A cord that when pulled in the master's room rang a bell in the servant's quarters. I don't want to change or delete this because it's Potter's own and there's a picture of the mouse on the bell-pull. It provides some social class context -- only an upper middle class (and above) household would have bell-pulls and servants. Certainly a reflection of Potter's social background and perhaps her target audience? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I linked bell pull Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A link will suffice, I didn't want it removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miss Moppet is looking worse and worse."--this sentence implies a fair amount of time is elapsing (which I assume isn't the case), could it be either reworked or scratched?
This is Potter's text: "Miss Moppet looks worse and worse." I like quotations from the text in the summary. They give the reader a sense of the author's style. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this in quotes before or am I just going insane? If it's a direct quote than I have no problem with it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of view in this section switches a few times, sometimes its the reader ("The page is turned and Miss Moppet is seen seated...") and other times its the characters ("She has forgotten the hole in the duster and..."). Can this be kept consistent?
Done. Reworked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly (for this section), since this is a book being discussed, can some content about a possible theme be included. I know it's a children's book, but surely something could be put in.
The theme is teasing and it's mentioned several times (lead, style and themes, plot). Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But these areas only cover it superficially. The "Victorian tale about teasing" bit, is all that can be mentioned?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm weary of the fact that the "style and theme" section only cites two different sources...can no other information be found?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This story has not attracted a lot of scholarly attention or analysis. It was written for babies and very young children. It is considered one of Potter's lesser efforts and even a failure in its format. I've exhausted the mainstream sources: Linder, MacDonald, Taylor, Kutzer. I too wish there was more to say about the theme but I don't think anythng else will be found at this time. I'm surprised we have as much as we do. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry there aren't as many sources as on would hope there would be. If nothing else can be found or added, than I have serious problems with this article. A fair bit of it doesn't even concern this book. Take for instance the sixth paragraph under "Development and publication." It's never really established why this information about other works is relevant. I'm sorry my review has been so disjunct over the last week or so, but I will soon begin to take a hard look at this article (as of right now though, I'm leaning toward oppose).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All three books were intended for babies and very young children and all three books were previously mentioned in the text. Some readers will be left wondering about Bad Rabbit and Sly Cat and this paragraph only ties up the loose ends. It can be abridged, but as it stands it is not doing significant damage to the article and I'm not completely convinced it's a digression.
I'm disappointed you're leaning toward oppose. You've put so much time on your review, I feel you're a collaborator! Anyway, every word published in reliable sources about Miss Moppet has been paraphrased here. There is nothing else. Thank you for your review. There's no doubt in my mind that the article has improved! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your optimism. Even in the short amount of time since I've arrived there's been great improvements in the article (not necessarily just from my review). I will gladly continue to work with you on the article as I continue to make my concerns more specific.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"She bought Hill Top, a farm in the Lake District."--I have a problem with this sentence because a) hill top is a disambiguated link and b) because it's never established what/where the "Lake District" is.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hill Top has been linked as has Lake District. I don't think Lake District needs to be explained further here. The link should be sufficient. Don't you think? I'm slowly going over the article right now trying to catch such oversights. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for throwing in those links. For lake district I was just thinking something in parenthesis to give some context (up until that sentence in the lead, no information on her native country is given, so we don't know which "Lake District" is being discussed). Perhaps just "North West England?"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Question to NYMFan69 - what is the basis of your potential oppose? Which of the FA criteria do you feel are not being met? Note that 1 (c) is well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. If the article reflects all that is available in reliable sources, then it meets 1c. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are specifically with criterion 1 (a) and 2 (a). I've given the first few sections a once over, but that was only focused on grammatical problems (I have yet to get to every section). My initial sweep (which yielded the concerns above) had little to nothing to do with content, simply spelling/links/grammatical structure. Along the way, I've developed issues with the text in certain areas (which I haven't even listed on the review page yet, although I plan to do so soon). I feel like the lead may be a bit too long (especially for such a short article).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Overall, I feel like the article's close, it just needs some work to fully meet all of the criteria.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – Several references still have page ranges without en dashes, which the MoS prefers over hyphens. I count 1, 3, 6, 16, 18, 21, 25, and 39 as needing dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a script to replace hyphens with en dashes in page ranges? I don't know enough about it. Can anyone help? Tell me how to run it or where to find it. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've run a script over it and I think it got everything. There's a link to the script code in the edit summary, if you're interested in using it. Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for running the script! I'm going to learn to do it! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could or would someone convert 5 1⁄16 × 4 5⁄16 inches into millimetres for me? All the measurements of the various book formats in the article are stated first in mm and then in (inches) and I need to get this one converted for consistency. I don't know how to do it. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - since the other measurements were all to the ones place in mm, I rounded the fractional inch conversions to the nearest mm. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ruhrfisch! I'm learning a bit at a time about these sorts of things! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviewconcerns:

  • File:Miss Moppet Interior Title Page.JPG
    I am not too certain if it is from a direct straight angle (like File:Miss Moppet Panorma Portion.jpg) to qualify as a faithful reproduction of 2D: the right third of the image is, however, nothing creative to crow about (so can there be copyright awarded for this)...
    We can cut off the right-third, thereby indisputably qualifying for 2D and getting rid of the watermark
I entered this image because it might clarify how the "book" actually worked. The right third (panorama strip) folded onto the "title page" and then the left third onto this with the tab tucked into a slot. I entered a better reproduction. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Potter and her mother Helen Leech Potter.JPG, File:Beatrix Potter with her father and brother 1894.JPG
    Were these family photographs published (authorised by Potter, the daughter) in the US and compliant with US copyright laws after her father's death?
    I don't know. I have seen them in various books about Potter and attributed to her father so assumed they were free because he (as author) died in 1914. I am not thoroughly versed in the details of use of images so if there is a question about their use here, let's remove them at once. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    UK law has provisions for the transference of copyrights upon death of author. Which pre-1977 books did you see these two photographs in? If they (the books) never registered and renewed for US copyrights, then the URAA does not apply and we would not need to worry if US law protects these photographs. Jappalang (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think both were from a book dated 1996. I have no problem removing these images. If that's the way to go, let's do it. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed and replaced the pics with something from commons. All the copyright laws are too complex for me to grasp. I entered the pics simply because the author has been dead for 70+ years. Not critical to the article anyway. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pity. If we can find the images were printed in The Life of Beatrix Potter, there would be no qualms in using them (since there is no renewal records for this book). Jappalang (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the two above (the first not so much). The other Images are in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NYMFan69-86:

Scholarly commentaries

  • The first sentence of this section seems quite long and does little in the way of providing a "smooth transition."
Reworked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Potter's ability to pare text and illustrations to essentials"--is that the correct "pare?"
Yes. To trim. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...animosity between cat and mouse with the cat the dominant character"--I think this is correct as is, but possibly the word "being" could be inserted between "cat" and "the."
Ok, done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "companion piece The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit according to M. Daphne"--correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't "The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit" be in quotes?
It's a book title so it belongs in italics. I de-linked tho. It's linked previously. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise

  • First sentence of second paragraph, repetition of "Potter."
Changed second Potter to "her". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Christmas ornament and music box tapping Miss Moppet's image"--what does "tapping" mean here?
"select, designate - He was tapped for police commissioner." I've reworked this. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A plush Miss Moppet was released in 1973."--could "plush" be linked?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reprints and translations

  • The first sentence of this section is worded oddly. Couldn't you say something like the works are "still in print today?" (If indeed that's the case).
MoS I beleive asks us to avoid using "today", "currently", "at present", "recently", etc. Indeed they are still in print. The omnibus in evidence and the complete collection in a presentation box. These little books will never be out of print. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know that. Okay. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miss Moppet was available in electronic format."--was -> is
This section is best set in 2010. "In 2010, the book was available in an electronic format." Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be mean but...why?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, the guidelines ask us not to place this sort of information in the present tense. In 2012, the book may not be available in an eformat and the article will contain this misinformation. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the sentence is still a bit odd as it suggests that now its not available in electronic format (but I assume it is).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entire collection in 1987 as The Original and Authorized Edition."--Depending on how the source says this, should "The Original and Authorized Edition" be in quotes?
Done. It's in single quotes in the source. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning the third paragraph, what is the relevance of the last two sentences...as it discusses a different book?
Intended to demonstrate the breadth of translation. There are very very very few authors that make it as far as braille and hieroglyphics. No problem removing this. Not crucial to Miss Moppet. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The article says twice (once in the lead and once in the body) that TSOMM is a "Victorian moral tale", but what does this actually mean? Victoria was long-dead by this time, and there doesn't appear to be any particularly "Victorian" value in the moral that "teasing and bullying is bad" (a Victorian moral ending would either be "Miss Moppet and the mouse put their differences aside and work together for the Greater Good", or "Miss Moppet decides the mouse is incorrigibly bad and kills it"). – iridescent 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term is from the source with no further explanation. I can't define "Victorian moral tale" -- it has to come from the source (Kutzer). I can't possibly know what Kutzer means unless she explains. The best I can do is link it but linking takes us to Morality play. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The absence of the following source seems to be a glaring omission in the "Scholarly commentaries" section. Let me know if you'd like a copy emailed. Sasata (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An Aristotelian Analysis of "Miss Moppet"
James M. Redfield
Chicago Review, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1985), pp. 32-41 JSTOR 25305287
Sure, send a copy! This must be about the classical unities. But if you rather just add a paragraph or two to the appropriate section based on the "Aristotelian Analysis" article please do! You'd be a collaborator and I have no issues with sharing! I created an email account just for the article: aristotleanalysis@yahoo.com Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, but literary criticism just isn't my thing... I wouldn't know Aristotle from a plate-o'French Fries. However, I'll review the article once you've added this bit. PDF has been sent. Sasata (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking your time to send the material. I'm having some trouble downloading the file. It's scanned for viruses then I'm asked Download Now? but when I click on Yes nothing happens. I'll continue to try. I'm anxious to read this article! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, feel free to mail me another email address to try sending to; I'm using a Mac and don't have virus issues on my end. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm really not seeing any of the issues NYMFan's seeing; to me, this is comprehensive with no obvious scope for improvement. TSOMM is only 220 words long and had no impact on either Potter's or anyone else's work; there really is not a lot to say about it unless one wants to go into unnecessary technical detail about print techniques and distribution. – iridescent 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: In conjunction with the few remaining concerns above, I have two other (sort of small) problems with the article (once all are fixed or I've been proven wrong I'll support). 1) I feel like the lead must be shortened. Right now it's four good sized paragraphs long and goes into too much detail. 2) Can the actual words of the book be included in the article (in quotes preferably)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second point is not a valid request. First off the whole text is already available on Wikisource and linked in the article. More importantly, per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[2] Wikipedia articles are not ... Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books ..." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been abridged. Entering the entire text wouldn't work without all the illustrations. The first page for example begins, (picture) "This is a Pussy"; the second page begins (picture) "This is the mouse"; and the third page begins (picture) "This is Miss Moppet jumping". I think only very short poems are permitted to be entered in their entirety in an article. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay, it was just a question. :-o
The lead looks much better, just one sentence about the author's history could be reinserted so that it encompasses the full content of the article again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical info entered. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only remaining concern (after that bit is put back in the lead) is about the sentence "Miss Moppet was available in electronic format," which still seems odd because it is available like that today (near support).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been reworked to indicate the elect. format was released in 2005. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from things which are fairly certain not to change ("Argentina is the second largest country in South America"), it's Wikipedia policy to use {{asof}} {{CURRENTDATE}} rather than "is currently" (the relevant part of the MOS is here). Since changing this would break the MOS, it's not a valid objection. – iridescent 07:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for something like "today..." to be put in. It's a valid objection because the sentence doesn't make sense to me. Why can't something like "Miss Moppet is available in electronic format" be said?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it's been addressed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support: I now believe that, due to the exhaustive work by Susanne2009NYC, this is Featured Article quality. Great work by the nominator. My one condition is that Sasata's source must be incorporated.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to download the PDF file for some reason. I've asked another to look into this. Right off the bat, I'm a bit reluctant to use the material because it's so old and I don't find the article cited in any of my Potter sources. Unlike Linder, MacDonald, and Taylor, Redfield's name isn't connected with Potter research and studies. He has an article at Wikipedia; his specialty appears to be Ancient Greece with a book published about Hector's role in The Iliad. His website doesn't list an interest in Potter but rather in Ancient Greece. It's obvious Miss Moppet obeys Aristotle's unities of time, action, and place, but what could be said in a ten-page article about Miss Moppet that the Potter scholars have missed or neglected? I suspect the article is more about the classical unities with Miss Moppet being used as a moderm example to demonstrate them rather than Oedipus Rex which surely has already been done. I'm curious and hope I can get a copy of the article, but it might be enough to list it in a "Further reading" section with a link to Jstor. I hate to lose your support on Miss Moppet because you've put so much time and effort in bringing it up to FA level. It seems you're throwing all of your effort away. I'm disappointed that you're making your support contingent upon the inclusion of material from an article the Potter scholars have neglected, overlooked, or ignored, and which may contain nothing significant about Miss Moppet. I hope to secure this article but if, in my opinion, there's nothing useful in it, I won't cite it. Let's see what develops. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that others have "neglected, overlooked, or ignored" Redfield's analysis does not mean that this wiki article should do the same. I'm sure you'll find something useful in it when you have a chance to read it; I think we would be remiss to pass this as a FA without mentioning this scholar's analysis. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I not quite sure I agree and I do not agree that we would be remiss in passing on this article if it contains nothing useful or appropriate. The scholars on up-to-date Potter research have passed on it. They haven't processed it and I'm not quite sure why we should it include it if they have found nothing useful in it for their material. As I mentioned, it is very old and not written by an authority on Potter, her work, or even on English literature. If you were writing an article on the whooping crane would you cite material published by an expert on Ancient Greece? Why? Material should not be included in any article at Wikipedia simply because it's in print. This is not editing, this is just collecting. The editor's job is to evaluate material and choose that material that is best for the article -- not to simply collect every word published on a topic. An editor's job is one of assessment and evaluation. As I said, if I can't use this material, I won't cite it but enter it in a "Further reading" section. I am very disturbed that this article is being "held hostage" to a demand that material be included from an article that has not been seen by anyone here and is not recommended by authorities on Potter and her works. What is being said is this: "I won't support this article unless material is included from an article that is 25+ years old, not recommended by Potter scholars, not written by a Potter scholar but an expert on Ancient Greece, and not seen by me." I am waiting to receive the article, and hope there is something I can use but, as I said, if I can't use it I won't cite it but enter it in a "Fruther reading" section. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you consider M. Daphne Kutzer a "Potter scholar" or not, but you have used her 2003 book "Beatrix Potter: Writing in Code" as a source in this article. Please note the presence of Redfield's article in her bibliography on page 174. Could you consult that source and see what she has to say? Sasata (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kutzer has written one of the few books that examine all of Potter's 23 small format books so, yes I would consider her a Potter scholar and miles ahead of a Ancient Greece scholar on the subject of Miss Moppet. Anyway, she lists the Redfield essay in the bibliography of her book under Works About Beatrix Potter. Being a conscientious scholar she probably read everything on Miss Moppet available, but this does not mean she used what she read. She does not cite Redfield in a footnote in her examination on Miss Moppet and because she doesn't I would think she found nothing useful. I'm waiting on the article. Let's see what develops. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly with Susanne here. 1(c) says the article should be representative of the relevant literature. It does not say, nor was it ever intended to mean, "we include every single pet theory". Beatrix Potter books are regularly used as examples because of their extreme simplicity; unless this particular paper has had a significant impact on how other people have dealt with the matter, demanding it be included is no more appropriate than the never-ending demands to include V for Vendetta on Guy Fawkes. – iridescent 18:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just from the link provided by Sasata I can see that the article needs some of this information. Take for instance the lines on page 35: "This is to be a story about Cat and Mouse. The cat is a predator, and mouse its natural prey. Furthermore, cats (unlike most predators) play with their wounded prey. (This is to be a factor in the story.)" I see nothing in the article currently that even addresses the predator/prey relationship of cats and mice. Does no one else see the value in this type of analysis?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I for one certainly don't. I'll go as far as to say that if "commentary about the predator/prey relationship of cats and mice" is added, I'll change to oppose, as to me it's ludicrously inappropriate. – iridescent 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your logic whatsoever. The biological relationship between the only two characters of the story is much more important that the author's brother's education...which would have been left in had I not come here and vied for its exclusion.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more reply, and then I'm done here; if you really think it's appropriate for us to have to explain that "cats eat mice", I've really nothing to say to you since we're obviously operating on utterly different wavelengths. – iridescent 19:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't even care if you come back and read this or not, but I must say that the driving force behind the whole plot of the story just might be an important inclusion. The Redfield reference additionally includes underlying metaphors of the story...something the article totally lacks but I was initially willing to overlook because "there [were] no more sources out there."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Having read Redfield's analysis in full, I think that the Wiki article is incomplete without mentioning it, and does not yet meet criteria 1(c) "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Sasata (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking oppose; not supporting because I haven't read the article with the scrutiny I usually use before supporting an FAC, but with all the extra eyes on it today I have little doubt it now meets the standard. Sasata (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've had this watched since it first came up, but haven't actually had the opportunity to review. I've read Redfield's analysis, and don't see that it's a criticism of Potter's work per se. Instead, he's using what he refers to as an "ameoba" of a tale to prove Aristotle's Poetics - in other words the emphasis is on the Poetics more than on the tale. For whatever that's worth. I'll have a look at that article, but am not convinced this type of literary analysis is necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just quickly read the article and think it does say something about the story that can be included here. I have sent an email to Susanne2009NYC's email address that she gave above in which I pasted the text into the email (so if you can open the email, you can read the article, it is not a PDF). I also think that the emphasis on predator / prey mentioned above is misleading. The very next paragraph says in part "We, however, are not cats or mice, and we cannot imagine how the world appears to such creatures. No one ever really wrote a story about a mouse. Stories, whatever their ostensible characters, are always stories about people. ... The relation between cat and mouse, in a story, is a metaphor for certain human relations." (page 35, italics in the original). The author goes on to look at the story, at Potter as a story teller, and at how the story teaches children by teasing them in a way. I think it is probably worth a paragraph or two in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a certain context to the analysis, but I find it important nonetheless. For this article not to even mention the predator/prey relationship of cats and mice is...well, unbelievable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The predator - prey relationship between cat and mouse is universally understood -- and has been since time immemorial. It needs no explanation here, especially from a scholar whose specialty is Ancient Greece. Would you expect an explanation of the biological relationship between the human male and female in an article about Romeo and Juliet or Madame Bovary? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's "unbelievable" is that you think that needs to be explained. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not explained...noted. Alas, it's not a deal breaker. The Redfield source has been incorporated nicely so, as per what I said before, I'm a supporter.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm re-reading a second time. If added to the article, it should be done to indicate that the story follows the tenets of Artistotle's Poetics (which it appears to do); however, this article should not be about Aristotle's Poetics; Redman truly is only using the tale as an example. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not a literary critic (but I play one on TV ;-) ), but I think if I were writing a paragraph on Redman's article for inclusion in the article, it would be something like this.
James M. Redfield finds the story follows the tenets of Aristotle's Poetics, with a definite beginning (the unsuccessful attmept to catch the mouse), middle (Miss Moppet pretending to be hurt and catching the mouse), and end (Miss Moppet teasing the mouse and his escape). Redfield notes Potter makes the outcome of the plot uncertain and creates parity between the characters, which are naturally predator and prey, by making Miss Moppet "young, inexperienced, female, and a pet", while the mouse is "mature, courageous, male, and independent". (page 36) Redfield praises Potter's skill as an author; she uses the hole in the duster twice (it allows Miss Moppet to catch the mouse, but then allows him to escape her), and uses phrases particularly suited for a parent to read aloud to a child ("This is the mouse..."). Redfield concludes that while teasing is bad in the story — dangerous for the mouse, and cruel for the cat — Potter herself teases the reader in a good way, in that she "shows us that teasing is a kind of loving when it is a kind of teaching. The poet plays with us, and by taking us through an unreal experience, teaches us what it is to live in the real world." (page 41)

I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that would be an excellent addition. Do you agree Susanne2009NYC? Sasata (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' - I recall GA reviewing one of Susanne's Potter articles a while back, and found it delightful. Then again, that's the subject matter I suppose. I think the arguments above about the lack of scholarly review may have some merit, but if Susanne says that what is in the article is all that there is, that's good enough for me. I've helped write articles where little expert opinion exists, and claims that "it somehow needs....more..." aren't helpful. I think the article needs a sweep with the copyedit brush (I've already had a look at the lead), but I think this is an otherwise fine piece of work. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd like to see a sentence or two along the lines of Truthkeeper's suggestion above, but I don't see that as a deal-breaker. A couple of other small things occurred to me as I read the article, all easily fixed or refuted.
    • Is it really relevant in the lead to say that Potter was born in London? If so, why?
No. Potter's nationality is as well known as Shakespeare's and Dicken's. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "First editions in the panorama format and early editions in hardcover format were offered by antiquarian booksellers." But are no longer?
Not for long. Rumor says they are being snapped up like hotcakes. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some time after 1913 Potter provided a frontispiece for Miss Moppet and a title page vignette of a mouse on all fours facing the reader because Frederick Warne & Co was republishing the story in a book format with slightly smaller dimensions ...". I'm not certain I'm following this. She produced the illustration because the book was being reprinted in a smaller format? Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She provided a frontispiece and title page vignette because the panorama format was discontinued and the story republished in a traditional book format. The panorama format did not have a frontispiece and its title page can be seen in one of the pics. I've clarified this in the text. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me; the dimensions of the book changed, and the existing illustration didn't fit the new cover shape. – iridescent 21:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malleus, could you please clarify for me your statement that you'd "like to see a sentence or two along the lines of Truthkeeper's suggestions"? I see an Oppose from Sasata (who says "literary criticism is not [his] thing"), a suggested paragraph from Ruhrfisch, and from Truthkeeper, "I'll have a look at that article, but am not convinced this type of literary analysis is necessary," followed by "If added to the article, it should be done to indicate that the story follows the tenets of Artistotle's Poetics (which it appears to do); however, this article should not be about Aristotle's Poetics; Redman truly is only using the tale as an example." It's not clear to me who stands where on this, with respect to Ruhrfisch's proposed text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favour of adding something along the lines suggested by Ruhrfisch, the paragraph beginning "James M. Redfield finds the story follows the tenets of Aristotle's Poetics ...", which I think has now been done anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article is in fine shape and I think it fully meets the criteria. I downloaded and read Redfield, and I think it would be a mistake to work it into this article. Imagine a scholar of anything worked up a theory and published a paper in which he applied it to "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star". Would you write about it in Twinkle's article? I think not, unless major scholars of music agreed it was important and cited it in their own works. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see Redfield as a literary critic, who specializes in ancient Greek literature. He uses his critical skills to analzye "The Story of Miss Moppet" as a work of literature. If all he did were show how the Poetics applied in the case of Miss Moppet, I can see only giving this a mention (James A. Redfield has analyzed the story in terms of Aristotle's Poetics.) but he focuses on what Potter did as an author and on the nature of teasing. I think it is worth including. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and thank you Ruhrfisch for sending me the article! I just read it and planned to write a paragraph or two this evening but you're leagues ahead of me! I took the liberty of entering your work word for word in the article. It's excellent and cannot be bettered. (I'll take care of the reference formatting later tonight.) Once again, thank you very much! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Redfield article again and I'm not happy with it. It doesn't "sit" well with me and I've had a sleepless night. I won't be happy until I removed the third paragraph about teasing. I prefer to see this sort of thing delivered by a child psychologist or kid's lit specialist rather than a scholar whose expertise is Ancient Greece. I accept the Aris. analysis because this is Redf.'s area of expertise and I've expanded the 1st parag. accordingly. I'm not quite sure about the cat and mouse experiencing a katharsis. There's nothing in the text or the illustrations to indicate this sort of thing occurs. When Redf. begins making pronouncements about Potter being an educator, a good parent, and a tease I think he's off the mark a bit. This is not his area of expertise. He was writing well before really-intense scholarly research on Potter was available. I've moved the paragraph about the secondary characteristics and the uncertain outcome to the top of the plot section where it serves as something of a real world intro to the plot summary. I'm less certain about the third paragraph. I understand it because I've read Redf. but I think it will be a mystery to juvenile users, drive-by readers, and adults of above average intelligence. I think this paragraph should be removed because it's confusing. While it could be clarified and expanded, I think it would give undue weight to this one scholar's theories. I'm open to suggestions but there's a lot here I'd just as soon remove. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with your "undue weight" argument. I was quite astonished to see that level of analysis, which would clearly be more appropriate elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree as well. In my view the Redfield piece doesn't so much analyze the tale but uses the tale to analyze Aristotlean forms and the Poetics - a subtle but important distinction. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Susanne2009NYC's judgment, especially as I have not read any of the criticism but Redfield's. As far as weight goes, looking at sources listed, Redfield devotes 10 pages (32-41) to analysis of Miss Moppet, MacDonald appears to have 4 pages (50-53), and Kutzer 2 pages (129-130). I realize this is more of a quality argument (Redfield is a clasicist, not a scholar of children's literature) than a quantity argument, but he is at least more prolix than the others. Given the earlier discussion on perhaps including more on the theme of teasing in the story, I also note he does specifically address teasing (although this is not longer mentioned in the paragraph). I do think the new version of the Redfield paragraph needs to be copyedited so it is tighter. It uses the words Aristotle or Aristotelian 5 times, and links the fairly common term Professor, but does not link the relatively uncommon term murid. I am also not sure the reader needs to be told ""An Aristotelian Analysis of Miss Moppet" is an academic article - hard to imagine it appearing anywhere else ;-) Finally, since the academic disciplines of Redfield (Classics) and Kutzer (English) are given, the field of MacDonald shoud also be given (if known). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ruhfisch. I have a problem with Redfield's comments on teasing. They are general comments rather than specific comments about Miss Moppet ("Some teasing is loving, some teasing is hating") and seem to be about child development rather than Miss Moppet ("through teasing the child learns to control his hostile feelings"). These observations aren't specifically about Miss Moppet and when he writes about Potter teasing us his observations can be applied to any author. His comments about teasing are not specifically about Miss Moppet. They're general comments. I'm fine with the Aristotelian Analysis, that's Redfield's area of expertise but even here I think he almost chose Moppet at random and went looking for the classical tenets. This could be conducted using any work of fiction. For me, his comments about catharsis are forced. He's carried the Aris. Analysis to the bitter end and needs to find a catharsis, the most potent of Aristotle's tenets. There's no indication a catharsis happens. Miss Moppet is last seen holding the empty duster and staring blankly at the reader. I think this is one of the funniest pictures in the book but it would be difficult to conclude from this pic that Miss Moppet has experienced a catharsis. You did brilliant work in summarising Redfield but I think Redfield is not focused specifically on Moppet re the teasing angle and this will confuse drive by readers who have not read his article. I have bad feelings about using all of Redfield. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the c/e of the paragraph and the explanation of your concerns with Redmond's article. I understand your position and am fine with the article as it now stands. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Miss Moppet breaks the fourth wall when she discovers the mouse has escaped.
Someone reading the article ought not have to look up "fourth wall" to find out what the caption is about. This needs to be captioned in a manner that does not use a metaphor like "breaks the fourth wall". Amandajm (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [57].

Mechanical filter[edit]

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a great article. It is a sister article to distributed element filter which has previously achieved FA. Mechanical filters are an alternative method of achieving the same thing in electronics. The article follows a similar structure and style to the DEF article and where there was doubt, the already promoted DEF article was consulted as a template. Mechanical filter has undergone a Good Article review with user Materialscientist, a Peer Review with users Finetooth and Catslash, an "unofficial" Peer Review with user Ruhrfisch and a "line-by-line" review from user Cryptic C62 SpinningSpark 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this FAC in terms of the article's clarity and accessibility. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs) September 18, 2010

Sources comments: Re the above anonymous entry, it is surely unnecessary to oppose on the grounds of nitpicks of this nature. The use of "Taylor & Huang" in the cites is not contrary to MOS policy per the link provided; so far as I can see all the books have publisher locations; the paging in cite 3 is presumably a reflection of the book's pagination and I don't see it as confusing. The one point that I would like to comment on is the use of "second-hand" cites. Are these reprints of the original article, or quotes from them? If the latter, is it not possible to obtain copies of the originals and to cite them directly?

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Title in references... The titles of articles or book chapters are in sentence case and the titles of journals or books are in title case in conformity with WP:CITE/ES. This is also in conformity with the template article, distributed element filter, this issue was discussed at that article's FAC and the format accepted. Simplistically, the part between "quote marks" should be in sentence case and the part in italics should be in title case.
  • Ampersands... I was about to change this, but in view of Brian's comment above it does not now seem necessary. Note that the ampersand is only being used in the short-form in-line cites for brevity and not in the full citation.
  • As Brian stated, all the books as far as I can see have place of publication. Please state the exact references you think are at fault. Or did you mean that sources other than books need place of pubication? That would not conform to WP:CITE/ES.
  • ...cite #3. The page numbers are given in this form for clarity. The source actually paginates as 1-85 for example. However, using a dash in the reference would be very confusing since dashes are usually used for page number ranges. Using the dash for this purpose though, would also be confusing for anyone trying to look up the reference and finding dashes in the pagination. I have no particular attachment to this and will happily change it if that is the consensus.
  • SpinningSpark 10:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..."second-hand" cites. Not entireley clear what is being referred to here. If cite #12 is an example, this is not exactly a quotation nor is it a reprint. The claim being verified is that Firestone first presented the mobility analogy. The secondary source used to verify this claim is Pierce. Pierce cites Firestones paper as the primary source. Firstly, it would be wrong to replace the secondary source with a primary source as this would contravene WP:PSTS. Secondly, it is quite unlikely that Firestone would categorically make the claim of being first in his paper and a secondary source is needed to provide this synthesis. The primary sources are not strictly necessary to meet WP:V and could all be removed, however, they are conceivably useful to readers who may be looking for precisely that. It would be wrong to put them in as "stand-alone" cites since they have not been read (by me) so I have used the construction "secondary source page x cites primary source". Open to suggestions/criticisms on this. SpinningSpark 11:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good explanation, and I'm happy to leave them be. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support FAC nomination per above. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per what above? Please clarify what you have reviewed, and why you believe the article meets WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formulae in the Elements section should be laid out using <math> markup. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, previously overlooked these two comments tucked in here. The formulae in the table are typeset with LaTeX. To what are you referring? SpinningSpark 22:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind; my preferences are off. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it usual to mark images "figure 1/2/3/etc."? Stifle (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments. Well written, although I wouldn't claim that I understood every word!. Two minor quibbles:
  • In the formula table, a, j, ω and C appear to lack definitions. I'm guessing that a is acceleration and C is capacitance, but there's nothing to tell me that, and I don't have a clue what the other two are unless j is the same as i
  • Yes, j is the same as i. For a more technical article I would tend to use i, but for this article I have used j because the target audience is likely to have a little electrical theory but not necessarily strongly mathematical and j is used universally in teaching electrical engineering. I have added definitions for C and jω. The formula itself implies that a=dv/dt, which is the definition of acceleration so this hardly seems necessary. SpinningSpark 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eclairage Electr., Journal titles should be written in full

Good luck, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I "peer reviewed" this and almost all of my issues were addressed then. I find it meets the FA criteria and am glad to support. *The dimensions in the caption of the lead image should be given in inches as well as mm per the MOS.

  • I think all of the variables in the table in Elements need to be defined (x, t, a) and for the matrix in Mechanical equivalent circuits, i.e. you could add them to the earlier sentence: ...equations relating electrical variables (voltage, v, and current, I) to mechanical variables (force, F, and velocity, V).
  • Does Footnote 1 need a ref too?

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I removed velocity from the note you added as v was already defined. I also would be fine with the inches being given as decimals instead of fractions in the caption, but this is your call. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really convinced that there's anyone out there who can't grasp 45 mm anyway, but if we are going to have inches for the people who grew up with them, then there is only any point if it's done the way they are used to, which means fractions. SpinningSpark 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, soley on the basis that the introduction does not provide an accessible overview of the article, under Wikipedia:Lede#Provide_an_accessible_overview. While the subject undoubtedly is technical, the introduction should tell the average reader what this is, what it does, and why that is important. Ideally, that overview should be in the first paragraph. While the first sentence to Electronic filter is perhaps too detailed, it does tell us that such filters "remove unwanted frequency components from the signal, to enhance wanted ones, or both". Something similar should be stated here, and why that matters to, for example, a radio listener. Kablammo (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) stricken, given edit described below. Kablammo (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the first paragraph a sentence more or less identical to a sentence in the already promoted sister article distributed element filter which addresses what it does. Its importance is mainly concerned with the high "quality factor" obtainable and is already covered in the lede, together with the major application and reason (selectivity), although admittedly, not in the first paragraph. SpinningSpark 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Spinningspark drew my attention to this FAC review after I participated in the FAC review for distributed element filter and in the peer review for mechanical filter). I have a slight knowledge of distributed element filters, but know nothing of mechanical filters, and so cannot judge (for example) whether this article is comprehensive. It does meet the FA criteria as far as I am aware though. On rereading the article, a couple of points occur to me:

  • In the transducer diagram (figure 4): (1) The piezoelectric material is shown with a single electrical contact, presumably there is a second electrode? (2) It would be nice to have the blue-red arrows to identify the coupled mode as in figure 5. The text does explain the mode, but requires some effort on the part of the reader. Actually it'd be nice to have the blue-red arrows in all relevant figures. (3) The colour used to identify the ferrite is too close to the colour for the resonators (in the actual diagram - it's sufficiently distinct in the key). Not sure whether it would be obvious to everybody which was which.
  • If the Q and stability are so high, do the filters need individual trimming to hit their nominal centre frequency? Or does it not matter if the actual frequency differs from the nominal value (in the IF application)? (Google very quickly found me Mohamed A. Abdelmoneum, Mustafa U. Demirci, Sheng-Shian Li, and Clark T.-C Nguyen Post-Fabrication Laser Trimming of Micromechanical Filters)

--catslash (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transducer diagram
  • second electrode. The definition of "electrode" is a conductor connected to a non-conducting material. Technically speaking therefore, there is only one electrode per transducer. However, I am guessing that is not really your question and the real question is "where is the return path conductor?" This might be connected to the resonator, if it is metal and there is a convenient anchor point, but more likely it is connected to the metal chassis or framework and so is correctly not shown on the transducer diagram.
  • blue-red arrows. I don't really want to start major rework of the diagrams at this late stage after so many reviews. A different approach might have been considered if it had been discussed at GAN or Peer Review but I feel the diagrams we have best suite the article as it is now structured. my reasoning is primarily that this is an overview article with diagrams that are clean and simple. It is not necessary to clutter them with every detail of a design. Figure 4 is intended to show the differences between transducer types and information on it is limited to that purpose. Likewise, figure 5 is intended to show the differences between vibration modes. To show arrows for the vibration modes on every other diagram would make figure 5 pretty much redundant. Further, before one can start putting arrows on resonators, knowledge of anchor points (equivalent to sc or oc stubs) and whether a higher mode (number of nodes) oscillation is taking place needs to be provided. The diagrams would need to have this information added as well and probably the dimensions of resonators adjusted to make the it work for that mode number. I feel this would start to unduly clutter the diagrams. However, more detailed diagrams might be appropriate for articles on individual circuit types and I will happily provide such diagrams for any editor who wants to work on an article.
  • ferrite colour. I'll try and adjust this to give a better contrast. This is probably highly dependant on monitors; it looks fine on mine (viewed on two computers and three different monitors) but as I say, I'll try to get it better.
  • individual trimming. Yes, they do need trimming. Japanese manufacturers are supposed to have trimmed the resonators with needle files on test before sealing. This could go in if it were sourced, but none of my sources discusses it. It is quite possible that laser trimming was done in later production, but the source you mention is for a MEMS device which is quite a different beast. I'll do a search for sources, but I can't promise anything is going to turn up.
  • SpinningSpark 20:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created something in sandbox on this. Comments would be appreciated before it goes in the article. SpinningSpark 13:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have found plenty of material on trimming. One tiny reservation I have is about ascribing the necessity for trimming to the The precision applications in which mechanical filters are used (first sentence). I'd say it was just handy in building the filter to the have the fractional error in the resonator frequencies << 1/Q (irrespective of what you do with the finished filter - it was the high Q that made me ask about trimming). This is difficult to state clearly in non-technical terms; the best I can manage at the moment is Mechanical resonators can select a frequency so precisely, that any small frequency shift caused by manufacturing inaccuracy is significant, and so the resonators must be individually tuned. This is known.... Not perfect I realize, so I'll understand if you prefer not to use this (or if you have to drop the so).--catslash (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is entirely accurate technically, or rather, it is not applicable here. I'll drop a note on your talk page rather than clutter here with a long explanation. SpinningSpark 23:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my sentence suggests that it's the unloaded Q of the individual resonator that's important. I shan't make a second attempt at it, and I retract my reservation.--catslash (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The prose appears generally good, but I have some concerns about cohesiveness and flow. The lead seems too detailed to summarize the article, and seems to lack coherence. For example, the second paragraph gives rise to several questions:

  • The components of a mechanical filter are all directly analogous to the various elements of an electrical circuit. It is therefore possible to apply electrical network analysis and filter design techniques to mechanical filters. This aids electrical engineers when they are designing such circuits. With the right choice of component values it is possible to produce any of the classic frequency responses. Steel and nickel-iron alloys are common materials for mechanical filter components; nickel is sometimes used for the input and output couplings.
    • First sentence: what electrical circuit? One for a filter, or any circuit?
    • Second sentence: "It is therefore possible ...". Unclear why "therefore", at this summary level, and probably unencyclopedic.
    • Third sentence: relevance unclear; article is not about those circuits, and a surprising jump from design of mechanical filters to design of electical circuits. If such aid is one of the main reasons mechanical filters are important, that needs spelling out here.
    • Fourth sentence: the reader has no basis to understand what is meant by any of the classic frequency responses
    • Fourth sentence: the reader has no basis to understand whether the sentence is about mechanical or electrical filters.
    • Fifth sentence: to end the para, why the leap to a seemingly unrelated statement about the metals used in a mechanical filter?
  • Then, in the the fourth para of the lead, we read that "By the 1950s mechanical filters were being manufactured as self-contained components for applications in radio transmitters and high-end receivers. Their greatest attraction was the high "quality factor" Q that mechanical resonators could achieve, far higher than an all-electrical LC circuit. Mechanical filters can consequently be built with excellent selectivity characteristics, an important performance measure in radio receivers."
    • "By the 1950s ... Their greatest attraction was ... Mechanical filters can consequently be built ..." Consequently?

This is a sampling only and not an exhaustive list. PL290 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking that point-by-point:
  • First sentence: this is a general observation that a mechanical system and an electrical system may be analogous, not only in exhibiting similar overall behaviour, but also in having a one-to-one correspondence between their constituent parts. If I have succeeded in clarifying that, could you suggest how this sentence could be amended to convey this unambiguously to a general audience?
  • Having understood the first sentence, the therefore of the second should now seem natural (?).
  • And having followed the reasoning of the second sentence, the relevance of the third may now be clear. Working backwards 3-2-1: if you can design an electrical filter, then you can design a mechanical one to do the same job, because you can build a mechanical system in which each part corresponds to a component of your electrical filter.
  • Fourth sentence: classic response: fair point.
  • Fourth sentence: so this is just saying that theoretically, what you can do in one medium, you can do in the other. This is just expanding on the third sentence; the two could be joined with a semi-colon.
  • Fifth sentence: fair point; new paragraph wanted.
  • Fourth paragraph: The excellent selectivity follows from the high Q, not from the decade of manufacture. Perhaps: The high Q that mechanical resonators can attain, far higher than that of an electrical LC circuit, made possible the construction of mechanical filters with excellent selectivity. Good selectivity, being important in radio receivers, made such filters highly attractive.
--catslash (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last bullet (high Q rewording) is a definite improvement. All the rest, about what you can do in one medium you can do in the other, remains a problem and I'm unable to suggest wording because I simply can't tell what main point it intends to make. These are the opening sentences of the lead of the mechanical filter article; what major, central point are they trying to tell me about the significance of mechanical filters? PL290 (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main point (perhaps even the essential point of this article) is that there is a great body of theory associated with electrical filters, and electrical networks in general. By transferrring all this theory into the mechanical domain it suddenly becomes possible to do all sorts of clever things with mechanical parts that would otherwise not have been possible, or at least, would have required parallel mechanical theories to be developed first. Right now I am working on the diagrams, I will take a closer look at your individual comments later. SpinningSpark 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be a main point about electrical filters, not mechanical filters. PL290 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond to your query about therefore, the point that I'm making is: following a statement with It is therefore possible ... asks the reader to follow a process of deduction, which reads like an essay, making it somewhat unencyclopedic—particularly in the lead. PL290 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That electrical network theory can be used to design mechanical filters, could be an observation regarding either circuit theory or mechanical filters depending on the context. Not sure what leads you to think otherwise.
  • Suggest This makes it possible.... However this results in serial thises with the next sentence This aids electrical engineers... which sounds a bit lame -so I would then ditch this subsequent sentence, which is anyway next to redundant, being near-enough implied in the preceding one. --catslash (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para of the lede now reads,
The components of a mechanical filter are all directly analogous to the various elements found in electrical circuits. The mechanical elements obey mathematical functions which are identical to their corresponding electrical elements. This makes it possible to apply electrical network analysis and filter design techniques to mechanical filters. Electrical theory has developed a large library of mathematical forms that produce useful filter frequency responses and the mechanical filter designer is able to make direct use of these. It is only necessary to set the mechanical components to appropriate values to produce a filter with an identical response to the electrical counterpart. Steel and nickel-iron alloys are common materials for mechanical filter components; nickel is sometimes used for the input and output couplings.
This should address most of the comments from PL290. I have removed the "therefore" as suggested, but I challenge the idea that requiring a process of deduction is unencyclopaedic. I am fairly sure that this is not stated in any guideline. Besides, a natural question readers coming to this article will want answered is "how on earth is it possible for a mechanical assembly to function as an electrical circuit?" Answering this requires a "therefore" or a "because" in the article (depending on which way round it is stated) and any other way of stating it is merely a semantic disguising of these words.
I agree the final sentence is a quite abrupt change of topic (although arguably the para is talking about components all the way through). However, putting a para break in there is going to leave a one-sentence orphan. A possible solution may arise from the request by Catslash, above, to add material on trimming, for which there is a link, also above, to a sandboxed draft. If this is added to the article it will also require a summary sentence or two in the lede, which more naturally combines with the sentence on materials.
PL290, you complain that the lede is too detailed, but many of your comments require an expansion to give further explanation...
SpinningSpark 18:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments. Each re-reading suggests more questions, that I feel might or should be addressed. Sorry if this is never-ending.

  • The lede explicitly restricts the article to mechanical filters with electrical ports, but does not exclude all-piezoelectric or piezoelectric-substrate technologies. However, the latter get less of a mention than do mechanically coupled filters. For the article to be considered comprehensive, its scope may need to be more tightly defined.
  • The history section describes the rise of mechanical filters, but what happened next? Have they been superseded by related (quartz, piezoelectric ceramic, SAW) technologies, or by unrelated ones, or are they still as popular as in the 1950s? Perhaps they are restricted to niche applications?
  • Are they (in practice) always band-pass filters?

--catslash (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...does not exclude...piezoelectric... I don't see any pressing need to do this. Of course, quartz and ceramic filters work by producing acoustic waves through the piezoelectric effect and such waves amount to a mechanical motion in physics theory. However, they are not composed of an assembly of mechanical elements and are not generally described as mechanical filters. It is true that material on this class badly needs expanding on Wikipedia and I thought carefully about including them here, but they are really something quite different and there is a need to keep the article focused.
  • Have they been superseded... My assesment of the commercial position would be that their bread-and-butter base use in FDM telephony/telegraphy has collapsed due to the rise of digital technologies for mass transport of data. In other areas designers will try not to use the traditional mechanical "filter-in-a-can" unless absolutely unavoidable because of the expense (much as inductors are avoided in electronics). However, they can still be purchased and are particularly popular with amateur radio enthusiasts. The mechanical filter concept has been given a new lease of life with the rise of MEMS technology and the article already pretty much indicates this. I am not inclined to work on researching the commercial history, partly because what is already there is adequate and partly because of the awful reaction provoked by the addition of the section on trimming.
  • Are they (in practice) always band-pass... As an off-the-shelf telecomms or radio component, then probably yes, but any bandform is possible, witness the Norton design in the article which is low-pass. As a general statement, it could be said that a mechanical filter in a control system feedback path will generally be required to be low-pass.
  • SpinningSpark 14:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the article should only cover filters consisting of a row of metal elements with a transducer at each end. There's clearly plenty to say about such assemblies, and the term mechanical filter is commonly used in this restricted sense (I believe). I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I did mean to suggest that because the article strays beyond this meaning, the reader might wrongly suppose that it purported to fully address mechanical filters in a the widest sense (i.e. all those depending on mechanical vibration). Specific points:
  • In the lede the meaning of mechanical filter in this article is discussed, excluding filters without electrical ports, but nothing else.
  • The Sound reproduction sub-section may be highly relevant to the history, but is a very long digression into an area that has been explicitly excluded.
  • The third paragraph in the Resonators section briefly mentions all-piezoelectric designs, and this might give the impression that there was little more to say on this subject.
  • The MEMS filter section describes something which is quite a different beast.

So it would be nice to have a clearer statement of the intended scope of the article, plus a section that saying that in a wider sense, beyond this scope, there are other technologies (crystal filters, SAW, MEMS). Sorry that I did not see this at an earlier stage in the process. --catslash (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to oppose - 1b, 2a, 2b concerns. I suspect the article may be mistitled, given the lead's lack of focus on the mechanical filter itself, its significance, and its reason for existing today alongside its electrical counterpart. This is further underlined by the reply above to that voiced concern: "The main point (perhaps even the essential point of this article) is that there is a great body of theory associated with electrical filters, and electrical networks in general. By transferrring all this theory into the mechanical domain it suddenly becomes possible to do all sorts of clever things with mechanical parts that would otherwise not have been possible, or at least, would have required parallel mechanical theories to be developed first." That may be the point of the article, but it is not stated in the lead to be the point of the mechanical filter. I also note that a whole section on trimming/adjustment has just been added, and another reviewer has now questioned the article's scope in respect of piezoelectric technologies. It gives me no pleasure to leave negative comments, particularly when an article exhibits generally good prose, but I suggest it may be necessary to take a step back and look again at the overall scope of the article. If the essential point of this article is as just quoted, then the title, lead and ToC should reflect that. PL290 (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason that that the article should consider crystal filters or SAW filters, as these would probably be referred to as such, and not as mechanical filters. I was merely wondering whether when the scope of the article is discussed in the lede, it should be more clearly stated that only transducer-metal-transducer devices are considered (as opposed to any filter depending on mechanical vibrations). --catslash (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the article may be mistitled... The article is about a component called mechanical filter. It is never called anything else. There is no other mechanical filter article on Wikipedia to disambiguate it from. What on earth is it supposed that the article might be expected to be called?
  • ...given the lead's lack of focus on the mechanical filter itself... In what way is this not focused on "mechanical filter itself"? The lede is entirely about the mechanical filter. I cannot fathom this unless it is referring to a previous comment about the lede including discussion of electrical filters. The relationship to electrical filters is an essential part of this article and is deeply embedded in the article structure. It would be preposterous to not have this in the lede: the lede is meant to be a summary of the article and this is most definitely in the article. The "Elements" and "Mechanical equivalent circuits" sections are about nothing else and the "Circuit designs" section repeatedly refers to the electrical equivalent circuit and several equivalent circuit diagrams are given.
  • ...its significance... Does not The high "quality factor", Q, that mechanical resonators can attain, far higher than that of an all-electrical LC circuit make it significantly different from other filter types?
...and its reason for existing today... I'm not sure that it needs to justify its existence in order to have a Wikipedia article, it merely needs to be notable. However, the reasons for its use are stated in the lede; applications requiring high-Q resonators - an example of which is stated to be good radio channel selectivity.
  • That may be the point of the article, but it is not stated in the lead to be the point of the mechanical filter. (in respect of the connection of the mechanical filter to electrical filter design). This comment is made after criticism of the article for focusing on the connection to electrical filters. It cannot be criticised for both failing to make the connection and for making it. The issue of transplanting theory from one domain where it is mature to another domain where it is not is important here and the lede does make this point. It used to refer to the Butterworth and Chebshev designs (common examples of mature and sophistacted designs in the electrical domain) being usable in the mechanical domain. This mention was criticised for the designs not previously being explained (well how could they be - this is the lede) and the specific designs have been removed. However the lede still says Electrical theory has developed a large library of mathematical forms that produce useful filter frequency responses and the mechanical filter designer is able to make direct use of these. which adequately makes the point.
  • I also note that a whole section on trimming/adjustment has just been added... This was added at the request of another reviewer and I now truly wish I had not bothered. it was not a trivial amount of effort to find an out-of-print book by one of the leading experts in the field, not available on Google except as snippets to get enough material for that section. It is hardly an essential part of the article, but it seemed to me that trimming of mechanical filters was notably more difficult to be worth inclusion so I made the effort. Previously, a request for more information on materials from a reviewer interested in that aspect resulted in a similar large, but ultimately non-essential, addition. I am reminded of a comment by J. R. R. Tolkein in reply to one of many requests for more background on Lord of the Rings:
...while many like you demand maps, others wish for geological indications rather than places; many want Elvish grammars, phonologies, and specimens; some want metrics and prosodies...Musicians want tunes, and music notation; archaeologists want ceramics and metallurgy; botanists want a more accurate description of the mallorn...historians want more details about the social and political structure...
Is Lord of the Rings any less of a masterpiece for not having included these things? Frankly, I found this comment so demotivating that I have not been able to reply to it for a couple of days. If the implication is that you are opposing because there might be something else "missing" then that is absurd. You are of course entitled to oppose, but to oppose on the grounds that the article is not comprehensive requires you to state what it is exactly that is missing, otherwise it is not an "actioanable objection" as the FAC page puts it.
  • another reviewer has now questioned the article's scope in respect of piezoelectric technologies No he has not as catslash made clear in his reply above, although I don't exactly go along with his definition of the scope as transducer-metal-transducer. My understanding of the scope is those filters which are composed of an assembly of mechanically connected parts each acting as an element of the filter analoguous to an electrical element. This does not exclude from the scope mechanical filters made from all-piezoelectric resonators. These are mentioned but as the article states, they are not favoured over metal alloys. To be honest I am not particularly knowledgable of quartz filters, but my understanding is that they are interconnected electrically, often in a lattice circuit or some equivalent. So while each quartz (or other piezo material) crystal vibrates acoustically and can therefore be described as a mechanical resonator, the filter as a whole is not manufactured as a mechanical machine with one part transferring motion to others. This puts it decidedly out of scope by definition, by the normal names for these parts, and by its means of manufacture being so different. MEMS devices on the other hand are specifically an assembly of mechanical parts and so are definitely within scope of the article, as well as being needed to bring the narrative of the article up-to-date.
  • SpinningSpark 18:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hughes2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lennox1979 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/November_2010&oldid=399043226"