Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2012

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Featured log

May 2012 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 Ian Rose 02:23, 31 May 2012 [1].

Ruma Maida edit

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a comprehensive look at an area which most readers are unfamiliar with, namely Indonesian films; this particular film wasn't that successful, although I found it fascinating. I would like to thank Grapple X, who reviewed the article for GA, and Tim riley for a copyedit.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support As noted above I have copy-edited the article, but have not otherwise contributed to it. The minor points I raised during the copy-edit have been thoroughly dealt with. The article seems to me to be comprehensive, balanced, well-referenced and readable. Provided the images are all right I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, I don't speak Indonesian.

  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Albums should include ID/catalogue numbers where available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found one case of double periods, where the title had a period at the end. Fixed.
  • Publisher id added for Dekade, OCLC added for Ruma Maida DVD.
  • I believe that's it. Thanks for the review.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to Support. Was spot-checking the English-language sources (no issues when checked against the Triwik Kurniasari and Dewi Anggraeni articles) when I saw that one source appears to be listed and not used. ""Rediscovering world cinema in Singapore". The Jakarta Post. 18 April 2010. Archived from the original on 8 May 2012. Retrieved 8 May 2012" uses the same SfnRef anchor as another citation (the Triwik Kurniasari article, also from the Jakarta Post), so it's possible inline citations that are pointing to the latter are meant to point to the former. Aside from that I'm not seeing anything standing out to me; I'm happy enough to back this when the aforementioned citing mix-up is looked at. I reviewed this during its Good Article candidacy if that's worth noting. GRAPPLE X 16:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Thanks for both reviews.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy days; support clarified. GRAPPLE X 15:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below well, I finally got around to starting a review on this.
  • "After three months of pre-production, shooting began in Semarang, Central Java, and Kota, Jakarta. After three months..." I'd try to avoid the repetition of "After three months..."
  • "Critical reception to the film was mixed, with several reviewers praising the visuals but disapproving of the plot and dialogue." I'd suggest a semi or full colon instead of the with here. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, one day her class is interrupted" I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use "however" to start this paragraph.
  • Nixed
  • "A young Christian history student, Maida (Atiqah Hasiholan) runs a free school for street children in Jakarta." Is there a way to avoid the ambiguity here? Is she a Christian who studies history, or someone who studies the history of Christianity?
  • This new one is not ambiguous, but I think it's a little clunky
  • "mainly known for her novels, she had avoided screenplays as they were generally too commercially-oriented." Is the part about being "commercially-oriented" a fact, or just her opinion? Also, is the hyphen necessary here?
  • Her opinion. Not sure about the hyphen.
  • "cinematographer Ical Tanjung said that Soeriaatmadja was still open to feedback from the cast and crew." I'm not sure about the use of "still" here.
  • Added however, as this is a contrast
  • I assume you want the serial comma? It's usage is inconsistent so I added a couple in. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with stereotype and sepia. As flashback is important to the sentence it's in and is actually a rather technical term, I'd rather keep it.
  • "Ruma Maida uses different colours and shooting styles to indicate different time periods." A little repetition here, "different... different".
  • Removed the first "different"
  • In the beginning of "Style" you say "Ruma Maida uses different colours and shooting styles" and in the neighboring picture caption "Ruma Maida used a sepia overlay and static camera", might want to standardize there.
  • Hehe yeah.
  • The "time comma" usage is inconsistent in this section, "That August, Ruma Maida..." vs "In November it was screened..."
  • Removed, per BrE.
  • Some repetition here: "Benke wrote... Sari wrote... Suditmo wrote..."
  • Reorganised.
  • "A review in Republika expressed that the film may be too boring for the general public owing to its slow-moving plot" I'm not sure here, but "A review in Republika expressed that" might not be the ideal way of saying this.
  • Suggested?
  • Alright, I'm close to supporting, it looks like we might get another short FA--I love those. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fixes look good to me, and I'm more than willing to support at this point. I can't offer an opinion about sourcing, but otherwise this looks fine, good job. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Image check, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've not done one of these before so bear with me if I miss anything. File:Ayu Utami crop.JPG has been released under both Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic and Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licenses, based on File:Ayu Utami.JPG, released under the same licenses. Original image was uploaded by its creator, current file has subsequently been cropped in line with its licensing. Could not access the uploader's website (Chrome has flagged it as a potential malware risk) but given that 10 years have passed since it was uploaded I assume the site has fallen into disuse. File:Ruma Maida.jpg and File:Rumah Maida visuals.jpg are both non-free but use suitably convincing and in-depth fair-use rationales. File:Rumah Maida visuals.jpg is based on File:Manhunter-colours.jpg, which illustrates a similar technique in another film article which passed an FA image review in the past. GRAPPLE X 11:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a look too, and agree they seem okay. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything missing here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, just wanted to give any other potential reviewers a few more days to comment before closing -- I think that's been about long enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 20:05, 28 May 2012 [2].

Shangani Patrol edit

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has just passed a GA review, which was taken by Dana boomer, who was complimentary of it. I believe that it is at least close to the standard required for featured status, and am therefore nominating it for consideration. I look forward to your comments! —Cliftonian (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, listen to this while reading ;) —Cliftonian (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers/journals
  • Okay.
  • Where is Rothersthorpe?
  • It's a suburb of Northampton, about four miles from the town centre. I've changed the location to "Northampton".

Support Comments - I did early work on the article, but Cliftonian recently did a major re-write that significantly improved the prose, comprehensiveness, and citations. The article is now very readable and engaging. Ctatkinson (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "fought over 3,000 Matabele": At this point, most readers won't know without clicking what "Matabele" means, so they might think the men were fighting over (i.e. contesting) 3000 of ... something. Also, reading quickly, I see "about 3,000" in the text and 3K-7K in the infobox ... which numbers have the best support in the sources?
  • 3,000. I've taken out the 7,000 figure; I originally had it there just to illustrate how the estimates vary. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, the payoff in the lead is this sentence: "The patrol's dramatic last stand achieved a prominent place in the British public imagination and, subsequently, in Rhodesian national history, roughly mirroring events such as the Alamo massacre or Custer's Last Stand in the United States." I get that you want to establish some context before saying this, but pushing it into the second paragraph is IMO burying the lead. I suggest you shorten the first paragraph enough so that you can afford to put the first paragraph break just after rather than just before this sentence. For instance, you could shorten "The Shangani Patrol, also known as Wilson's Patrol" to "The Shangani Patrol or Wilson's Patrol" or just "The Shangani Patrol", bolding "Wilson's Patrol" later in the lead.
  • "in Matabeleland, Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe)": "in Matabeleland in Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe)"
  • "an indaba": See WP:Checklist#clarity; I think this sentence will be too opaque for many readers unless they click, and most readers won't click.
  • "It evoked a confused, grammatically meandering answer from the king, written in English:": I'd just say "The king replied in English:"; it's probably sufficient that you call it an "ambiguity" immediately after. The message was: "I have heard all that you have said, so I will come, but let me to ask you where are all my men which I have sent to the Cape, such as Maffett and Jonny and James, and after that the three men – Gobogobo, Mantose and Goebo – whom I sent. If I do come where will I get a house for me as all my houses is burn down, and also as soon as my men come which I have sent then I will come." I've seen worse, in Wikipedia in fact. It seems pretty clear that this is a negotiation, that the king is saying that he needs some kind of safe haven and he wants to see his men ... It's not Standard English in the UK, but for all I know, it was Standard English in Matabeleland. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, everything looks good down to where I stopped, Shangani Patrol#Prelude: Forbes' pursuit of Lobengula, except I don't follow "comprising 34 British South Africa Company soldiers" but "The patrol comprised elements of the British South Africa Company's Police and the Bechuanaland Border Police"; the second seems to say that some of the 34 were not in the British South Africa Company. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit this is confusing. The British South Africa Company's Police (BSACP) was the direct arm of the company, whereas the Bechuanaland Border Police (BBP) was a separate body run from Bechuanaland. However, they often worked together, and men from one often served under officers from the other. In this case you have a company column augmented by the presence some BBP men and some of Raaff's Rangers (none of Raaff's men went with Wilson). Although the BBP men were not technically "in the British South Africa Company", they were in the service of the company at the time of their death, as I previously had the first line written, but this seemed a little wordy. I'll put it back now. Better? —Cliftonian (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Thanks for the review so far, I'm sorry if I have seemed a little short in my answers, it's not deliberate. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. I'm trying to recruit people to help with copyediting; whether I succeed or not, I'll be back before this is done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. Search through for a comma following by double quote marks, and if the comma didn't appear in the original, move it outside the quote marks per WP:LQ.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As is always the case with Cliftonian's work, this is an excellent article. I enjoyed reading it, and think that it's close to FA class. My comments are:

  • The first or second paragraphs of the lead should provide some background on the war (only a sentence or two)
  • A little bit more 'big picture' background is needed in the first paragraph of the 'background' section
  • I've put another paragraph in there. What do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based up" is awkward
  • Translations/explanations of "impi" and "laager" are needed
  • I don't think that "parley" is being used correctly - this is normally an informal negotiation during a ceasefire between two warring parties.
  • Okay, have put "Wilson conferred with his officers" instead —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 'pioneers' a neutral term? 'Invaders' would also be apt (but also non-neutral!). I'd suggest using 'Whites' or similar.
  • I'd consider "pioneer" a neutral term myself, but I don't want to make a big deal of an issue we can easily circumvent. Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Men of the Shangani Patrol' section belongs on Wikisource, not here. It's obviously non-neutral naming all the members of one side of the battle and not the other side, and their names are unnecessary.
  • I'm not overly familiar with how Wikisource works. Do you think you could help me with transferring this to Wikisource? I'm not certain of the proper way to do it. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not that familiar with how you upload stuff there to be honest. I think that you just log in (your Wikipedia user name and password should carry across automatically) and then post the material in the same way as starting an article. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that "indubitably" should be replaced with a less-obscure term Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words and the comments, Nick. I've replied to each comment individually above. I hope I've resolved the issues you pulled up. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my above comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – comprehensive, good prose, well referenced, balanced, appropriately illustrated. Three minor points, none of which affect my support:

  • Background
  • Some people (not me) get very aerated when the phrase "Union Jack" is used instead of the formally correct "Union Flag".
  • "Union Jack" is more clear, I often find, for international readers, but if this is pulled up again I have no problem with changing it. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prelude: Forbes' pursuit of Lobengula
  • I think your double image of Wilson and Borrow would look better if you cropped Borrow to the same proportions as Wilson.
  • Cultural impact, burial and memorial
  • Length of the run of Cheer, Boys, Cheer: the "two years" claimed for it is either too long or too short, depending on how you look at it. According to the archives of The Times and The Observer the piece opened on 19 September 1895 at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and transferred to the Olympic Theatre on 19 December 1895 where it finished its London run on 29 February 1896. (ref "Today", The Times 19 September 1895, p. 3; "At the Play", The Observer, 22 December 1895, p. 6; and "Olympic Theatre", The Times, 24 February 1896, p. 8). The production then toured the provinces; the latest presentation I can find is at the Queen's Theatre, Manchester in October 1898. (ref "Queen's Theatre – Cheer, Boys, Cheer", The Manchester Guardian 4 October 1898, p. 8). Safest to say something like, "The production ran for nearly six months in London, and then toured the British provinces for more than two years." – Tim riley (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my only two minor quibbles are both in the intro, "ambushed by a host of Matabele riflemen and warriors near the king's wagon" - I'm assuming "the king's wagon" is a location? "anniversary of the battle on 4 December 1893 became an annual public holiday two years later" could be clearer that this refers only to Rhodesia as earlier there was a mention of "achieved a prominent place in the British public imagination", but overall a good effort IMHO. --Thefrood (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thefrood. "The king's wagon" is the wagon which the king used to travel around. The other one I've changed. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got that it was referring to the Matabele King (the previous sentence implies that it the Matabele King). I just thought it could be clearer, that said it really is a jolly good article and you have my full support. --Thefrood (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A truly great article. Well done. One question: Many readers will read only the lead section. As written now, it gives the impression that the noble Patrol was somehow victimized by ruthless opponents. The lead contains words such as "heroes" "annihilated" "last stand" "fighting to the last cartridge" ... the lead may give some readers a slightly hagiographic portrayal of the patrol. Is it possible to give these "lead only" readers a bit more context by adding a sentence into the lead which indicates that the BSA was also fairly agressive earlier in the war? Specifically, add a sentence in the lead that says something like: "Two months before the ambush, the BSA forces used machine guns to kill 2,500 Matabele warriors ...". [I'm just guessing on the numbers and dates]. Without such context, which may illustrate why the Matabele were so forceful in the ambush, the lead is not as complete as it could be. Otherwise, a fine article! --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the suggestion. I must say that I fear you are opening the proverbial can of worms with this one. Are you proposing the BSACP might have not used their superior weapons to drive off the numerically-superior Matabele when attacked previously? They were, of course, aggressively moving towards Bulawayo, but this is, so far as I can see, lightly implied in the lead ("... following his [Lobengula's] flight ..."). The lead also makes clear that the actions took place "during the First Matabele War", and in any war both sides can be generally considered to be acting aggressively in some manner, no matter what one's personal sympathies are. I think that including a sentence in the lead along the lines you are suggesting could perhaps mislead some casual readers into believing that the patrol was somehow ambushed in retaliation for the unprovoked massacre of Matabele warriors outside of a battle setting. In any case, I think that adding the necessary material to the lead would necessitate the addition of so much extra verbiage to establish proper context that I fear it would make the lead section rather unbalanced. I apologise if I seem blunt or intransigent. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your expertise in the technical material ... I concede I know nothing about the war. My point is simply that the lead appears to be written from an Anglo/white point of view. Granted, the lead may reflect what the prominent English-language sources write, but what do the African sources say about the patrol? (apologies if that was asked and answered above). Do African sources view the patrol's extermination as retribution for prior battles? Do they view the M warriors as "heroes"? If so, why is that not mentioned? Of course, I'm not suggesting that you should engage in OR or supposition, but the lead appears to be one sided. --Noleander (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matabele sources (independent of each other) appear quite agreed that the patrol's men were exceedingly brave. They don't appear to view the patrol's "extermination" (as you put it) as retribution for anything, it is merely described as a "battle" or similar. They don't use words like that to describe any of their own men, probably because they had standards regarding bravery and so on that were already very high, and so conversely it would be under-performance that would be more likely to draw comment (perhaps tellingly, M'Kotchwana, a warrior from the Ingubo Regiment, says in his account that following the battle with the Shangani Patrol, Lobengula became angry when told that all of his regiments had fought equally well; he had been expecting his favoured Imbezu Regiment to far outperform the rest of the army). This is what springs to mind off the top of my head, but if you wish I can do a more thorough analysis. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it sounds like there is no POV issue. I hope you don't think I was criticizing your editing work: I just wanted to make sure all the bases were covered. Thanks for your responses. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry at all, I did not think anything of that sort. Thanks for your thoughts and comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Cliftonian, lots of support above but:

  • Has there been an image check?
  • Can you point me to a source spotcheck at one of your recent FACs? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an image check at the GA review. For spotchecks at recent FACs, see here and here (this second one points you to the GA review, which is here). Tim riley has offered on my talk page to do a source review on this latest article, if this would be helpful too? Thanks. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those others help, but if Tim has offered to do one here, I think it would be churlish to refuse... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check

Is this sample of 44 citations big enough? Most of the books referenced would take at least 48 hours to get hold of. I have here confined myself to those on immediate access at the British Library today.

  • First few refs
    • ref 1 – fine
    • ref 2 a–d – fine so far as O'Reilly and History Society of Zimbabwe are concerned; haven't seen the other two sources
    • ref 3 – a–j all fine
    • ref 4 – The British Library, if you please, can't find either of its two copies of Burnham 1926, so I haven't checked this
  • O'Reilly citations:
    • ref 30 – I can't find the quotation attributed to p. 74
    • ref 36 – fine
    • ref 44 – fine
    • ref 71a – is on p. 77, not p. 76 (in the British Library's copy, at any rate)
    • ref 71b & 71c – fine
  • Gale 1958 citations
    • ref 19 – fine
    • ref 35 – please check the page range: if you make it "151–154" rather than "153–156" it will accurately reflect the page numbers in the copy before me. (35a is on p. 151, b, c and d are on p. 152. 35e is fine. But perhaps we're working off different editions: I see there was a second impression in 1959. At any event, all the statements attributed to Gale 1958 are accurately represented in the article.
    • ref 45a – should be p. 155; 45b–i are fine.
  • Knight citations
    • 13a–d all fine
  • Forbes, Henty and Griffiths citations
    • ref 32 – fine
    • ref 38 – fine
    • ref 39 – as far as I can see it doesn't specifically say what you say, but the conclusion is inescapable in any case.
    • ref 68 – fine

Let me know if more is needed. I propose to be back here in the British Library on Thursday or Friday, so could order the books stored offsite in time for delivery by then. – Tim riley (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that's sufficient coverage, thanks Tim. We'll just give Cliftonian a chance to respond to those points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've fixed all of the page numbers as given above. I'm not sure what happened with ref 30, as I have just looked again and you are right that it doesn't actually appear to be there, so I've taken it out. I can only assume I got O'Reilly mixed up with another source which slips my mind at present? I don't know. But it appears we are okay otherwise. Thanks Tim. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps not my place to say so here, but while doing the spot check I was struck by Cliftonian's synthesis of sources, from weighty Victorian surveys (I staggered under the tonnage of the three volumes of Forbes, Henty and Griffiths that the BL gratuitously dug out for me) to sassy but scholarly books like Knight. It isn't just the depth (which we expect at FAC) but the breadth of Cliftonian's research that has impressed me. Just my two penn'orth. Tim riley (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words Tim, and thank you again for helping with the source spot-check. As always it's a pleasure. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 18:29, 28 May 2012 [3].

Western Jackdaw edit

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) [reply]

We're nominating this for featured article because it got a thorough going over by Keilana (talk · contribs) at GAN, and it's been scrutinised by folks at the birds wikiproject. I feel it's really come together nicely and am confident outstanding issues can be dealt with quickly here (especially with two of us). So have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber, Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review ... (special guest appearance from the past... blame Brian!)

  • World cat shows Valpy ref (#4) with a publisher of Adamant Media Corporation?
  • What makes http://www.globaltwitcher.com/artspec.asp?thingid=26248 a high quality reliable source? (Current ref 13)
    • good point. globaltwitcher unneeded as the fact about four subspecies in most detailed treatises, so have removed and left commented-out note that ref after sentence after covers both sentences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://calidris.home.xs4all.nl/jackdaw.htm a high quality reliable source? (Current ref 15) ... if it is high quality - it needs publisher, accessdate, etc. - all the bibliographical information.
    • Well referenced article published by the Dutch Birding Association in their journal. I have reformatted the reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the previous ... what makes http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/birds/jackdaw.htm a high quality reliable source? And needs bibliographical information if it is.
  • Current ref 39 (Birdlife International) needs bibliographical information.
  • "The range is vast, with an estimated global extent of between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 km². It has a large global population, with an estimated 10 to 29 million individuals in Europe alone." is sourced to this source but that source says there are "In Europe, the breeding population is estimated to number 5200000-15000000 breeding pairs, equating to 15600000-45000000 individuals..." which seems to be a different number than that in the article...
  • Otherwise, three other spotchecks of online sources found no issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Corvus_monedula_distribution_de.svg: pages for source?
    • dammit. misplaced the goddamn thumbstick where I'd had all the cramp info. Can fix tomorrow....and ask about t'other pagenumbers added nowCasliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Borrowed_plumes.jpg: date of death for author? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a query on referencing. Why there is a "works cited" section in the references? This section contains two books. I can see there are many book already cited in the references section, so why those two books are included in a special section? Why don't integrate those two books in the references section also? --SupernovaExplosion Talk 15:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The works cited bit contains two books of which I referenced multiple separate pages. The inline references thus highlight the specific page of information and the bottom place is the location of the complete reference (rather than writing it out in full each time) We've made them link automatically before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why not reference the other books in this same way? Then there should be a consistency in referencing? --SupernovaExplosion Talk 01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. For books where I've only used a single page or a small pagerange, I generally just leave them in the inline section where their full details are. It's only when I've used a large pagerange for lots of different items that I do this Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written article, meets FAC. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I don't mind if folks are mean thorough at FAC, we're suckers for punishment keen to make the article as good as possible. ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: File:Corvus-01.jpg. Has this bird got some tail feathers missing? Is this a representative image? Snowman (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I have no idea. Could it have just been a windy day? Not sure..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be moulting, I suppose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it is moulting, where are its new feathers? Without a satisfactory explanation of missing tail feathers to include in the caption, I think that this image should not be shown in the article. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I've removed the image. It is not an overly informative one and we have alot of images in the article so no great loss. I'll double check to see if we have any other interesting flying shots Snowman I am happy if you want to check commons and add any photos or advise on which (if any) photos might add something educational to the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page

Support - Looks nice to me, a lay person when it comes to birds.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments.

On the whole it looks good. A few notes:

  • In general, specific species are capitalised ("Rook") and groups are lowercased ("pigeon") but when referring just to the Western Jackdaw, eg/ in "Distribution", the lowercase "jackdaw" is used. This seems a bit odd; it seems to imply both species.
    • This does seem anomalous. I am discussing with Casliber how best to proceed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - I've gone through to minimise ambiguity, with deft use of passive tense, pronouns and other words to avoid using "jackdaw" and using "Western Jackdaw" too frequently...done every section bar the Cultural depictions and folklore section, where I find it a bit odd-sounding. Musing on whether the folkloric focus of the section renders it less necessary to enforce the proper name here or not. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. Several of the descriptive bits may apply to both species, but I guess it's best to be safe and precise! I think I agree generally on folklore - using "Western Jackdaw" continually does make it quite formal-sounding, and that doesn't seem as appropriate here. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy - is Coeleus a genus now or not? It's a little ambiguous in the second para, though I may just be getting myself muddled here.
    • Reworded to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rereading it, I think the confusing part is the mention of the IOC list - as it's the last mention of the genus issue, it suggests it's the final word - perhaps move the "most works have retained" comment down to here? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have reworded it again. Is that any better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Subspecies - what's the origins of the subspecies names, if known? Monedula is clear, but the others are intriguing...

    • I did some detective work and have added these. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Etymology - "is a compound of the forename (...) may be the origin" seems to slightly contradict itself. I'd suggest damping down the second part to something like "has been suggested"

* Names - "college" in college-bird is cathedral; but why "cathedral-bird"?

    • Removed.
      • I'm guessing it's something to do with spires, cf chimney-sweep, but no real idea!

* Breeding - "Jackdaws usually breed in colonies with monogamous pairs..." - is "monogamous" needed, given the previous paragraph?

* Parasites - "In Britain, jackdaws sometimes peck open the foil caps of bottles of milk" - the tense is a bit odd here, since foil caps have mostly vanished in the past decade (IME, anyway...)

* Cultural depictions - some of these seem a bit borderline trivial, but "Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz" is the real oddball. Is this really relevant to the bird?

One comprehensiveness comment - no mention of intelligence? I know corvids are generally held to be particularly intelligent birds, but I don't know if there's been any research on the jackdaw per se. Otherwise, it looks pretty good - excellent work! Andrew Gray (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Papers on intelligence are tricky - some involved showing that they were less smart than Common Ravens etc. so didn't have much to add there. Am tempted to revisit to see what we can add that might be jackdaw specific. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mostly looks good for the style issues. I'll have a look tonight for anything on intelligence; even if they're just moderately intelligent compared to ravens, it might be worth mentioning as a note under behaviour for readers unfamiliar with corvids in general. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found this bit which is interesting and it'd be good to get the article it came from. The tricky bit is how much to add and where.....but I have to sleep on it, g'night....zzzzzzz Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Jim COI. I am a member of the Bird Project and made some edits to this article long before this FAC. Few problems, but some nitpicks
  • lighter grey part collar — partial?
  • links for secondaries, primaries, wind tunnel, Caspian, silicaceous, calcareous?
  • which makes up about 75% of the length of the head — not correct, the length of the bill is about 75% of that of the rest of the head, but it certainly doesn't make up 75% of the length of the head.
  • premoult — explain or link
  • chough — when referring to the genus it should have a link somewhere
  • 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 km² — You have used the neater "million" (as a word) in the rest of the para, why not here?
  • Mauritania is a country, shouldn't be linked
  • drive off larger birds such as ... Common Terns... — I find it difficult to imagine how Common Terns are likely to be in the same habitat as Jackdaws, let alone seen as a threat. Are you sure this is right?
    • I don't have access to Cramp to check this but jackdaws are found on coastal cliffs so they could well interact with terns. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skylark (Alauda arvensis),[67] Manx Shearwater (Puffinus puffinus), Razorbill (Alca torda), Common Murre (Uria aalge), Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea),[63] Rock Pigeon (Columba livia),[68] and Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaoct — Can you clarify what they are eating. I assume eggs, and possibly fledglings of the smaller species, but the image of a Jackdaw trying to swallow a heron doesn't readily come to mind.
  • The existing Madge and Burn pp. 136–137 reference also supports a few other facts that may be worth adding. Jackdaws will ride on the backs of sheep and other mammals, seeking ticks as well as actively gathering wool or hair for nests... 84% plant material except when breeding, when main food source is insects.. Will feed on flying ants
    • I don't have Madge and Burn but am looking to see if I can find this or similar information elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. The foil caps are back on the bottles! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now...Comment. Superb article. The only thing I can find issue with is that one ref and one ext link that are PDFs have the PDF parameter while the rest don't. I'm not sure if is parameter is required for PDF refs or not, but I think usage or lack thereof should at least be consistent. Resolve this and I'll eagerly support. PumpkinSky talk 01:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • removed. We've been getting rid of 'em. Preemptive thx 4 the support... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...in ref 10 (haring) it's still showing up. Is this because of the DOI link? PumpkinSky talk 02:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaah, I was wondering why CTRL-F wasn't finding it - on a subpage - fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PumpkinSky talk 09:56, 21 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 18:01, 28 May 2012 [4].

Colin Hannah edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Australian Air Force's first Chief of the Air Staff of the 1970s, Hannah seems not to have fulfilled his early promise when he got to be head of his service; in any case he preferred to chuck the job in early to become the first RAAF man appointed a State Governor. He created greater controversy in this role, speaking publicly against Gough Whitlam's Federal Labor government. Though Hannah probably only echoed what most of the electorate was thinking at the time, such vice-regal appointments were -- and are -- expected to remain apolitical, and the episode effectively did him out of a second term as governor. I hope you find his tale as interesting to read as I did to research... Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Again, nothing for a poor copyeditor to do. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tks for your kind words, Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:AS_Air_Force_2.jpg: do we know who designed the memorial?
  • Boughton or Broughton? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The former, surprisingly enough -- tks for spotting that! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work once again Ian. While I think that this is of FA quality, I have the following suggestions:

  • "was leading Western Area Command" - was the name of this unit "Western Area Command" or "Western Area" - the article's prose uses "Command", but the infobox uses "Western Area"
    • I believe the full name was Western Area Command but it was commonly known as simply Western Area and I used the latter in the infobox to avoid wrapping elements more than I had to, given it's somewhat narrow compared to the military person infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "served as senior air staff officer at RAF Far East Air Force Headquarters, Singapore, during the Malayan Emergency" - you should probably amend this to "during part of the Malayan Emergency" as this implies that he was there for the duration of this long war
    • I get you but didn't really like "part of" so tweaked it another way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He attracted controversy in this role after making outspoken comments regarding the Federal government of the day" - might be understating things a bit, given that this also caused the British Government to refuse to renew his commission despite the wishes of the elected Queensland Government (which I believe is extremely rare)
    • Added something along those lines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to briefly note the run-down condition of 6 Sqn during Hannah's second stint as its commander (not that this seems to have been his fault) - see Odgers p. 330
    • Didn't find Odgers that precise in the timing re. the poor state of the aircraft, but the page was useful to get an idea of the squadron's duties for the time Hannah would have been running it the second time -- tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption to the photo of the RAAF Memorial should note that the black panels are a recent addition, and not Hannah's fault. They were unveiled in 2002 (reference). Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do -- it's ironic but as those new bits with the images are more representational, they might have negated some of the criticism that Stephens mentions if only they'd been part of the memorial in the first place... ;-) As ever, tks a lot for support and suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below Started a read through, a couple minor suggestions thus far:
  • "resulting in the British government refusing to agree to an extension of his term." Is there a good way to avoid the fused participle here?
    • Does "and the British government refused to agree to an extension of his term" read better for you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think that does read better. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, altered to "and the British government refused to agree to his term being extended" -- roughly the same but seemed a bit punchier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit odd to have one sentence about his personal life sandwiched in the second paragraph of "Early career", perhaps move that to the end of the paragraph? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not wed to absolute chronological order in a bio, it seemed to make sense here since the post that followed his marriage wasn't closely connected with the one before/during his wedding. In fact mentioning it at the end means we shift back in place and time, since the wedding occurred in Western Australia, where he was stationed before he went to Victoria for the last posting mentioned. Tks for review so far! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess that's not a problem then. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Returning to Australia, in May 1949 he assumed command of RAAF Station Amberley" Just check, but did you mean to put the comma before the date here?
    • Yes -- I know the month he took command of Amberley but not with certainty when he returned to Australia. Appreciate you checking, though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the object of much adverse comment in the ensuing years, with personnel complaining of being mistaken for bus, train and postal employees." I'd suggest a slight rephrasing here, maybe "It was the object of much adverse comment in the ensuing years; personnel complained of being mistaken for bus, train and postal employees."
    • Ah, yes, the dreaded "with" -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent read, I found very little to complain about. A worthy addition to our featured content. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Read through the article and the prose is FA-worthy, as usual from Ian. Wish I could provide more detailed analysis than that, but when the writing is good and I don't have anything to complain about, I can't. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 23 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 20:46, 27 May 2012 [5].

A Child of Our Time edit

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tippett's semi-dramatic oratorio, written in the early years of the Second World War, records the events of "Kristallnacht", a pogrom against Germany's Jews carried out by the Nazis in November 1938. Tippett extends this theme to create a work of sympathy and hope for enslaved peoples everywhere; it is punctuated by American spirituals deployed as a secular alternative to Bach-like chorales. I hope that the article, which has recently been peer reviewed, might be TFA on one of the anniversaries of Kristallnacht (9 November), or perhaps next Holocaust Remembrance Day, 7 April 2013. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had my say at the peer review, all concerns were answered or addressed. Well done as usual, Brian. Images not checked.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the peer review, and for the support and encouragement. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too took part in the peer review, where my handful of minor quibbles were dealt with. It's a very fine article. Tim riley (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per above. Even though my chosen areas (Tippett, Monteverdi, Cosima Wagner etc) rarely accord with your own, you always find something helpful to say. Many thanks indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm delighted that someone of Brian's calibre is working on a Tippett article. Not at all a work I've ever warmed to, but some of Tippett's output has driven my love of 20th-century music. At the moment, the third movement of his first piano sonata is desert-island material (?1933).

The sonata is a little later; completed in 1938 and first performed 11 November 1938 (two days after Kristallnacht) by Phyllis Sellick
  • "The work was inspired by specific events that affected Tippett profoundly"—This is only a suggestion; I'm not quite sure, to be honest: "The work was inspired by events that had affected Tippett profoundly"
  • I have removed "specific" but prefer to keep the original tense, as I think the events continued to affect Tippett throughout these years.
  • Can the repetition of "German" be avoided? Again, please treat this as a highly optional point: "the assassination in 1938 of a German diplomat by a young Jewish refugee, and the German government's reaction in the form of". Hmmm ... "and Berlin's reaction", I suppose, isn't quite right. No matter.
  • I found a way round this.
  • "happenings" ... incidents?
  • The logic of "but" is wobbly: "Tippett's oratorio deals with these happenings, but in the context of the experiences of oppressed people generally" ... could it be "Tippett's oratorio deals with these happenings in the context of the experiences of oppressed people generally"?
  • What about making this parallel: "of Handel's Messiah, and is structured in the manner of the Passions of Bach" -> "of Handel's Messiah, and is structured in the manner of Bach's Passions".
  • "The work's most original feature is Tippett's use of American spirituals, which perform the role allocated to chorales in the Bach Passions."—mmm ... maybe "; the most original feature is the use of American spirituals, which perform the role allocated to the chorales in those Passions."? Don't know whether you want this so closely linked with the previous sentence (my semicolon). And maybe "take on" is better than "performed", which leaks into musical "performance" in this context.
  • Found a way of dealing with this, too - see what you think.
  • "Tippett justified this innovation on the grounds that these songs of oppression possessed a universality absent from Christian or other religious hymns." Not an assertion (Tippett's) that I find easy to accept at face-value. How do you feel about using present-tense "possess"? And could "or" be "and"?
  • "all over the world, in many languages"—remove comma?
  • OMG: Tippett was allowed near a baton? He had no idea of rehearsal technique!
  • Well, maybe he improved in old age. I've heard his recording; it's not the worst of the bunch. In my view that honour belongs to Previn (though I haven't heard the two most recent versions).

I'll be back. This is lovely stuff. Tony (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have largely adopted your suggested tweaks, and commented otherwise. Thanks, Tony, for your support and interest, and I look forward to more comments in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No citations to Bowen 1982
  • FN6: doubled parentheses
  • FN30: doubled quotation marks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Brian asked me to review the images before this FAC and I did so (and found and uploaded the free image of the "Deep River" sheet music). The images are all free and properly sourced and licensed. Thanks too to Elcobbola for looking at the lead image. My comments on the article to follow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for your help with images. I look forward to your general review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I did not review this before (except for images), but on reading it carefully now, I find it meets the FA criteria fully. I have a few quibbles which do not detract from my support.

  • Should ODNB be spelled out per the MOS?
  • The Composition section seems to imply that spirituals are not religious songs, when they certainly are. This is mostly attributed to Tippet, but it still bothered me.
  • A fair point, and I have altered the text to remove the implication to which you refer. I think Tippett's objection was to Christian hymns of praise rather than to all religious-themed songs (he did after all, consider Jewish hymns. He saw spirituals as having a significance beyond their old-fashioned religious language. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Premiere section should the SATB type be given for Margaret MacArthur, as is done for the other soloists? Assume she is an alto Joan Cross (soprano); Peter Pears (tenor), and Roderick Lloyd (bass); the fourth singer, Margaret MacArthur, came from Morley College.

Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments and support. The minor fixes are all done as you suggest (I have removed "ODNB" from th text). Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems impertinent to offer support given my limited experience and knowledge of the FA criteria, but it's whole-hearted nonetheless. Here are some diffident comments:

  • Libretto: "Eliot's response was to advise the composer to" – perhaps "Eliot advised the composer to" ? More concise, but I'm easy either way...
  • Composition: "The first, third and fifth of these are placed at the ends of parts" – perhaps I'm being overly sensitive but "ends of parts" seems a bit clunky and perhaps unclear (in spite of your introduction of the three parts in the earlier Libretto section). Just adding a definite article—"the parts"—might help. Or "each part", or "the three parts", or even "the oratorio's three parts"?

Synopsis and structure:

  • "He later extended his summary to the following:-" – remove the hyphen per MOS:colons
  • There seems to be a surfeit of {{col-begin}} directives, but perhaps there's a reason for this?

Premiere:

  • "overrode the composer's first intention that Morley College's orchestra could handle the work" – Perhaps "overrode the composer's initial view that Morley College's orchestra could handle the work" or "overrode the composer's first intention that Morley College's orchestra be used"?
  • Wikilink "London Philharmonic Orchestra"? – or are you avoiding a wikilink within a quote?

I'm delighted to see this lovely work given the comprehensive treatment it deserves. With best wishes, Simon the Likable (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your kind words and for your comments, all of which make excellent sense and which I have adopted nem con. Although I don't usually link within quotes, as this is the only mention of the orchestra I think an exception can be made. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:07, 27 May 2012 [6].

Percheron edit

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another draft horse article, this time of a French breed that is also very popular in the US. This article is currently a GA and just went through a PR, where it was kindly reviewed by User:Brianboulton. A French editor, User:Tsaag Valren, was also extremely helpful in assisting me with finding some French sources to round out the article's comprehensiveness. Please note that although link checker says that one link from the Australian registry is dead, I just checked it and it worked fine :) This is a WikiCup nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "although the American registry": That's 3 althoughs in quick succession; change it up a little.
  • Rewrote a few things to remove the first two "although"s. - DB
  • "The war took its toll on the Percheron breed as horses, fodder and handlers were requisitioned for the fighting, and ...": Just a note that I inserted a serial comma here so that this can't be read "The war took its toll on the Percheron breed as horses; fodder and handlers were requisitioned for the fighting; and ...". Even in cases where the readers can back up and correct their misunderstanding, good copyediting is meant to stop readers from having to back up and start over. There are fewer commas today generally, especially in the breathless modern style of journalism and ad-copy ... but if you prefer to avoid serial commas, that means everyone has to double-check that the sentences can't be misread without them, so it's a little more work for everyone.
  • Looks good. - DB
  • I see at least one em-dash, and at least one en-dash used in the same sense ... we (that's the "royal we") prefer consistency.
  • I think that I have standardized the dashes...please let me know if I missed anything. - DB
  • "Andalusian/Percheron cross": Dana, you'll know better than I do ... is this a WP:SLASH problem?
  • I think it might fall under the "where a slash occurs in a phrase widely used outside Wikipedia" clause, because this is often how crossbreed designations are made in equine literature, but I have also seen it worded a different way to not use the slash. Because of this, I have changed it to removed the slash. - DB
  • "whose appearances have included multiple showings": I left it alone in case "showings" has a sense I don't understand. Tighter would probably be "boasting multiple appearances".
  • Tweaked (used a variation on your wording). - DB
  • Thanks, Dank! I made one small tweak to your edits to remove a bit of redundancy that was added (see this edit), but other than that everything looks good. Your work is much appreciated :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Dana boomer. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN5 and 32: missing some accents on publisher name
  • You've got some reference redundancy, in "Thèse d'exercice thesis" and "Edition ed."
  • The thesis one is a product of the template. Do you have any suggestions to avoid this?
  • I believe you can use the "type" instead of the "degree" parameter for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Audiot: suggest translating edition number
  • I had my info in the wrong places. Should be fixed now.
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Nikki! I believe I have addressed all of the above - please let me know if there is anything else. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I don't really understand how FA nomination works here, I've work on fr:Percheron and tryed to translate here, Dana Boomer have passed into good english. there's only one french academic work about this breed : Leboucq, Christophe (2002) (in French). Origine et avenir du cheval de trait Percheron (Thèse d'exercice thesis). École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse , it would be a good thing to add it among the references --Tsaag Valren (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tsaag! I do have Leboucq's thesis referenced for one thing (Ref #30). All of the works listed in the references section are the books that I (we!) used to write the article, and I didn't think a thesis qualified. Is it published in book form? Again, thank you so much for your help in getting the French source material in here - definitely could not have done it without your help! Dana boomer (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I carried out a detailed peer review, and the concerns that I raised there were properly addressed. I have no further issues to raise; my support is subject only to a successful images review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Brian! Your comments (and support) are much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Some nit-picky things, mostly overlinking-related.

  • Five hand links in Characteristics is quite excessive, I think.
  • History: A repeat trot link appears toward the end of this section.
  • In the United States and Great Britain: Another repeat link here, this time foal.
  • Uses: There's a horse meat link here, when there was already one in the previous section; that makes this link a touch redundant.
  • Minor, but ref 13 could use a space between the pp. and numbers, for consistency with the other similar book cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Giants! I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else you would like to see done. Dana boomer (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Image review:
File:Percheron3.jpg looks fine, although it's not of especially high technical quality.
File:Haras in Saint-Lô , Normandië, France.jpg is fine.
File:Rosa Bonheur - La foire du cheval.jpg is fine, PD-100
File:Percheron, draw2.JPG - Needs proof that it's PD in US. Simplest would be to use {{PD-Art}}. Fine now
File:Percheron cluny102.jpg looks okay.
File:Percherons APD Mounted officers.jpg is fine
Just one little issue.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the additional tag to the Percheron, draw2 image. Just as a note, though, the PD-Art template is different on en.wp and Commons - it's a duplicate of the PD-Old tag on Commons, while it's a US-specific tag on en.wp. (Or at least this was what happened when I tried to add that tag on Commons, so I found the correct version over there, I think!) Dana boomer (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The T template mustn't work for templates with sub-templates. I meant {{PD-Art|PD-100}}

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page

Support, noting that I am a lay person when it comes to horses and thus cannot judge comprehensiveness as much as an enthusiast. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Characteristics section - looks a little odd that "at the withers" is mentioned after the second range of hand measurements not the first....

Other than that, tentative support on prose and comprehensiveness. Not seeing any clangers prosewise. I'll sleep on this though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas! I've removed "at the withers" altogether - that's how horses are always measured, so it's nothing special. Don't really know how it got in there in the first place :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Hi again Dana, this all looks fairly unproblematic from a delegate's perspective. I think Casliber's had long enough to sleep on this... ;-) Just one thing from me -- in the lead you have:

After a series of name and studbook ownership changes, the current US Percheron registry was created in 1934. In World War I, the breed was used extensively by the British. In the 1930s, Percherons accounted for 70 percent of the draft horse population in the United States, but their numbers declined substantially after World War II.

This jars a bit to me because you go from the US in 1934, to the Brits in WWI (1914-18), then back to the US in the 1930s (and after). Is there a reason I'm missing for not putting the British/WWI bit at the top of the para for chronology's (and geography's) sake? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian! I've rejigged this spot a bit, and did a bit of expansion while I was there. Dana boomer (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, tks Dana. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:50, 27 May 2012 [7].

Hugh de Neville edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after a rigourous GA review by Malleus and after searching throughout Google Scholar for anything I might have missed, I believe this is the most comprehensive, well written article on the subject available. I started the article last month, and it relies heavily on two sources - the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article and the book Making of the Neville Family ... supplemented by a few other sources. Hugh's an interesting character - he was one of Bad King John's favourites, and is mentioned in Magna Carta as one of the king's major councillors. Hugh got on the bad side of one of the chronicler's of John's reign, and got listed as one of "John's evil councillors" - a group I eventually hope to make into a featured topic. As I started the article, I'm responsible for the entire effort, minus the excellent copyedit that Malleus did during the GAN. Obviously, there are no images available of him - we don't have a location on his tomb in Waltham either. He's not exactly the longest article I've ever written, but he's a good example of the Angevin royal servant who served King John... and earned a nasty name in history for it. (Yes, this is the third FAC in a row on John's advisors - I'm in a rut, it appears!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no DAB links, no external links except a few "subscription needed"-references. As with most of Ealdgyth's nominations, there is little to criticize about the content, always a great read for history nerds :). However i think, the prose could use a little more polishing. There are several occurrences of repetitive phrasing, that hamper the article's flow. Specific comments following:

  • Early life - is it worth linking "royal chamberlain" (Chamberlain (office)) for the casual reader?
    Linked. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • does a source mention, who was the eldest brother or in which order they were born? Probably interesting as background information about their relation to each other.
    Not known, unfortunately. This isn't unusual in the period... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hugh, Roger, and William were related to a number of other royal officials and ecclesiastics: Geoffrey de Neville, who was a royal chamberlain and Ralph Neville, who became Bishop of Chichester." ==> Were there more than 2 relations? Then maybe rephrase as "...: most notable among them Geoffrey de Neville, a royal chamberlain and Ralph [de?] Neville, Bishop of Chichester."
    Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "De Neville was a member ..." ==> After so many "de Neville" brothers it would be good to restart that paragraph with "Hugh De Neville ...", it's slightly repetitive but clearer that Hugh is referred to.
    Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chief Forester - "De Neville held the office ..." 3 more "offic" as root following nearby. Some variety would keep the prose more engaging, sometimes it reads a bit like a listing of fact after fact, not like "telling a story".
    Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The revenues could be considerable ..." ==> If high revenues were the norm in this period (?), that statement seems too weak. When the majority of years brought high revenues, "could be" isn't fitting.
    Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Ealdgyth, but I unfixed that before I noticed that it was you who made the change. I like it the way it is, but YMMV Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roger of Wendover, a chronicler writing in 1211, listed de Neville as one of King John's "evil councillors"." ==> Why? Are any reasons for this characterization given in the source? (Oppression already mentioned briefly, any more details regarding his bad image?).
    Nope, none of my sources state why Wendover listed him... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John's later reign - "De Neville joined the rebel barons in 1216, ..." ==> First mention of rebels in the article should have a bit more background information here, especially for the average reader who may not be familiar with English history.
    Added a bit... tried to not overload the article with background here... we do have a very excellent article on John, thankfully. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He surrendered ..." + 2 more "surrender" nearby, also "overture of surrender" sounds a bit high-strung, i suggest a more common phrase, maybe just "proposal" or "offer" or "negotiation".
    Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... lands ..." used 4 times here and 7 times in chapter "records and lands" ("ground", "possession", "title", "fief", "fiefdom", "holding", "area" could be used, depending on context)
    I could use them, yes. But... "ground" and "possession" aren't strictly speaking correct... area's just weird, title isn't correct either (he held no title nor did he "own" the land - the king did...) ... generally we don't describe these types of holdings as "fiefs" either ... historians are getting away from the view of a strictly hierachical neat little feudal system... in this case, I have reduced somewhat the usage of "lands" where possible, and changed one lands to properties. Hopefully this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death and legacy - "gave gifts" ==> "gave donations", avoid similar root. GermanJoe (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're getting a bit picky here ... "gave gifts" is perfectly fine as we're not enumerating what he gave - he could have given rights to the churches ... or chickens, even! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "made gifts". Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==> All above points Done. I agree, a brief summary of the rebellion is more than enough, nice work. Giving this another readthrough soon. GermanJoe (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support after another read. Comprehensive and well-written. Please check, if other history-specific terms may need wiki-linking (added 2). GermanJoe (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suggest not using "De Neville" but merely "Neville". You see, "de", used in Portuguese (my mothet tongue), French, etc... is not a name. It's the same as the English "of" or "from". What happened was that in the English language the descendants of a "John of York" eventually dropped the "of" while in Latin languages we still use it. For example, Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is called "Lima e Silva", not "de Lima e Silva". You should never use "de" as "De", just as you shouldn't use "of" as "Of" when using as part of a name (such as the aforementioned "John of York" who wouldn't be called "Of York"). Just a comment. --Lecen (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is English, and there is usage for this. It could go either way, honestly. And I don't want to use plain Neville here as it would then get folks wondering why it's not just at "Hugh Neville" ... I did not place the article there because the ODNB entry uses de Neville, not plain Neville. It is true that the family later dropped the "de" but Hugh did not. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this at all. There's a good example of the difference in English with the de Trafford family, who at various times in their history either have or haven't used the "de" prefix, but currently do. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • What does "de Neville first appears as a member of Prince Richard's household" mean? Is that the first instance where his activities are known? That's not entirely clear as things stand.
  • Quotes are one of the few things that I'd expect to see cited in a lead section. What does everyone think about whether "evil councillors" needs a reference in the lead? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the first bit to "de Nevill was a member of ..." which is just plain simpler. I've gone ahead and thrown a cite on the councillors bit in the lead - I obviously didn't think it was required for two words, but its not a big deal either way. Easier to throw the cite on than fuss. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – After the fixes, I think this meets all of the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images are unproblematic, spotchecks weren't done. Did you see this source? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not available to me.. and it was used for the ODNB entry so presumably it's covered that way. It was also used in another source I consulted... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • "where de Neville was buried" - Is he still there? If so, wouldn't "is buried" be better?
    The source states "was buried" - the assumption is that he probably is still there but Waltham was partially destroyed in the Dissolution so we don't know where he was buried so we don't know if he's still there. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "refused to return it to de Neville" - "refused to return it"
    Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the last two paragraphs of the service under Henry III may warrant merging.
    Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also gave a copyedit, feel free to revert edits you disagree with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 11:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions/comments fromLing
    • Should there be a non-breaking space (& nbsp;) between "de" and "Neville"? I'm not hinting or suggesting; just asking. I saw at least one instance on my screen size/resolution where the line break cut the name. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly suggest that one or more of those monetary values e.g. £4,486 in the Chief Forester section might benefit from the template that converts the amount into modern figures.
      That's a truly appalling idea, and one that I hope Ealdgyth will treat with the contempt it deserves. Malleus Fatuorum 10:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "Contemptible" is a bit hyperbolic. Composition in the English language is reader-centric: it is the writer's responsibility to make all points clear to the reader, rather than the reader's responsibility to fill in the gaps. One consequence of this is that comprehensibility always and everywhere trumps style. If you find these templates unattractive, then ignore them. They are crucial to the understanding of anyone who a) does not know how to convert British currency into their own, and b) does not know the relevant inflation rate to convert historical figures into modern ones. Now, the first problem is unsolvable for the writer. There are too many currencies, so the reader will have to Google it (and can very easily do so). The second problem is far more easily resolved for the writer, and far less so for the reader. We are not writing for ourselves and our colleagues and friends. We are writing for a general, even international audience. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This an issue I myself have fallen foul of in the past, so I'm no saint in this regard. The economic reality though is that until the Industrial Revolution there was no wage economy in England, and consequently to extrapolate RPI back to the 12th century is utterly meaningless. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Malleus is correct - there is no good way to convert the figures into modern amounts since the economies were so different. No scholarly history of the time would do so, so there quite honestly is no reason to do so here. Template:inflation itself doesn't go back before 1264 for the UK (and quite honestly, that's such a stupid idea that it's meaningless anyway. Much before 1850 and youre looking at such different economies that the conversion is useless) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe the data tat goes back to 1264 came from the National Archives.. I found a converter there, anyhow... I find it difficult to imagine that there is absolutely no way to put a perspective on these sums. For example, "There was also an increase in the amount of currency in circulation from around £125,000 in 1180 to £674,000 in 1278." I found other things revealing the income of King Henry II in a given year, etc. I do not think precision is the goal. Perspective is. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But that sort of figure (either the amount of money in circulation or the revenues of Henry II) don't really mean much to the average reader. And ... no modern historian of the medieval period does these conversions ... even most of the economic histories don't. In order to explain this .. we're looking at something so off topic that it'd be undue weight. Royal revenues compared to one barons would be like apples and oranges ... and the increase in total amount in circulation over 100 years doesn't give us much perspective on Hugh's revenue's either. Also keep in mind that that some of everyone's income would have been in goods rather than in coins. We just don't know enough to do comparisons, which is why most histories don't give conversions. Yes, they used to, but historians have gotten away from it for the medieval period. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning Oppose, but one or at most two paragraphs can fix the problem. Please forgive me for writing "Leaning Oppose", but I no longer know how long FACs run. Weren't there a couple quick-passed recently? I seriously wouldn't have written that if I felt confident that the FAC wouldn't be closed soon. So here is my concern: It's a matter of historical background. I want one paragraph explaining both the economic reasons why enforcing the forest law brought so much power to de Neville, and why the office (and Neville's administration of it, in particular) was so detested. To be honest, three or four sentences tops is all I'm asking for. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Enforcing the forest law didn't bring "So much" power to Hugh, it brought some power to hugh. More important was his close relationship with John. But I'll get something added in here in the next day or so (busy this morning...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a short explanatory footnote and a couple of sentences. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Much more clear, at least to me. Thank you. BTW, the reason I said "so much" power was this bit: ""a strong argument could be advanced for the thesis that the royal official who wielded the most actual power during John's reign was the chief forester, Hugh de Neville". That does sound like a lot of power. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. But much of his power came from his closeness to John, as well as from his office. This is in opposition to say Hubert Walter, who derived his power during John's reign almost exclusively from his office, not from his relationship to John. Anyway, thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:34, 26 May 2012 [8].

Alec Douglas-Home edit

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At two days short of a year Alec Douglas-Home's premiership was among the shortest in British history, but in his two spells as Foreign Secretary he established a considerable international reputation. After an exceptionally thorough peer review I think the article now gives a comprehensive survey of his life and career, and I believe it is of FA standard. – Tim riley (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (prose to follow tomorrow)
File:Lord Alec Douglas-Home Allan Warren.jpg - Fine
File:Enoch Powell Allan Warren.jpg - Fine, although I believe Warren has a colour image of Powell.
File:Macmillan cph.3b40592.jpg - I see no indication that this file was created by a US government employee. The LOC hosts numerous non-free images, so I think this one is doubtful. Replaced with File:Iain Macleod crop.jpg, which is properly tagged and licensed.
File:Royal Cypher of Queen Elizabeth II.svg - Who is the copyright holder of the original work? Probably had Crown Copyright when created, which should be expired by now, but I'm not sure. Fine
File:The Hirsel - geograph.org.uk - 1078464.jpg - Fine
File:Neville Chamberlain by William Orpen.jpg - Needs proof that it is PD in the US Replaced with File:Arthur Neville Chamberlain 03.jpg, which is owned by the LOC and thus PD.
File:Heathdod.JPG - Source seems dead, can't find it on a .mil website. Needs proof that it was taken by the person credited. - Replaced with File:Edward Heath Allan Warren crop.jpg, which is properly tagged and credited.
File:Dunglass-Eton-and-Harrow-Match-1921.jpg - Fine
File:RA Butler by Stoneman.jpg - What makes this PD in either the UK or England? The UK has 70 pma, so this shouldn't be PD until 2028 there. Removed.
File:Alec Douglas Home Allan Warren cropped.jpg - Fine.
File:Andrej Gromyko 1967.png - Source needs to be fixed to show the creator was a US employee. This is a direct link, and this is dead for me. Replaced with File:Andrei Gromyko at Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.jpg, which is PD.
File:Dodwilson.JPG - Looks fine.
File:Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham Allan Warren.jpg - Looks fine.
Further image discussion moved to talk.
Prose comments from Crisco 1492
Resolved prose comments moved to talk page
  • Alright, that's it. I'll try and find some free images to replace the ones with issues — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could I ask you to look again at the two paragraphs dealing with Rhodesia under "Opposition, 1964–70" and "Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1970–74"? Another editor made extensive changes, most (not all) of which I have reverted. I should be glad of an impartial opinion as to the neutrality of the prose as it now stands. Tim riley (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks fine to me. I'll be archiving the comments above soon (regarding prose, at least)
  • Support on prose and images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am most grateful for your thorough and helpful review, and for your support. Tim riley (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I had my say at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For PR (wonderfully thorough) and support here, many thanks. Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query First of all, thank you for developing this article. Improving any article so substantially is always a worthy achievement, and particularly so for that of a prime minister. I was just wondering - I enjoyed reading through it, but was rather taken aback by the abruptness of its end as far as the retirement section. I claim no expertise on his life, and I appreciate he retired from the front line, but can the last twenty years of his life really be summed up in around seven lines? Did he never opinion on the state of politics in the 1980s/1990s? Did he pursue nothing of note whilst a lord? Any particular cause of death listed? Just wondering. Again, great work. Redverton (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'll check the sources and see if there was anything substantive to note from his years of retirement. Tim riley (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have read this article a couple of times now and I can't fault a thing. If I had to offer something in the way of a comment, then I would have to agree with Redverton about the retirement section. It looks a little short and it did leave me wondering what happened in that twenty year period. This is not an insistence however and I think that this is a thorough and superbly eloquent article and one which deserves its FA status. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. As suggested by you and Redverton I have added to the retirement section, though in truth his retirement was pretty uneventful on the whole. Tim riley (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a few comments.

I contributed to the peer review, and made certain suggestions which have been incorporated into the article. In general, the article is clear, thorough and fair, and a credit to the genre of political articles. I would just raise a couple of points for consideration:

  • You quote (ref 13) from Home's memo to Sir Michael Fraser the high-minded bit about going into politics as a public service, but leave out his odd theory that whereas country people get "pretty close to true values", the rootless townspeople "need constant leadership. It is, however, they who have the votes..." And later in the memo he writes: "A large part in my decision [to become PM] was the feeling that only by simple straightforward talk to the industrial masses (sic) could we hope to defeat the Socialists". Ah, those simple-minded masses - give 'em a good talking to! Straight from Trollope (d. 1882), I'd say.
    • Is that from Hennessy? I haven't got it here (consulted it at the British Library) and would be happy if you liked to add the relevant addition, either in the text or as a footnote. It's certainly quirky enough to be notable. Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have the Hennessy book, so I will add the extra quote and citation, in footnote form I think. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Later) Done. I can't resist letting you know one further scrap from Alec's mind, recorded in the Fraser memo. On the matter of Britain's declining internationl influence: "...to carry weight we must be in the First XI and not only that but one of the four opening batsmen". (emphasis added). Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I rarely laugh aloud during FAC discussions, but I did over this! Thank you for the excellent addition. Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Reputation section is a little too kind. Home was undoubtedly a nice man in his aristocratic way, and much respected even by his traditional enemies (e.g. Ian Mikardo). But it is not for nothing that scholars repeatedly place Home close to the bottom of lists of the most effective 20th century prime ministers. He was not the predominant political figure of his time; in his history of the times Land of Hope and Glory, Peter Clarke asserts that throughout his premiership, Home was utterly dominated by Wilson: "No previous Leader of the Opposition without the authority of being an ex-Prime Minister himself, had enjoyed such an ascendancy". (Clarke, p. 293)
    • Well, yes, but I think the thrust of the existing Reputation section is that his reputation rests on his two stints as Foreign Secretary. Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Afterthought: how about adding this just before the end of the lead: "His reputation rests more on his two spells as foreign minister than on his brief and uneventful term as Prime Minister."? Or words to that effect. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I offer these as thoughts, but in no way would I seek to impose them. There are, however, a couple of minor issues you may want to address:-

  • The article's title is "Alec Douglas-Home". The opening line begins "Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home...", with no explanaion here or elsewhere as to when or how he became Alec
  • Footnote 13; tiniest of nitpicks, but cricket's amateur statement was abolished in 1962 (26 November, to be precise), not 1963.Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha! A short rising one. I duly smash it through the covers with this: the 26 November 1962 vote (by the 17 first-class counties) was not valid until ratified by the MCC committee, which the committee duly did, nem con, on 31 January 1963. Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sh*t! It doesn't pay to be too clever when Riley is in full spate. Withdrawn with due humility. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, your input at PR and your stimulating comments above, which I hope I have addressed satisfactorily. Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Congratulations to Tim riley on another excellent article. This article is comprehensive, well-written, neutral, thoroughly researched and referenced and complies with WP style guidelines. It is also well-illustrated and shows us a rounded picture of Home's life and career. Home served in the British government during a turbulent political period, and so the neutrality and balance of this article is admirable. I endorse it for FA. Note that I have done some proofreading on this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks both support here and proof-reading the article. Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – a really fine effort from Tim riley here. This article covers all relevant aspects of Douglas-Home well in a neutrally-presented and well-referenced manner. As one of Tim's articles, the prose is predictably of a very high standard, and flows well. I endorse this for FA, with only two very minor comments: I would personally render his name in the first line as Alexander Frederick "Alec" Douglas-Home, and I would caption the infobox photograph with the year of the picture (which is omitted from the image page, but it appears to be from the same shoot as this, which is dated 1986). Very well done on another sterling piece of work. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you so much for the support and for the two suggestions, both of which I think are spot on, and I'm adopting. The one about "Alec" helps clarify the point made by Brianboulton above, and the image should indeed be dated, and will be, as soon as I've finished typing this. Tim riley (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clearly a top-notch article that is set to be promoted, but could I just make one suggestion? Several of the picture captions simply give the most basic definition of the image (ie, the individual's name or a place). I personally think captions should always provide context and explain why the image is being used. The reality is that about 90% of visitors to the page will just scan and look at the pictures, so it is best to make this clear. It can also be a great way of drawing these scanners in and actually encouraging them to read more! The Ted Heath caption is good, exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, and I think the page would be improved by making the other captions similarly informative. --Lobo (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I'll ponder. Tim riley (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN1: which Thorpe?
  • FN5: no bibliographic info for this source
  • FN39: which Home?
  • "Thomas Symonds" or "Thomas-Symonds"?
  • FN3: missing comma
  • FN178: italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (The above Note 178 is now 179, as I've added a new note 97) Tim riley (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed. Thanks as ever for your eagle-eyed reviewing. Tim riley (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 01:53, 25 May 2012 [9].

Edmund Sharpe edit

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the biography of an under-recognised 19th-century polymath who IMO deserves to be better known. The main source for the article is a self-published work currently available only as a CD. The credentials of the author and the reasons for its non-publication elsewhere are explained on the article's talk page. The article has been peer-reviewed and copyedited, and throughout the process I have been working closely with the author of the main source. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (by Carcharoth (talk) - initial comments at 13:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC), updated to support at 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) following discussion below)[reply]

Article looks very good. Version reviewed is here. A few comments. May say more later.

  • I've read through both the 2004 ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) article (by F. M. O'Donoghue, rev. Geoffrey K. Brandwood) and the 1897 DNB (Dictionary of National Biography) article by F. M. O'Donoghue. The publication date of the latter can be confirmed by accessing the ODNB's DNB archive (link in the menu sidebar on the ODNB entry, I incorrectly said 1885 in my edit summary). I also added a template in the external links that provides access to the wikisource copy of that DNB entry. That is a bit clunky, so feel free to remove that if you don't want that there.

    What I do think is needed is some way of explicitly noting that Sharpe was well-known enough to be given an entry in the 19th-century work, the DNB. Not everyone realises when looking at the sources that the 2004 ODNB entry is an update of the earlier 1897 entry, and that F. M. O'Donoghue is Freeman Marius O'Donoghue, Assistant Keeper in the Department of Prints and Drawings at the British Museum (this is detailed here). Is there a way to make clear that earlier (initial?) scholarship on Sharpe was published in 1897, not starting in 2004 as the current bibliographic list implies? This might be best done by explaining what 'F. M. O'Donoghue, rev. Geoffrey K. Brandwood' means (i.e. make clear that F. M. O'Donoghue is a 19th-century author and Geoffrey K. Brandwood is a 21st-century author).

  • I've added the date (1897) to the ref, plus a sentence to the Appraisal section about the 1897 article plus its author. I have made a reference to Wikisource, and assume this is OK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODNB entry includes in its sources 'private information (2004) [John M. Hughes]', which accounts for the article statement (in the bibliography) 'is credited as a source for the article on Sharpe in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'. A minor quibble: the note on the Hughes source says 'Brandwood, Geoff', when Brandwood is elsewhere named as Geoffrey K. Brandwood. Even if Brandwood is named slightly differently by the two different publications (ODNB and the English Heritage publication), I think the naming should be consistent in the article.
  • I've read the talk page note on the Hughes source, and I have no problems with that being used as a source. There may be an option in the citation templates to actually put 'format=CD' or 'format=digital', but that is quibbling as the note makes that all clear. What I would suggest, when the English Heritage book is published, is to include that as a source here, as that will help establish Hughes' credentials as a published (in print) author on this topic (I'm sure you intended doing this anyway, but thought it worth mentioning).
  • Lead: "setting himself up" - the phrasing is slightly awkward, is there a need for 'himself'? Could this be phrased differently? The first mention of Edward Paley in the lead doesn't say who he is. The final sentence (on the trips to France) is a bit of a damp squib and leaves things hanging. I'm used to biographical leads ending with death and place of burial and some concluding legacy statement. The lead does omit mention of large parts of Sharpe's life (there is nothing on his early life, for example). If a paragraph or couple of sentences were added to the lead to make it more of a summary, and to bring it to a natural conclusion, it would be better.
  • I've expanded and slightly rewritten the lead. Does this now cover the article adequately? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is now sufficiently comprehensive, but I would suggest getting it copyedited if you think that would help make it even better. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: "his mother moved to Lancaster with her family, where Martha later resumed her teaching career" - switching from 'mother' to 'Martha' in the same sentence could cause some confusion. I had to go back a few sentences and check that his mother was called Martha and is the same person being referred to twice here. There might be a way to rephrase this to avoid this. Maybe: "his mother moved with her family to Lancaster, where she later resumed her teaching career"? Also, you mention the death of Sharpe's father - do you know when his mother died?
  • Fixed Martha -> she. Father's death was of course vitally important to Sharpe's life: it fixed the town of his practice, gave him contact to Whewell, etc. Not sure when mother died, and I doubt that it is of much consequence to this article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of instances in the 'Early life' section and elsewhere where use of 'Edmund Sharpe' vs 'Edmund' vs 'Sharpe' could be tidied up. "Edmund Sharpe was initially educated by his parents" - the Sharpe can be dropped there. And later in the article: "In 1863 he was joined by Edmund Sharpe as a partner" - the Edmund can be dropped there, surely?
  • Architect: "Writing to William Whewell just before Christmas 1835" - this shift back to 1835 after a potted history of his architectural practice is a bit abrupt. Looking back at the early life section, is it possible to make clear whether this letter was just after he had returned home from his three years abroad? It also seems to repeat, or return to the earlier sentence: "Edmund returned home to Lancaster late in 1835, having by then decided to become an architect.". Is it not better to combine the two sentences somehow? Maybe mention the letter with the earlier sentence, and then refer to the letter again when explaining his early work on churches.

    You give dates for his four earliest churches, but no dates for the six churches he designed for the Commission (though you give one set of dates later). Were these all built in the same period?

  • Rewritten the two sentences. Added dates for the churches. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architectural historian: When you first mention people like Ruskin and Rickman, it might be best to say who they are. I vaguely know who they are, but those not familiar with architecture and architectural history will either just register it as a name and nothing more, or will be constantly leaving this article to briefly read other ones, which is fine to a certain extent, but gets wearying after a while.
  • Added a few words of description. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    About the correspondence in The Builder, who calls it "serious controversy and debate"? If that is the phrasing used by the source, it might be better used as a quote.

  • Rephrased and changed "serious" to "bitter", adding a ref. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    George Gilbert Scott can be wikilinked. In the same paragraph, the list of his other works can be preceded by a colon. Also architectural terracotta might be a better link than terracotta (not sure if this has been considered and rejected, but thought it worth pointing out).

  • Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three instances where the phrase (or one similar to it) "John Hughes, Sharpe's biographer" is used. It might be best to use this only once and just say "Hughes" for the other instances. Or drop the second repetition and retain the third return to the full phrasing that is used in the 'Appraisal' section?
  • Forgot to mention that the age at death for the subject of biographical articles is usually either in the infobox (there is a template that calculates it for you), or (in the absence of an infobox) in the article, or in both. Here, it is in neither.
  • Re-reading the ODNB and DNB entries, I see that the following bits are not in the Wikipedia article or appear to be inconsistent with it: (i) From the ODNB entry: "In 1859 he was appointed JP for Lancashire, and for Denbighshire"; (ii) From the ODNB entry: "he became a fellow in 1848" (of the RIBA); (iii) From the ODNB entry: "the most famous works are a pair of all-terracotta Gothic churches at Lever Bridge, Bolton (1842–5), commissioned by his father-in-law" - however, the Wikipedia article currently only mentions his brother-in-law (naming him as John Fletcher, which is consistent with the ODNB which states that his wife was the sister of John Fletcher) - what's the story there? Were the "pot" churches commissioned by the brother-in-law or the father-in-law? (iv) From the DNB entry: "He then became a pupil of John Rickman". I presume this is not John Rickman, but as there is already a mention of someone with the same surname (Thomas Rickman), and this John Rickman is not mentioned in the ODNB entry, I found it intriguing (if it helps, the Dictionary of Scottish Architects entry says Sharpe was "articled to Thomas Rickman in 1836").
  • (i) Added.
  • (ii) Rephrased to include this.
  • (iii) Definitely, according to Hughes, the use of terracotta was suggested by the (future) brother-in-law. And "commissioned" may not be accurate either; an article in the Builder states that he was "the chief promoter and the largest subscriber" Hughes, p.247); not sure that that is the same.
  • (iv) Definitely not "John". Sharpe did visit Thomas Rickman for a few days in 1832 (towards the end of his university life) and corresponded with him later. He may have been "acting as a research assistant" while on the Continent (Hughes, p.70), but Hughes states "there is no evidence to suggest that Sharpe spent more time with Rickman, or served any kind of formal apprenticeship with him". (p. 69). And by 1836 Sharpe was already running his own practice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes and explanations here look fine, but I would suggest doing something to ensure against other editors in future trying to change it to 'father-in-law' and trying to add something about an apprenticeship with Rickman, as the sources out there do conflict on these points and later editors may not read this FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added material about Rickman, along the lines I stated above. Re brother/father-in-law, I intend to leave that and sort it out if the occasion arises (maybe on the talk page). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got as far as 'Railway developer and engineer'. I'll come back to the rest later. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Couple of extra comments added above. 02:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Continuing from the above:[reply]
  • Railway developer and engineer: "The eventual outcome of the conflict" - is it possible to give the year he was dismissed from the contract? In the 'North Wales' subsection, you mention that he had moved to Geneva by 1868, but fail to mention here that between then and Lancaster he had been living with his family in North Wales, in Betws-y-Coed. The reader only finds this out later, in the 'Personal and family life' section, but it needs to be mentioned here first, really. Also, you mention his family here, but you don't tell the reader until the 'Personal and family life' section that he has got married and had children (this is part of the problem of handling biographical chronology while doing thematic sections). Finally, in the 'Abroad' section, are the Swiss and French tramway/railways still extant?
  • 1. I've added the date (1839). 2. Rewritten to include the move to N Wales. 3. According to Trams in Geneva, there are still tramways to Carouge and Chêne-Bougeries. presumably along the same routes. There is still a railway between Perpignon and Prades[10]. I am not confident that these are the same as Sharp's lines, so have not made any comment in the article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civic life and sanitary reform: You say he was a "visitor to the national schools" - we have the article National school (England and Wales), is that what is meant here? What is missing in this section is how long he was mayor for, and whether this was an honorary title passed around the councillors, or something more political (that might be harder to source). The tour by Owen sounds interesting - was this an official tour, and what was Owen's role (I believe he was Hunterian Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons of England at the time)?
  • 1.National schools linked as you suggest. 2. Small expansion abut the term and the role. 3. Owen did indeed hold that post at the time. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal and family life: The article said earlier that Edward Graham Paley became his brother-in-law - was this through marriage of Paley to a sister of Sharpe? I don't see any mention of Sharpe having brothers or sisters? The other brother-in-law mentioned is John Fletcher, through Sharpe's marriage to Elizabeth Fletcher. Also, the exact year of the family moving to Geneva is hinted at ("seven years" in North Wales from 1856, "about three years" in Geneva before arriving back in Lancaster in 1866) but not given explicitly. Was it 1863, or is this uncertain? It is possible to link Chêne-Bougeries, but it is not really relevant so I'd agree with it being left unlinked here.
  • 1. Paley married Sharpe's sister Frances in 1851; I've added this at the end of the Lancaster practice section, where it seems to fit the best. 2. Date of move to Geneva done (above). 3. Chêne-Bougeries linked. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other interests: While looking into the history of the Lancaster Rowing Club, I noticed that Sharpe is stated there to be living on the river ("Sharpe lived in one of the largest riverside houses at Halton Hall"), and the name of the district is the same as that later mentioned in connection with one of his sons (Edmund (junior) "later became Lord of the Manor of Halton"). As you've gone into some detail about where he lived at various times, I wondered if you wanted to include that detail as well? The final paragraph of this section, about the visit from Queen Victoria and the foundry works: is this not more logically placed in the 'Civic life and sanitary reform' section?
  • 1. In the Lancaster Rowing Club article the mention of Halton Hall is unreferenced. It is certainly not in The Social History of British Rowing used as a reference in the article. Hughes has full details of Sharpe's residences; Halton Hall is not one of them, so if correct it must refer to his son, Edmund. 2. I've moved the Queen's visit as you suggest, but not the ownership of the foundry — neither civic nor sanitary! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Hughes (p.533) Edmund junior took out a seven year lease on Halton Hall in 1882, after his father's death. But I will double-check directly with Hughes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appraisal: I know I pointed out who the author of the 1897 DNB entry was, but I'm not sure that there is a need to name his profession in that much detail in the article text - that new sentence could stop at 'Dictionary of National Biography'. If you want to name O'Donoghue, maybe quote him when he says Sharpe "was an enthusiastic and profound student of mediaeval architecture"? That would complement the quotes from Hughes and Price.
  • Photos of the memorial plaques would be nice, if possible, though the current standard of illustration for this article is easily good enough for FA (though I'm talking here about the relevance of the images, not the permissions and licensing).
  • Couple of publication name quibbles. Should it be The Builder rather than the Builder? And The Architect, and possibly other publication names as well? One more quibble, from the 'Other interests' section: "which had been opened in 1782" - is the word 'been' strictly needed there?
  • 1. I was "confused" by Hughes, who omits the definite article throughout. I found a facsimile of The Builder that includes it in the title. I have assumed the same for The Architect and The Ecclesiologist" and changed them. 2. "been" deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible to look up the names of these magazines in library catalogues. From what I found, the definite article was indeed part of the names. You did miss one: Building News - I believe by the time the obituary of Sharpe was published, this was known as The Building News and Engineering Journal, but it seems that the shortened form of the name was common. Search in this book for this quote: "[The Building News] commenced in 1855, becoming The Building News and Architectural Review in 1860, and The Building News and Engineering Journal in 1863. Eventually in 1926 it amalgamated with The Architect to become The Architect and Building News." Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the above comments are minor. I see some changes have already been made based on these suggestions. I'm not too fussed whether changes are made or not. It should be clear which ones are more critical than others. I'll check back later today or in a few days, have another read through, and likely support at that point. All-in-all, a very nice article and a pleasure to read and review. I particularly enjoyed the hint at an idyllic seven years in North Wales with his young family (reminded me of The Railway Children!) and the rather startling story of his youngest son in Africa (though the listing of his descendants in that article does seem to go a bit far, whoever has been doing that). Fascinating, and very much a 'Renaissance Man'. Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through most of the points above, and have now supported. The remaining quibbles, summarising them down here, are: possible copyedit of the lead, the rowing material, the remaining architecture magazine name, and buttressing the article against changes where other sources give a different account (i.e. consider whether the article needs to point out the source discrepancies for the father-in-law and Rickman points). Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (subject to image and sources clearance): I gave this article a detailed peer review. I am satisfied with Peter's responses and with the work that has gone into the article since. That is not to say that the article couldn't be tweaked and made even better, but that is true of pretty well all articles. Unless something major arises at this FAC, which I consider doubtful, I think the article will make a graceful adornment to the FA corpus. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I made the following comments at the peer review (struck out where dealt with): "I've added a bit on how his scheme for Gothic architecture differed from Rickman's. For FAC I would expect more on this. The linking seems to fall off towards the end - eg when he moves abroad. Was he "conservative" or "Conservative/Tory"? More analysis of a couple of typical churches would be welcome. Were all his churches C of E? He seems to have had relatively Low Church views, something of a contrast with many Gothic Revivalists, something that might be mentioned. Can anything of his personality be detected beneath Victorian politeness? The main source would ideally be supplemented by parallel refs to other, if shorter sources. I'm ok with it, but others might not be. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"[reply]
- a little more has been added on the first point, but it does not really nail where the differences with Rickman lie in the Gothic. Since the ref for this gives 16 pages in the main source, and Rickman's book is online, I imagine the material is there. All Rickman's periods have articles: "Norman architecture" "Early English Period", "Decorated Period" and "Perpendicular Period", which should be linked here (even if already linked, imo). It should be clear, with examples of buildings, where Sharpe's extra periods ("Transitional", plus 1 Gothic) sit. The links don't seem too bad now, though Grand Theatre, Lancaster was missing (added). Prince of Wales should go to the individual not the title. I'd still like to see more stylistic analysis of a couple of key church buildings, especially as none of the articles on the individual churches seem to have this (as opposed to descriptions of the architecture). The article has improved generally, especially from Malleus' copyedit, and apart from these points I'm ready to support. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for linking Grand Theatre, Lancaster. I have dealt with the Prince of Wales, and linked Rickman's four periods (they are not separate articles, but sections of English Gothic architecture). All Sharpe's churches are recorded in List of architectural works by Edmund Sharpe, all have linked articles, and all are C of E. I have no idea about his churchmanship and have found nothing about that in the sources. He was so active in many spheres of life, but there is little or nothing recorded about his religious life (other than, of course, his church building). And I regret to say that I know nothing about his "Victorian politeness".
  • For the other points, I need help. The relevant chapters in Rickman's book run to 70 pages of detailed descriptions of various parts of churches — windows, doors, roofs, fonts, etc. I do not have the skill or knowledge to compare and contrast this with Sharpe's periods. Even if I had, are not the books primary sources (I may be wrong)? If so, "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" WP:PRIMARY. I have not found any such secondary source.
  • As stated in my addition to the Appraisal section, there is no such thing as a typical Sharpe church, nor am I able to identify "key" churches. I do not have the skill to carry out a stylistic analysis, and I haven't found a source providing it.
  • So, if the last two points are necessary to achieve FA, I should be grateful for further advice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping the 16 pages in the main source used as a reference would cover the Rickman points, and indeed most of the others. They are fairly basic points. I will take a look myself if I have time. If Rickman describes the chancel of Foo Abbey as in one of his styles, and Sharpe as in one of his, I don't see saying so is misusing primary sources or "interpretation". Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see, they don't. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry, I don't think it passes comprehensiveness in that case. What I'm asking really is not excessive in the case of someone who is mainly remembered as an architect and architectural historian. Sharpe's very short book seems admirably clear, and has a full list of dates for his periods on page 8, with a full page list of parts of specific buildings exemplifying them after each chapter. If you really can't get the Sharpe/Rickman differences from that and Rickman, or other sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be trying for FAC on architectural subjects. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a go. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go; hope this is suitable. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly much better - give me some days to check it out. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long over this (but then you've not been very speedy yourself). It is clear that, while Sharpe's "Transitional" has not caught on, Curvilinear and Geometric are still very widely used by standard and popular sources, as a usually un-attributed sub-division of Ridgeman, and this should be said. This is useful, and the two are used by Alec Clifton-Taylor, Banister Fletcher, Simon Jenkins etc in books I have that are easily found. I was intending to suggest text myself, but won't be able to do this over the next few days. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of this concern now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed to do it myself with the nominator. I did some work on it yesterday, but there is still some to do. Shouldn't take long, but then I've said that before. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done enough to strike the oppose, and will support if I have time to add more while the article remains here. It's a pity this wasn't all dealt with after the Peer Review though. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- Hi Peter, reminder we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; I'll list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ian. It's some time since I was at FAC, and I did not spot that this is now a requirement. Do I have to do anything further at this stage? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just sit back and see if anyone offers to undertake it -- ideally someone who can access a couple of the print sources will do so, if not I may simply make my own check of the online sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-check
  • Ref 76, OK
    • Article text: "The approximate dates Sharpe gave for his periods were, following 1066, the Norman Period up to 1145, the Transitional Period to 1190, the Lancet Period to 1245, the Geometrical Period to 1315, the Curvilinear Period to 1360, and the Rectilinear Period to 1550."
    • Source text: Tabular data supports article text.
That's all I can access so far; I've asked Peter if he is willing to email me scans or screenshots of three other selections from his offline sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional spot-checks. Peter was kind enough to email me a few scans of pages from sources I requested, so I was able to carry out these checks.
  • Ref 28, OK
    • Article text: "Also in 1851 Paley married Sharpe's sister, Frances."
    • Source text: "Like many members of the extended Sharpe family of which he became a member in 1851 when he married Miss Frances Sharpe, Edmund's sister..."
  • Ref 49
    • Article text: "In 1843 Sharpe was able to fulfil his promise to build a church for the Earl of Derby; this was St Mary, Knowsley, which was completed and consecrated the following year."
    • Source text: Prose supports article text; article text is sufficiently paraphrased.
  • Ref 109, OK
    • Article text: "The intention for the full line was to build it from the Chester and Holyhead Railway to Betws-y-Coed, passing through Llanrwst; it would be 15 miles (24 km) long, with a gauge of 3 feet 3 inches (991 mm).
    • Source text: Prose and tabular data supports article text; article text is sufficiently paraphrased. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I thoroughly enjoyed reading this and it's the type of article, imo, I really like seeing at FAC. I see from above that it's been well-reviewed by Carcharoth, Brian Boulton and Johnbod, all excellent reviewers, and to me it looks very nice. Two extremely small quibbles, 1., I noticed that Runcorn is linked twice in the body (although it's a long body, so not that much of a problem to be honest), and 2., for those of us who like to look at pictures and not necessarily read all the text, I think the some of the image captions could be slightly more informative. Otherwise, very nice job. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the age of the nom and the fact that it now has the requisite supports/checks and no outstanding opposes, I think it's time to wrap up and let any further improvement take place outside FAC. Thanks all, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 09:57, 20 May 2012 [11].

Romances edit

Nominator(s): User:Magiciandude (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on this article for over a year in hopes of getting the first Spanish-language article to be FA and had the article peer reviewed twice and assessed for FA. The album covers old songs from Latin America which was the reason why I picked this album. Erick (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright check I deleted File:5iv6-1-.png (the photo of Luis Miguel standing there), as it was uploaded in 2008 as an own work of the uploader, but it had been already uploaded to a forum in 2006. So, it was likely taken from somewhere else. I replaced the image with another one from commons, which is also here, but that news report is one year after the upload to commons, so it doesn't count. The album cover and the audio bit have acceptable non-free rationales. In short, there was a problem, but I already fixed it. I will check the rest of the article later. Cambalachero (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Have not read the entire article, but the critical reception looks very US-centric. - hahnchen 20:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had search the entire Internet and through books several times for additional reviews for the album in English and Spanish and these reviews were all I could find. Latin albums are not covered by many critics and it's even harder to find reviews for an album this old. Reviews for Latin albums are easier to find artists who are known in the anglophone market like Shakira rather than artist who are only known to the Hispanophone market like Luis Miguel. Erick (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there no Spanish language music press? It wasn't covered in the arts section of Spanish language newspapers? I don't know how Latin American music coverage, but this does not sound realistic. - hahnchen 00:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said, I had search the entire Internet both in English and Spanish for reviews and these were all I could find. Google News archive shows nothing except the announcement, plans to tour, and his Grammy Award, which is already covered in the article in both languages. I even checked again a while ago using custom ranges on dates on the year it released on Google search to ensure I missed anything and still came out with nothing except the tour and the Grammies. Erick (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, I don't speak Spanish. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make sure to always use endashes for ranges and for breaks in titles
  • FN 10, 12, 39: pages?
  • Check italicization and wikilinking for consistency. Don't italicize publishers
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN 26, 29, 30: volume/issue?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) I have included the endashes as requested for most of the titles. I need to know if this includes the certification web sites since it is done by a template. 2) I found those sources at AccessMyLibrary but it is not there anymore. EDIT: I have readded the original urls to the urls for the time being. 3 & 6) I have fixed Allmusic for italicize consistency and have added publishers for every newspaper and italicized every self-published source. 4) I have searched Google to see if the site is referenced by other websites and have not found any so I removed it. 5) Done. Erick (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on all aspects except on prose (not because I don't like it, but because I'm not a native English speaker and my own prose is bad, so I can't evaluate others). Just a minor thing, in "Recording and production" you should link all the artists who made the original songs, even if it gets a red link. They are all notable, and red links do not detract from featured article quality. Cambalachero (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support A stellar work done, mostly on references. Credits are very well ordened. Even when it does not totally complies with the album article style guide in some sections. The prose is consistent and every section is carefully explained in detail, without falling into any original research or bias, a great achievement considering that latin music information regarding 1990s is very difficult to find. Good job. --Hahc21 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Erick (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support As someone who has reviewed the article before, I have no complaints. A great article! :) Basilisk4u (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I assume Erick hasn't had one of those as yet; will list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: Miguel collaborated with Silvetti for the arrangement of Romances, while Manzanero was in charge of direction.
  • Source: This time around, he hired Bebu Silvetti as musical director and arranger and Armando Manzanero as artistic director.
  • Article: He also expressed an interest in singing in Italian and Portuguese
  • Source: Link broken
  • Article: The two original compositions were "Por Debajo de la Mesa" ("Underneath the Table") by Manzanero and "Contigo (Estar Contigo)" ("To Be With You") by Bebu Silvetti and Sylvia Riera Ibañez.
  • Source: Those two musicians wrote two new songs to augment the 13 classic love ballads
  • Article: Armando Manzanero received a Broadcast Music Incorporated award for his work on "Por Debajo de la Mesa"
  • Source: BMI Latin Awards: 1999 Por Debajo De La Mesa, Armando Manzanero Canche (SACM),D’Nico International, Luis Miguel, Wea Latina
  • Article: A year after release it received a platinum certification in the United States by the RIAA
  • Source: MIGUEL, LUIS ROMANCES August 12, 1997 June 19, 1998 WEA LATINA Standard PLATINUM ALBUM
  • Article: The performances featured Miguel performing dance-pop and bolero arrangements for two-and-a-half hours
  • Source: The show was a marvelously designed and wonderfully executed blend of Latin music tradition--including segments devoted to boleros and mariachi--and contemporary sensibilities. The source does not seem to mention the length of the show.
  • Article: Miguel was the first Latin artist to be inducted to the Pollstar "Top 20 All-Time Grossing Tours" for most tickets sold for consecutive concerts at one venue in 1997.
  • Source: En 1997, Luis Miguel...En este mismo año empieza el Tour Romances la gira más extensa de su carrera, en la que de nuevo bate sus propios récords al presentarse más de 17 veces consecutivas en el Auditorio Nacional de la Ciudad de México. I can't see "Top 20 All-Time Grossing Tours" mentioned.
  • No issues, apart from the Top 20 All-Time Grossing Tours and the length of the show. I'm getting no results from the Access My Library links [12] Graham Colm (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The length of each tour is mentioned in the second page of the article see here. The Top 20 Allstar is mentioned at footnote 45 where I listed it right next to sentence supporting it. Source. As for the AccessMyLibrary, it seems the Gente newspapers have been removed from there the last time I visited it. I'll go look for a replacement if it's possible. Erick (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I missed "Pollstar le admite como uno de los Top 20 All-Time Grossing (los 20 artistas que más localidades han vendido en un mismo recinto en la historia de la música)".Graham Colm (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the articles on the official site for the newspaper, but it seems to be accessible only for subscribers since I can't get the links to open. To search for the article titles, type in quotations "Luis Miguel" under (Agrega otra palabra clave para afinar tu búsqueda) and enter the date the articles were written where it says "entre el" and "y el" and the titles should appear. Erick (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. Perhaps you should use this site with a (subscription required) tag? Graham Colm (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced all instances of the AccessMyLibrary url with the main site search and tagged the subscription required in each of them. Erick (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 08:07, 20 May 2012 [13].

Henry Wrigley edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A veteran of World War I and founding member of the RAAF, Henry Wrigley was one of aviation's deeper thinkers as well as a top pilot, credited with developing a de facto air power doctrine and also first to fly across Australia in 1919, south to north (but not back again, and you'll have to read the article to find out more)... During World War II he was largely responsible for organising the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the first women's service in the country. Fans of the RAAF's higher command intrigues during the war (you know you're out there!) will also find something to satisfy them here. This article passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews some time ago but, as is often the case, info on his post-war career was somewhat lacking for Featured status. New sources having come my way since then, I believe it's now a fully rounded piece and deserves a shot at the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Wrigley1917.jpg: any more details on source?
    • Um, nope...
  • Missing bibliographic info for Hero's Dilemma
    • Heh, I clobbered the entire entry as I was adding a url for it a few edits back, without noticing -- fixed now.
  • Be consistent in whether page notation is spaced or unspaced
    • Damn, thought I'd caught all those -- should be right now.
  • Ranges should consistently use endashes
    • Ditto -- ditto.
  • O'Loghlin: italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, you've lost me on that one... Tks for your checks, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The O'Loghlin bibliography entry italicizes not only journal title, but also date and issue - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, my usual answer -- done it, and seen it done, that way before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "... Laverton. Raised to air commodore soon after the outbreak of World War II, he became Air Member for Personnel (AMP) in 1940. As AMP, Wrigley was responsible for organising ...": Just a suggestion: "... Laverton, and was raised to air commodore soon after the outbreak of World War II. In 1940, he became Air Member for Personnel (AMP), responsible for organising ...". What I'm trying to do here is to remove "As AMP, Wrigley was" so soon after "AMP". - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • would you prefer "In this role..." to "As AMP..."? I thought about your suggestion above for rewording but "responsible for" makes it sound like that was his whole job, not one extraordinary task. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some will read that sense into your wording too, I think. How about this? "... (AMP); one of his jobs was organising ..." - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, tweaked to that effect, along with a few other minor things in the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After further training in England, Wrigley was posted to France and flew with No. 3 Squadron AFC (also known until 1918 as No. 69 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps) on the Western Front.": Your call, you may prefer: "After further training in England, Wrigley was posted to France and flew on the Western Front with No. 3 Squadron AFC, also known until 1918 as No. 69 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps." - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, sounds much better, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having travelled", "Having taken off": Garner's would I think prefer "travelling" and "Taking off". (In a previous section, I left "Having been promoted" alone ... if you're talking about a recent promotion, Garner's would prefer "Promoted".) I can give some of his/their reasoning if you're interested. Do any style guides (for any variety of English) say different, that you know of? - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, you know me, I never read the rules, I just do what I've seen and done elsewhere that works. I generally use "having been" or suchlike when it's evident something for which I have no exact date has happened between two events that I can date (e.g. if I have a source saying so-and-so took command of Unit A as Sqn Ldr in 1935, and another that he took command of Unit B as a Wg Cmdr in 1939, but no explicit source saying when he was promoted Wg Cmdr, I can safely say he "had been" promoted between those two postings). If I don't use it in that context, then it may not be necessary, so will check on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. I don't remember any style guide that I've consulted mentioning which tense to use when the time is unknown, and I'm fine with past perfect in the case you're mentioning. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the original twenty-one officers on the Air Force's strength": "a body of troops" shows up in SOED as one definition of "strength", so I'm not complaining, but FYI, I've never seen that before. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do see the term used in connection with an entire service, so think it's okay here. Tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he selected ... as WAAAF Director, over temporary appointee Mary Bell,": This probably means "passing over"; do you think it might be misread as "serving over"? If so, maybe add "passing". - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "founder members": I don't think I've seen that. Americans say "founding members" or "founders".
    • Personally I prefer "founding member" and used that originally but someone else wanted it changed to what it is now -- perhaps it's a UK/US English thing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Btw, I'm not linking to my edits any more because the toolserver was recently 14 days behind, so people weren't seeing my edits after clicking. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article, well-written, can't spot any real issues (Though I'm unfamiliar with the subject area). Just a few minor suggestions:
  • I'd suggest a few more commas, nothing major, but I'd add them "Later that year he took part in the first transcontinental flight", "For the next seven years he held staff posts at RAAF Headquarters", "In 1935 he published his history", "In 1966 he became executive officer" & "In March 2010 the Chief of Air Force"
    • Heh, I'm probably not consistent in my use of commas after establishing a date, although I tend to avoid them when there are a few more commas to follow in the sentence -- will have a look... ;-)
  • I noticed that you only have links in one image caption, maybe add a few to the others.
    • While I'm not actually averse to links in captions, my general rule has been only to link things or people not linked in the main body of the article.
  • Maybe add OCLCs to the last couple books in Further Reading.
    • Sure, will have a look for those.
  • "13,500 RAAF personnel spread across Britain, the Mediterranean and the continent" Was the exclusion of the serial comma here deliberate?
    • Another thing I'm probably not consistent in is my use of the serial comma, happy to add it there.
  • There are a few WP:PLUSING constructions here, not a big deal of course, but might want to check if there's a good way to rephrase: "with Wrigley acting for him in London", "with fewer than 1,000 RAAF personnel still remaining in RAF units" & "with the bulk serving with RAF establishments".
    • I might be hard-pressed to think of a different construction in a couple of cases but I'm sure there's scope for improvement there, will see.
  • The link in the citation to Ten Years at the Top doesn't seem to be working for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's entirely possible as the uni changed its URLs a while back; I thought I'd updated all the instances in "my" articles but may have missed one or two. Many tks for your review, Mark. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, that link does work for me so I must've updated it -- perhaps it just happened to be down when you tried it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all things fixed to my satisfaction. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many tks for your time, Ealdgyth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and comments

  • Spot checks:
    • Footnote 29 is supported by its source and properly paraphrased.
    • Footnote 38 is supported by its source and properly paraphrased.
    • Footnote 51 is supported by its source and properly paraphrased.
  • Prose review:
    • Lead: Linkie for "Air Member for Personnel"? Is this an internal RAAF post or something with the government? Not being an Ozzie, I'm lost here...
      • Heh, unfortunately the existing Air Member for Personnel article is for the RAF position, not the RAAF one, so I don't think it'd help linking there. The Australian Air Board, to which the AMP position belonged, was actually made up of both RAAF and government members, though chaired by the Chief of the Air Staff, an RAAF position. I think explaining it would break the flow of the paragraph as it's not simple. I promise to create you an Australian Air Board article, to which AMP and similar RAAF positions can link, at some stage -- it's on my list...!
    • Early life: "...where he joined the cadets." The easter egg link here is not needed. For those of us not native to Australia ... "...where he joined the Australian Army Cadets." would be a lot more useful.
      • Yep, the reason I linked only and didn't spell out is that Australian Army Cadets is a modern name, in fact the "Australian Army" itself didn't exist under that term in Wrigley's youth. He simply belonged to the Melbourne High School cadet unit, which is effectively how I've written it, linking "cadet" to help the reader explore the topic further if they wish.
        • I think in this case, we'd be better with a bit longer explanation ... since you link to the AAC article, you imply that he did join the AAC (even if the article will show he didnt' really)... can we do "where he joined the cadet unit, which in (year) became part of the Australian Army Cadets."? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The source for him joining the cadets doesn't by itself support the information you're asking to be added in the body of the article. It's quite common to link an older variation of a unit to what it's since evolved into without such explanation. I do the same thing in the next sentence linking militia to its modern equivalent of Australian Army Reserve, and have done many times in FA-level article without a problem. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early life: "HMAT A38" ... what the heck is this??
      • HMAT I believe stands for "His/Her Majesty's Australian Transport", analogous to HMAS -- however there's no WP or Wictionary article for it. A38 I expect is the ship's pennant number.
        • So do we really NEED this level of detail here? Is what transport he traveled on that important? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, fair enough, since the ship itself isn't notable (by WP standards), I have no problem dropping the name. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • World War II: "His son Ronald Neilson Wrigley enlisted in the Royal Australian Navy in September 1944, serving until demobilisation in 1946." is just oddly placed in this spot ... is there somewhere else that it could go? Its really jarring where it is.
      • I'm open to suggestions of where else to stick it; it seemed to make sense chronologically.
        • It might not be so jarring if there was a bit more connection to the surrounding text - do we have any clue what the son did? Did the father-son serve in the same theatre? Alternatively, is it really necessary that we know the son served at all? Could we shuffle this off to a footnote when we first mention the children way earlier in the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll just drop it as there's little else to say about him and I think it might be equally jarring to mention it when we talk about his children, since there's nothing to say about his daughter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few spots of prose that could use a polish and I'll be happy to support.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I googled three random phrases and showed no copyright violations either (all turned up those phrases only on wikipedia mirrors). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks for the review. I'm sorry if the responses seem a bit obstructionist, it's just that there simply aren't straightforward answers for most of them (welcome to my world as an Australian military aviation enthusiast)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is another fine article Ian. I have the following comments:

  • "returned to Australia on 6 May." - this is what's in the source, but given that this is the date the entire AFC embarked in England to return home, I suspect that it's actually the date he boarded the ship (comment only as there probably isn't much that can be done with this?)
    • Hmm, I get you and perhaps "embarked" might be more accurate but as "returned" is, as you say, in the source and it could also be taken as "commenced his return", it's probably the best we can do.
  • Should No. 1 Group RAAF be red linked? You should also very briefly note the role of this group (which Gillison helpfully explains on the page referenced)
    • Since it eventually became one of the RAAF's Area Commands, I was going to refrain from linking it until my (admittedly long-delayed) article on those. However I'm happy to describe No. 1 Group's function in a sentence here.
  • "As AMP, Wrigley was responsible for organising the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force (WAAAF)" - this implies that it was the extent of his duties, which I don't think is correct or what was intended. I'd suggest tweaking this to "As AMP, Wrigley's responsibilities included organising the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force (WAAAF)" or similar.
    • Quite right, tks.
  • The coverage of his post-RAAF activities is still limited, but is probably OK (especially as this wasn't the reason for his notability). Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As always, tks for reviewing, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed. I'm pleased to see that my comment in the ACR that it might not be possible to develop this article to FA class has been proven wrong! - great work. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You and me both! I just didn't think it was fair that ole' Wrig's article wasn't at the same status of many of his contemporaries, so kept digging... Tks again. Cheeers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 04:22, 18 May 2012 [14].

Steve Lukather edit

Nominator(s): Laser brain (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to offer session musician and Toto guitarist Steve Lukather, or "Luke", for your consideration. You've heard him, even if you think you've never heard him. He's played on over 1,500 albums, see. The article was reviewed for GA status back in September 2009 by Malleus Fatuorum, and received a substantive peer review from Brianboulton last month. "You know I won't hold you back now." Laser brain (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: supported belowYou're right, I had never heard of him but I have heard him. I made a few small copyedits as went through, feel free to revert. This looks very well written, strongly leaning support but have a few small comments.
  • No dabs, but one dead link.
  • Might want to provide a translation of the title of the Spanish language source.
  • "Grammy Award" is first linked in the "2008–2010:" section, but it's mentioned a few times before. Also might want to link "Billboard"
  • "although he has lamented that opportunities for session musicians have curtailed in recent years:" A little concerned about the use of "recent" here, when did he say this?
  • "He won won a Grammy award for the George Benson song "Turn Your Love Around"." Maybe note the date on this.
  • "most of whom were involved in the hard rock genre" Should "hard rock genre" be hyphenated?
  • "Lukather describes the album as being a "real" and "honest" reflection of the difficult period between 2008 and 2010." What do you mean by "the difficult period between 2008 and 2010", is this in terms of the economy or Lukather's personal difficulties?
  • Purely a preference issue, but I'd prefer less than four columns for the references.
  • The only remaining concern I have is that there's very little about his personal life, it's mentioned that he has a son, anything else that could be added? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the helpful comments! I have adopted them or made appropriate adjustments, except for the last point. Lukather does not discuss his personal life in interviews except for brief mentions of his son Trevor. He does have other children but reliable information is not to be found—mostly just fan blogs and things of that nature. --Laser brain (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, all your fixes and explanations look good to me, so I'm more than ready to support at this point, (pending image checks etc.) good job! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any information about his personal life?--GoPTCN 10:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry did not read the above comment :/.--GoPTCN 10:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I carried out a detailed peer review, and my mainly minor points have all been addressed. This is a well written and thorough article on a significant musician of whom I have personally never heard – but for me that's almost a given if he/she was born after about 1905. I know, I know, I need to get out more, etc etc....(note: support conditional on resolution of any source or images issues - see below) Brianboulton (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: (no spotchecks carried out)

  • Slagman.com: there are a number of citations to this source, but the links in each case appear to go the the Steve Lukather website, and I can't see evidence of the given authorship (Arend and Kay Slagman). Also, why is slagman.com a reliable source?
  • Why is steelydan.com a reliable source?
  • What is the physical nature of the source in ref 15, should I wish to access it?

Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Brian! Responses:
  • Slagman.com—not quite sure how to handle this one. This is the publisher of Steve Lukather's official web site. I put "Slagman.com" in the publisher field of the citation template and that's how it came out. One or both of the Slagmans writes all of the content on the site in consultation with Lukather. Sometimes they are credited on individual articles on the site, and sometimes not. I treated his web site as a source consistent with the guidelines listed in WP:SELFPUB. Perhaps I should change the styling of the citations so Slagman.com doesn't appear to be the source.
  • Steelydan.com is an official site about Steely Dan operated by two members of the band (listed in the site copyright notice). I think this would be a reliable source for information on who was in the band, but I'm willing to get an alternate source if you think it's necessary. --Laser brain (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interview for ref 15 is an MP3. I've included a hyperlink in the citation now. --Laser brain (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update on Slagman.com: I've removed all of the author attributions except where explicitly noted on the site. I've also replaced Slagman.com as the publisher with "SteveLukather.net" as the work. Hopefully this works. --Laser brain (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think attribution to the Lukather website is right. There are about 17 citations to pages from this site, out of 90+ citations in all, which I don't think is excessive. The information drawn from this site seems to be, in the main, factual accounts of what Lusaker did or said, which is acceptable. You appear to have replaced steelydan.com. No further sources issues as far as I am conerned. Brianboulton (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Session work: Space needs to be removed after a quotation mark in " Beat It".
  • "He won won a Grammy award in 1982 for the George Benson song 'Turn Your Love Around'." Double "won" there.
  • Might be just a personal preference, but I've never been a fan of starting sentences with numbers like in "1989's Lukather came about after Toto had been recording and playing for 11 years".
  • First paragraph of Side projects is completely unreferenced. That needs to be rectified, in my view.
  • Musical style and equipment: Little repetition from one sentence to another in "his own Lukather signature 'SL20' pickup system. The pickup system...".
  • I'm pretty sure a slash like the one in "1984/85" is discouraged by the MoS; how about an en dash instead? I've seen that used in many cases before. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I don't think the all caps in refs 16 and 17 are desirable, given that we don't use them for Toto's name. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments and good catches! All addressed, except your fourth point. That para is a summary of what's contained in the rest of the section, and so that material is cited throughout. Do you think it's okay to leave it uncited in that case? --Laser brain (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd say yes, Andy, but I couldn't find an explicit mention of Edgar Winter (and therefore a citation for working with him) in the rest of the section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recall now that the Edgar Winter item was a section of text I removed because it was sourced to a fan blog. I've removed the mention from paragraph lead as well. --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – If it's just a summary of what's to come, I don't think an extra cite is strictly required, so I'll consider that resolved. Everything else above has been fixed, and the rest of the article is strong, so I'm happy to offer my support. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Just a reminder we need an image check here.
  • Andy, can you point out the last time you had a source spotcheck at FAC? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never had my sources spot-checked. I'm so unfashionable. --Laser brain (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah-ha -- given your vast experience at it, I'm tempted to say "physician, heal thyself!" but that kind of defeats the object. Never mind, we'll organise someone in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
  • Support I like Toto.--GoPTCN 16:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: Lukather turned down an offer to join Miles Davis' band to accept their invitation.
  • Source: No access
  • Article: The album is scheduled to be released in early 2013.
  • Source: Lukather: "Having Eric "Mr. Chocolate" Valentine on drums today. It is sounding like a record now! Early 2013 release to those that have asked."
  • Article: Lukather claims that the album "changed his life" and that he was greatly influenced by the guitar playing of George Harrison in particular.
  • Source: The guitar and the Beatles album changed the life of the young boy. "Just the sound of it overcame my whole soul, if you want to call it that. I knew that's what I wanted to do. I remember George Harrison played a solo in I saw her standing there and just the sound of the guitar bending and the reverb struck a nerve inside of me." (Lukather, 1993
  • Article: Named by Gibson Guitar Corporation as one of the top 10 session guitars of all time
  • Source: 10 All-Time Great Session Guitarists: Best known for his work in Toto, Steve Lukather has in fact put his distinctive stamp on more than 1,000 albums. Known for his versatility, his credits include recordings made with Michael Jackson, Jackson Browne and Don Henley. Lukather is also a prolific songwriter who’s written hits for artists as diverse as George Benson and the Tubes.
  • Article: The guitarist has also been participating in the Fermatta Master Class Series project, an educational cooperative organized by the Fermatta Music Academy in Mexico.
  • Source: Este programa se imparte tanto en nuestras escuelas de música en Guadalajara como en la Ciudad de México. A continuación una breve lista de algunos de los maestros que hemos tenido el honor de recibir en nuestros campus...Steve Lukather
  • Article: In 1985, he released the instructional "Star Licks" guitar video featuring many of the guitar parts from the first five Toto studio albums. It was released on DVD in 2005.
  • Source: The Steve Lukather Master Session (a volume in the Star Licks guitar video-tutor series), made in 1984 after the release of the fifth Toto album Isolation, is the only instructional Lukather video...In January 2005 Omnibus Media re-released the 1984 instructional Lukather video on DVD. The DVD includes a 24-page booklet of examples in notation with a shorthand Tab guide.

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tks Graham and Nikki for those checks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 05:18, 15 May 2012 [15].

Ranavalona III edit

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Queen Ranavalona III, the last monarch of the sovereign Kingdom of Madagascar. She was selected by Prime Minister Rainilaiarivony to serve as queen at the tender age of 22, and after the French attacked her palace and seized control of the country in September 1895, she remained the traditional figurehead of power for two more years. She was then exiled to Reunion, then afterward Algeria, where she died in her fifties without ever being given permission by France to visit her homeland again. I believe I've covered her life completely and hope you'll enjoy reading the article. Thanks for your comments and feedback. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments
  • Fixed. Now all uses of the terms Hova and Andriana are capitalized and not italicized. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranavalona is said to have" but by whom?
  • Patrimonio and Riot are introduced without any explanation of who they are. A prefatory "French negotiators" or similar might be helpful.
  • exequator was a new one on me, maybe that could benefit from explanation?
  • "the conclusion of diplomatic relations" can have more than one meaning.
  • Both "the Queen" and "the queen" are used.
  • Changed all titles to lower case, except when preceding a person's name. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Two potential problems:

  • I've removed the file from the Commons and have re-uploaded it to English WP under fair use. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're correct, but since it's been more than 70 years since the image was produced, it is in the public domain in Madagascar. I will correct the authorship information. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to drop in, but the latter file must also be licensed for use in the United States. The tag mentions a 1995 law – so a URAA tag may be appropriate (commons:URAA). You'll need to have a look. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since we can't know the death date of the creator, it won't be in the public domain until almost 30 years from now. The photo quality wasn't perfect (blurry obstruction in the foreground) so I removed it. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review/spot check
  • The source provided for "Ranavalona III was proclaimed Queen upon the death of her predecessor, Queen Ranavalona II, on July 30, 1883" actually says July 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKiernan (talk • contribs)
  • I've just verified in several other sources and yes, July 13 is correct. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source provided for "In 1887 the French re-initiated hostilities by launching a series of attacks against several coastal towns and seaports. This prompted the queen to solicit the support of the United States in preserving Madagascar's sovereignty by sending gifts to then-President Grover Cleveland, including silk akotofahana cloths, an ivory pin and a woven basket." actually says 1886 and French "designs". It says nothing about attacks.
  • Thanks for catching this. I've corrected the inaccuracies in this section. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the source provided for "The question of rightful claim to the governance of Madagascar became confused even further." supports the sentence.
  • Since the situation speaks for itself I'll remove the citation. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material from Campbell (1991) is correctly represented.
  • The source provided for "Hostilities culminated in the May 1885 bombardment of the northwestern coast and occupation of Mahajanga by the French." actually says May 1883. It doesn't support the material in the succeeding sentences either. For example, the article says an indemnity of 1.5 million francs was levied but the source says 10 million.
  • There are several different attacks described in that source. On the page cited, the source does in fact support the content. For greater clarity I've now specified the attacks were in February and the occupation was in May. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed the 1.5 million francs somehow, but the year still seems to be 1883 rather than 1885. I guess that's just a typo? What of Baudais and the ratification of the treaty in January 1886? These items don't appear to be in Priestley? DrKiernan (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've double-checked the sources and made some edits that clarify the timeline (and you were right about the 1883/85 - it's now been corrected). 50.135.12.28 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "These initial attacks were followed in May 1895 by the arrival of a flying column that immediately began a long and arduous march toward Antananarivo. Many French soldiers lost their lives to malaria and other diseases over the following months, necessitating several thousand reinforcements drawn from French colonies in Algeria and Sub-Saharan Africa." I see nothing in the source (given at the end of the paragraph) for May (although "dry season" is given) nor anything about malaria specifically (although it does say fever, and makes a point of mentioning the swamp) nor anything about the ethnic composition of the troops nor the need for reinforcement. I believe it's fine for "The column..." onwards; you might say "late September" to be more specific. DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I didn't include the citation for the ethnic composition of the reinforcements. I've corrected that now. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thank you. All my comments were addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your helpful comments and taking the time to do this detailed source and image review, Dr. Kiernan! Lemurbaby (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Ranavalona_III#Reunion Island. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your copy edit and support, Dank! Lemurbaby (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, great article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 22:39, 14 May 2012 [18].

Hurricane Lenny edit

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it covers a very interesting and unusual storm. Most hurricanes move boringly from Africa and move west across the Caribbean, but Lenny didn't get the message. It moved to the east across the Caribbean, and what's more, it decided to become the strongest November hurricane on record. It caused a lot of damage across the region, and I believe the article covers its history, impact, and aftermath rather well. I hope you enjoy! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Miles Lawrence or Miles B. Lawrence?
  • Why italicize BBC and Reuters? Why not italicize Island Sun?
    • They are news articles. I fixed Island Sun. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • BBC is a broadcasting corporation, and Reuters is a news agency; Island Sun is a newspaper. Generally, only newspapers names are italicized in citations. Auree ★★ 20:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops, I changed BBC to "agency=BBC". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Haha, I hate to say it but it should've been the other way around. :P Reuters is the agency here, while the publisher field works for sites like BBC. In general, there should be a bit more accuracy in how citation fields are used in particular for authors, publishers, and works; I'm seeing several instances where publishers are erroneously listed as authors (FN 33, 34, 46, etc.), or where a division of an agency is listed as the author while the parent agency is listed as the publisher, when the division is actually part of the publisher (e.g. FN 49, 56 (needs consistency with the other NHC sources)). Overall the citation formatting needs a bit attention and could be done more professionally. P.S, you're missing a publisher for FN 43. Auree ★★ 21:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some titles use hyphens where they should use endashes
  • FN 44: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many good, reputable sources. Drla8th! (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I don't think I've reviewed a hurricane FAC before, so this will be my first--no complaints thus far. (Note that I know almost nothing about the subject.)
  • "torrential rainfall contaminated the local water supply, and the hurricane killed one person." Was the person killed by the contaminated water supply, or are these two unrelated?
  • They're most likely unrelated, so I tried to distance them a little. Juliancolton (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the cyclone was operationally found to have reached tropical storm status" What does it mean that it was "operationally found"? This may just be my ignorance here, but I don't understand what that's saying.
  • Tried to clarify. "Operationally" usually means "at the time of forecasting" in weather circles, since there aren't a lot of good word choices for that idea. Juliancolton (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The quick intensification was unexpected and occurred after a large area of convection blossomed over the center." Did the large convection blossom cause the quick intensification?
  • Indeed. I'm not sure if it would be feasible to flesh this out anymore, since it is a fundamental fact of physics that convection basically moves air from the point of origin to elsewhere, leading to lower air pressures. When the low pressure center deepens, the storm inherently has strengthened. If you think that's too specialized a foundation, it can be reworked.

Juliancolton (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I wrote that I was wondering if the causation could be made more explicit, but now that I read it again it seems to make enough sense. I suppose you shouldn't have to water it down (ha!) too much. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest linking "mbar" on its first occurrence in the body.
  • "the public was well-informed" Is the hyphen needed here? I'm not 100% sure, but I think it isn't. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say the hyphen version is more natural than it would be without a hyphen, but I've always written based on what sounds right and not what the rules are. Juliancolton (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, Julian's tweaks and explanations for the above comments look good to me.
  • "In the country, strong winds on the storm's fringe killed a man after striking him with a beam." I see what this is saying, could it be rephrased a little, it almost sounds like the storm hit him with a beam, and then killed him. Would "by" work in place of "after"?
  • "Due to the heavy rainfall, about 200 farmers in southeastern Puerto Rico" Someone told me on an FAC a month or two ago not to start sentences with "Due to", not sure if that's a rule or a preference, though.
  • "The hurricane struck only a month after Hurricane Jose had affected the region, causing significant beach erosion along Anguilla's coastline.[37] Damage from Lenny amounted to $65.8 million.[38]" Maybe swap the order of these two sentences?
  • "The hurricane's waves reached 20 ft (6.1 m) along the coasts of Saint Kitts and Nevis, reaching up to 600 ft (180 m) inland." Is there a good way to avoid the "reached... reaching" repetition here? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending image checks. Alright, I've finished reading the article, and haven't found anything that should hold this back from promotion. Good job, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I think I got to everything except your second-to-last bullet. The damage total seems like a solid conclusion that ties up that idea's loose ends, but I could see it going both ways. I'll leave it up to the nominator to decide, since I think it comes down to a judgement call. Juliancolton (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's not too crucial, thanks for the quick responses. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, I really enjoyed reading this article! I just have a bunch of nitpicky things to comment on, all of which are (as always) just suggestions.
  • Unnecessary commas
  • I addressed most of these (sans a few that I disagreed with). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • after "Caribbean Sea" in the lead
    • after "November 14", "weakened to tropical storm intensity", "made landfall on Anguilla" in MH
    • around "including roads and piers" in Impact
    • after "the rains resulted in mudslides and flooding"
  • Word choice
    • "duration" in the lead could potentially be changed to "existence"
      • IDK, "duration" is very neutral. We try and avoid any connotation toward hurricanes being alive, and check out #2 on here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine, it just felt a little weird when reading. But now that I think about it, I wish I had imageish skills so I could make an image of an angry living hurricane.
    • Similarly, "Early in Lenny's duration" could be rewritten.
    • "exceed their banks" is odd, perhaps "overflow their banks"?
  • Redundancies
    • "to the south of Jamaica" should be "while south of Jamaica" and "while passing about 21 mi" should be "while about 21 miles"
    • "precipitation total related to the storm" should be "precipitation total reported" (we already know it's related to the storm)
    • remove "that" in "and that the hurricane's winds had reached 100 mph" and remove "to" in "to turn the storm northeastward",
    • Saying "along the islands' southwest coastlines" is redundant; you could just say "along the southwest coastlines".
    • "including to airport facilities" should be just "including airport facilities"
  • Although: Pretty much every instance of "although" should be changed to "though". There are a handful in here.
    • How come? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just something drilled into me by one grammar fiend of an English teacher. I think it's one of those hotly disputed grammar nazi things, so it's not a huge deal. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward/unclear wording:
    • "On the island, the hurricane destroyed over 200 properties, and three deaths were reported."
    • "The origins of Hurricane Lenny were from a low-pressure area" (could be "Hurricane Lenny originated in a low-pressure area")
    • "When the cyclone was believed to have just reached tropical storm status"
    • "visible from the radar in San Juan" (unclear)
    • "as such" is kind of awkward, especially combined with "the most hurricanes of that intensity in a season."
    • You should specify that it was one of only four November major hurricanes at the time. Also, would "four major November hurricanes" still make sense? Because that phrasing would be less weird.
    • "after the center became exposed from the convection due to increased wind shear" is confusing. Maybe try "after the center became exposed from the convection caused by increased wind shear" if that's still scientifically accurate.
    • I don't like "continuing to weaken", maybe change to "as it continued to weaken"?
    • "a tropical storm warning and hurricane watch were issues for Jamaica and later the southern coast of the Dominican Republic, and only a hurricane watch was issues for the southern coast of Haiti" is clunky.
    • It's unclear in the impact section whether or not the sailors killed were the two that were counted in the Colombia death toll. (Obviously clear on a second read, but could do with more clarity.)
      • Any suggestions? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps something like "Although there were initial reports of nine people missing,[18] only two were counted in the death toll for mainland Colombia. Two sailors were killed offshore when their yacht was lost in the southern Caribbean Sea." You may want to specify what country that was near, but that bit's not a big deal. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I used your wording - I liked it! And the report didn't say what country it was near :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The hurricane began affecting the island" is weakly worded.
    • "The sustained wind report at the airport was the highest land observation from Lenny" is awkward.
    • Specify that the 18.32 inches were "of rain" at V.C. Bird
      • Aww, I wanted the ambiguity of whether it was frogs, babies, or blood. Mwahaha! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Four families required evacuation because of the damage to their residences" needs to be rewritten.
    • "Damage was heaviest along the western portion due to the waves and inland from flooding." is awkward.
      • Better? It might need help. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's better but isn't quite there. I would suggest "Waves caused heavy damage in western Guadeloupe and destructive floods further inland; there were five deaths attributed to Lenny on the island." Or the last clause could be "there were five deaths on the island". Does that help some? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ehh, but the waves didn't cause flooding inland. I wanted to combine two fairly boring aspects of the storm, that the extent of damage was from waves in the western portion and flooding inland, not that the two were exactly related. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ohhh. Why not just say that? (e.g. "The extent of damage was from waves in the western portion of the island and from unrelated flooding inland.") Keilana|Parlez ici 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Will do! Funny how that works, where just describing something can create better wording. Thanks :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By 23 days after the hurricane struck" is awkward.
    • The Saint Lucian government likewise provided 70 of their families with housing" is clunky.
  • Flow: Add "then" in "thunderstorms <then> spread across the region" (?), add "that" in "which indicated <that> Lenny had become a Category 2", change "after the sudden weakening" to "after its sudden weakening", "which set a record" could be "setting a record", add "the" to "<the> neighboring Dominican Republic".
    • Disagreed with first (not needed), agreed with second (better), disagreed with third (its would create an improper antecedent later in the sentence), and agreed with the fourth and fifth. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't notice the one about the third (<blush>) and the first one's ok. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other comments/questions
    • Is it necessary to say "which extended from the lower to the upper levels of the atmosphere"?
    • Do we know why the eye disappeared south of Hispaniola?
    • Are there monetary estimates for the damage on Hispaniola?
      • No, and unfortunately they don't regularly have damage totals in either DR or Haiti. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were there any deaths on the French side of Saint Martin?
      • It doesn't appear. Deaths are fairly easy to keep track of, unlike damage totals. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you perhaps specify that in contrast to the Dutch side? (And yes, you think they'd notice such things.) Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it's hard to cite something that didn't happen. To clarify, in the last sentence I said "two of these deaths". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What were the circumstances of the one death in Antigua and Barbuda?

That's all I have. Good luck, and please trout me if I did or said something stupid with this; I've really only ever been on the receiving end of FAC (and that was many moons ago). Keilana|Parlez ici 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the great review! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I'll support as soon as we sort out the last couple kinks. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support only on prose and comprehensiveness, with the caveat that I was this article's GA reviewer and have since been intermittently involved with its development. As a project member of the WPTC, I can say this article is very well researched and factually accurate. Good work! Auree ★★ 00:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All my concerns have been addressed. This is excellent! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- I think we can waive a source spotcheck as your last FAC had one, but looks like we still need an image check, yes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images are verified as being in the public domain. --Laser brain (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Andy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:24, 14 May 2012 [19].

William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it's time to advance Wikipedia's coverage of presidential election campaigns into the 19th century. William Jennings Bryan. While Bryan may not have been the longest long shot to gain a nomination, he certainly was among the most dramatic, taking it after his Cross of Gold speech electrified the Democratic National Convention. One of an ongoing series revolving around the 1896 presidential election, but probably the last for a while.Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source and images - spotchecks not done.

  • FN 80: page?
  • Some grammatical problems in captions - for example "tours...was unprecedented"
  • File:Bryan-Sewall.jpg is tagged as lacking author information. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fixed, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did the GA review earlier this month; I reviewed the article against FA standards, and the issues I brought forward were mainly dealt with promptly. A couple of questions I raised about image licences were not however addressed:-

  • File:William-Jennings-Bryan-speaking-c1896.jpeg: I asked why the licence tag was doubled, and also suggested that there does not seem to be evidence within the LoC records as to when this image was published. So I queried the basis for the "published before 1923" claim.
  • File:Bryan1899.jpg: Again, no details of first publication provided, and the artist died only in 1949, so is the licencing tag correct? There's an additional factor with this image: the handwritten caption refers to "Bryan in 1899", so the cartoon is not contemporary with the subject of this article.

I'd like these image questions to be resolved. I have not otherwise carried out a detailed image review, and as always my support is conditional on this being carried out successfully. Otherwise, this an educative and (to me at any rate) fascinating glimpse of politics in another time, another place, and forms part of an important series on presidential history which I shall follow with great interest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Thank you for the support and it is good to see you back. Regarding the first, the LOC states that it was copyrighted. It does not state when it was copyrighted, indeed, and I see online no obvious means of getting a copyright date online, but I assume in good faith that were the copyright date late enough to be significant, the page would not say that it knows of no known restrictions on reproduction. I see nothing in the other data on the page which would lead me to contradict this. Regarding the 1899 image: The National Archives states that it was drawn in response to a speech by Bryan "I stand where I stood three years ago." I can't find anything authoritative that says it was actually printed at the time, but surely if it was prepared and saved, it was not rejected, and there are a fair number of websites which have printed it and credited the National Archives. It is not perfect in either case, but it strikes me as close enough not to deprive our users of content.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to pursue these points, as my knowledge of the finer points of US copyright law is limited. Your explanations seem entirely reasonable to me; I am simply aware, through experience and the tutelege of the great Jappalang, that snares exist in this area and that it is best to be mindful of them. Brianboulton (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked these images and their sources myself, I'm inclined to accept that they may be used here. However I'm also curious as to why we have the duplicated PD-1923 tag in the first one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now fixed that. Thank you for pointing it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Credit where it's due, Brian pointed it out above... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Minor quibbles that don't affect my support:

  • "Bryan's old teacher, former senator Trumbull passed away" – he didn't pass away, pass over or pass out – he died: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Euphemisms
  • "Neither candidate had much money to spend on their campaigns" – Neither candidate had much money to spend on his campaign
  • "he had three reasons: … and because"
  • "advisor" or "adviser"? – you have both
  • "Deep South and Rocky Mountain states" – non-American readers will probably know about the Deep South but will possibly not know which the Rocky Mountain states are

That's my lot. A fine and comprehensive article; the text meets all the FA criteria, in my view. I take the same view as Brianboulton about the images. Tim riley (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the supports and for the useful comments which I will take pains to implement.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are fixed. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to take a deeper look at this article tomorrow. But for now, I have a few issues with the lead:
    • The first sentence places too much emphasis on the other presidential campaigns. Saying "each was unsuccessful" doesn't seem necessary or take into account campaign success outside of an outright election to the presidency.
    • In the second paragraph, I feel the first sentence is awkward and can be broken into two sentences with the last part merged with the first of the next sentence. With this, the whole paragraph can be rewritten. Suggestion: "Born in 1860, Bryan grew up in rural Illinois and in 1887 moved to Nebraska, where he practiced law and entered politics. He won election to U.S. House of Representatives in 1890, and was re-elected once, before mounting an unsuccessful Senate run. Despite the loss, he set his sights on higher office, believing he could be elected president in 1896 even though he remained a relatively minor figure in the Democratic Party. In anticipation of a presidential run, he spent much of 1895 and early 1896 making speeches across the United States, displaying his oratory skills, which increased his popularity in his party."
    • In the third paragraph, the passive sentence should be rewritten. I suggest: "Bryan went to the Democratic convention in Chicago as an undeclared candidate, whom the press had given a small chance of becoming the Democratic nominee."
    • The last sentence in the lead reads awkwardly with the semicolon. I suggest: "Although defeated in the election, Bryan's campaign made him a national figure, which he remained until his death in 1925."

More to come. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and for your continuing work. I have implemented your suggestions, though making tweaks in the proposed language to avoid duplicated words, etc.
  • In the section "Bryan", I did some copy-editing and rearranged some things for better flow (please make sure I didn't mess up anything). I see the note as to why you used the "Jacksonville in that state" phrasing, but it reads very awkwardly. Is there another way to phrase it? I also think the sentence, "who influenced him in a dislike for wealth and business monopolies" should be reworded.
All reference to Jacksonville stricken. Thanks for the touch-up.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Economic depression; rise of free silver
  • The second and third sentences are way too wordy and hard to read. I suggest rewording in some way or breaking them down into shorter sentences.
  • The 1878 Bland-Allison Act and the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had been passed as compromises." What was the nature of the compromise?
Fixed. I'm trying to keep the example of the $10 in silver bullion as part of that sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Preparation
  • I see that in the quote from Historian James Barnes, term "democracy" is used, which you interpret to refer to the Democratic Party. Might he just be referring to the nation?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when Barnes uses Democracy with a capital letter, he seems to be referring to the Democratic Party. One, he uses democracy lower case, and is referring to the concept, that the convention was "democracy at work"; he may in fact be making a pun. Example of his usage: "The letters of Grover Cleveland, William D. Bynum, Don M. Dickinson, Daniel Lamont, Richard Olney, John G. Carlisle, Henry Watterson, Lambert Tree, William E. Curtis, Charles S. Hamlin, and others show the despondency of the eastern Democrats; the depth of that despondency is indicated by the plan to send nondelegates to Chicago merely to demonstrate that the gold Democracy was not dead." --Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convention
  • "Cleveland's inability to affect events" What caused this inability?
Well, the silver delegates didn't like him or his policies, and they had a majority. Thus, anything Cleveland said would fall on deaf ears. It's all part of that effort to take over the Democratic Party the article talks about.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about "loss of influence" instead of "inability to affect events"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the semicolon used so often? It seems to me that in some places a semicolon is used, a period will suffice.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's my writing style, it helps avoid short sentences which I feel don't serve the reader well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speech and Nomination sections
Thanks, I wrote "Speech" last, because I wanted to see how it fit the whole article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
General election campaign
  • I suggest that for clarity the last sentence in the third paragraph be rephrased: "However, Bryan's endorsement by the Populists soon after Chicago, his statement that he would undertake a nationwide tour on an unprecedented scale, and word from local activists of the strong silver sentiment in areas Republicans had to win, jarred McKinley's party from its complacency."
I realize that 'however' is contentious, but I don't think this use is editorializing. Rather, it shows how the list of items affected the Republican's outlook. I assume that is what the source reveals.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. While I borrow from a few different bits here and there in Morgan, the key sentence is "However, the Democrats' fusion with the Populists, Bryan's announcement that he would campaign in a national campaign, and reports that boarded on hysteria from Republican weather vanes moved Hanna into action by mid-July."--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Populist nominee
  • Who is Williams? We have not been introduced to this individual, and do not know why his opinion matters.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the prior usage got deleted somewhere along the line. He is R. Hal Williams who wrote the most recent book on 1896. I will go through these and fix them this evening. This is a very enjoyable review, knowing your knowledge of presidential campaigns.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph, "an question foreign to Populism laid in its nest to the exclusion of all other issues" doesn't make sense.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A cowbird lays its eggs in other birds' nests, sometimes destroying the other eggs. It's a phrase which I think has to be in the article. I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on and hopefully fixed all of these.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that you removed the part about Bryan's "gifted oratory" from the lead. Since his oratory pusedh him to the nomination, I definitely think that is something that should be emphasized. Nevertheless, I am satisfied this article meets the FA criteria, and so give my Support.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support; I have restored Bryan's oratory to the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note/spotcheck -- looks like it's been quite a few FAC noms since your last source spotcheck, Wehwalt, so I've take the liberty...

  • FN078 -- no issues.
  • FN083 -- Hill's quote rendered accurately but I didn't spot anything on the cited page (or immediately before/after) clearly suggesting Gold Democrats were considering forming their own party.
  • FN131 -- minor quibble, your statement suggests the Hearsts (were thought to have) made direct financial contributions to Bryan, whereas the source seems to indicate that they supported his candidacy in their papers only.
  • FN132 -- accurate but I added the last few words of the sentence to the quote, else it strictly should've had ellipses to indicate it was incomplete.
  • FN133 -- no issues.
  • FN135 -- no issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the second one with additional citation from Jones, the key passage is "The big question for conservative Democrats was whether they should stay in the party or organize an independent third party movement." and goes on to discuss that. This is in Jones' chapter "Democratic Convention: Bryan". Regarding 131, I have struck that language in its entirety, it was added by Rjensen during the FAC (as was 132, which should say something about the much ballyhooed SME's), and perhaps I should have checked it more closely. I will now check the other stuff he added. Thanks for the check, and let me know if you need more done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, tks. Let me know here when you've completed your check on the "other stuff" you mentioned above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I cut all of it that you hadn't already checked. So hopefully it is good.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:23, 13 May 2012 [20].

Herne Hill railway station edit

Nominator(s): Tommy20000 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article after completely rewriting and greatly expanding it over the past few months. I believe it is now comprehensive and meets the FAC criteria. Tommy20000 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've contributed to the article over the last month mostly as a subeditor. I think it meets FA criteria, represents the best of wikipedia, and is a credit to Tommy20000. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an interesting and very comprehensive article on a topic I know almost nothing about - great work. My comments are:

Thanks for the feedback, Nick. My comments on each point are below:Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "passengers can access it from the east via a foot tunnel entrance on Milkwood Road" - are there other ways to access the station? 'Can access' is a bit vague.
I've reworded it this so it's clear that the foot tunnel is the way into the station from the east of the viaduct, rather than the only way.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The London, Chatham and Dover Railway (LCDR) had been using tracks in inner London owned by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) to access London Victoria from Kent, incurring costly access fees." - when did this begin? (if only approximately)
The first para has been rewritten to provide more historical background.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why this station was "intended to impress"? I presume that it was because it was the terminus of the line.
Unfortunately not.
It's a terminating platform, but this is probably UK railway lingo so I've removed both mentions.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all terminal platforms are bay platforms: the qualifier for a bay plat is that the station consists primarily of through plats (i.e. the platforms at a station like Victoria are not bay platforms, even though 100% are terminal). I would have left the mentions, and linked to bay platform. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put both mentions back in and linked to bay platform both times since the mentions are quite far apart in the article. Tommy20000 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nothing came of this suggestion." - needs a citation
This is a difficult one to reference. If anything had come of it, the overground line between HH and Farringdon would have been demolished; the viaducts through the area are the same as they've been since 1869.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but you could just remove the sentence: the material is described as being only a 'suggestion' in a magazine, so it's self-evident that it didn't go ahead if this isn't acknowledged given it had no official status. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence removed.(talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second mention removed.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "will temporarily be busier from 2015" - this wording is a bit awkward. How about something like "will become busier for a period commencing in 2015"
I've gone for 'The route through the station will be busier from 2015 until 2018 as Thameslink trains serving London Bridge will be diverted via Herne Hill - an additional four trains per hour in both directions. This is due to the redevelopment of London Bridge that will temporarily close it to Bedford-Brighton trains'Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2008 RUS for South London" - I think that 'route utilisation strategy' is too arcane to be safely reduced to an acronym
ChangedTommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2012, Network Rail is not committed to grade-separation and there is no indication of when after 2020 it might take place." - needs a reference
Reworded as such: 'The 2011 route utilisation strategy, which examined options for congestion relief at Herne Hill before 2031 (see Services), did not suggest grade-separation as an option in the 2011-2031 period.' I realise referring to something that wasn't said is a bit problematic, but if Network Rail had any intention of grade-separating prior to 2031 it would have gone in that RUS.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but this still needs a reference; just cite the whole document, or the part of the document where this would have appeared. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a ref to the appropriate pages of the 2011 RUS. Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would require substantial changes to the station as there is no direct access to the platforms from Milkwood Road and the current corridor for accessing the platforms does not extend any further east than the southbound platform." - ditto
The best I can do here is link to the station layout graphic from Network Rail. It isn't entirely accurate as the eastern siding is missing (since it's irrelevant to passengers), but it does show that the access route to the platforms is via the west and the extent of the corridor.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a sensible approach Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Southeastern's suburban services include the route between Victoria and Orpington via Herne Hill." - also needs a reference
Done, linked to the timetable.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and there are no current plans to construct it." - as above
Removed.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The off-peak service as of December 2011" - can this be updated?
There will be a timetable change on 19 May, so I've updated this section to reflect what it contains. It doesn't reflect the services right now, but that won't be a problem in 3 weeks.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Railway timetables in Britain tend to have two major changes per year, mid May and mid December. On some routes they may have changes in March or September of some years, but this is not a given. Showing "as of December 2011" should be sufficient qualification, given that it is a waste of effort to update the "as of" date every month that there is no change to the timetable (we do have 2000+ articles on non-Underground stations in England and Wales). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's sensible. Welcome to the world of keeping FAs up to date! Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be helpful to somehow flag that this station isn't part of the Underground network in the lead for the benefit of people who are unaware that there are also other, much less famous, rail networks in London (suggestion only) Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've included this in the lead para: "Trains to Victoria call at Brixton, where passengers can transfer to the London Underground" since Brixton is 90 seconds from HH on the train. Others may disagree however since you could do this for a lot of train stations in London; any thoughts welcome.Tommy20000 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good approach. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My above comments are now largely addressed, and I'm sure that the remaining minor issues will be soon given that they can be easily fixed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just some random comments after reading the article. Always good to see good railway articles!

All mentions changed as suggested.Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 refs 'considerable congestion', the ref mentions "the flat junction at Herne Hill" as a capacity constraint. One is not == the other.
Reworded as such: "First Capital Connect and Southeastern services must cross each other's paths at the junctions, constraining capacity on both routes."Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 87 (Assumed Kent main line ..) actually links to a RUS, and the page number is needed.
Page added to ref.Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you are trying to show with the junction diagram (Early services). The included map is not very clear when thumb sized. Wouldn't a custom diagram be better? This image also seems to be misplaced at the end of a section.
I've had a stab at doing a diagram and removed the clearing house image. There are two issues with it: The lines at Herne Hill don't quite touch; and the station blob at Loughborough J is entirely dark red (i.e. open) - ideally it'd be best if the right-hand side was faded to show the platforms on the route to Denmark Hill are long gone. Any diagram pros care to have a go at fixing it?Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the diagram and fixed the problem with the lines. The only issue is the right side of Loughborough J, but it isn't really a problem - anyone going to LJ hoping to catch a train to Denmark Hill on the basis of my diagram deserves whatever they get.Tommy20000 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've shunted the image of the upper floor down a few paras - that should resolve it.Tommy20000 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I remember something, somewhere, about linking or not link standard units, (i.e. m, mile etc) but I can't find it in the MOS at the moment. Can someone help with this? Edgepedia (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review ...

  • References should be in alphabetical order.
Done.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link titles should not be in all caps, even if they are in the original.
Fixed.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page number need for ref #7 (Symes).
The reference to Symes is for its front cover (an illustration of the station). Is there a standard way of numbering a cover? It wouldn't be page 1, presumably.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just say "cover page" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using one of the citation templates, such as {{cite book}}, use the |at= parameter instead of |page=, and specify which cover - i.e. |at=front cover --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency in the various forms you're doing with the refs - some are "p.X" some are "p. X" some are "p. X." some are "P.X."...
I'm setting them all to 'p. x.'.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11 (Myatt's fields) is actually a book, not a website. The book content is hosted online by British History Online - it should be cited as the original book. Same for ref 14 and any other British History Online refs.
Will do.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 21 and 11 are the same, can be combined.
Ditto.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 3 (Herne Hill Junction Improvements) is a pdf (here) that sources "Herne Hill railway station is on a pedestrianised and commercial section of Railton Road at the centre of Herne Hill." but I don't see how this source (a map) supports the given information.
The map positions the station on a stretch of Railton Road that is either completely pedestrianised or shared usage and in very close proximity to Herne Hill's major thoroughfare and Brockwell Park. Granted the map doesn't show the area is commercial; I'll cut that word out if needed, but that's something that can be confirmed very easily using an online map that displays businesses.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is... I could not get that information from the map - I'm not a resident and the map lacked a key that would tell me what the colors meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The map is labelled - Railton Road, the pedestrianised area and the shared surface are marked as such; the station is indirectly labelled ('Raised square outside train station) with the railway lines visible; and the area immediately north of the park entrance is described in the third bullet point as "the centre of Herne Hill". I know this map isn't ideal, but the pedestrianisation of Railton Road was very recent and there won't be a published source that contains the same info.Tommy20000 (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "building is on the western side of the viaduct, although passengers can also access the station from the east via a foot tunnel entrance on Milkwood Road; the tunnel serves as the station's night entrance. The building houses a ticket office and newsagent, and was Grade II listed in 1998: the listing notes the station's arched doorways, Welsh slate roof and decorative brickwork" .. is sourced to this but I see no mention of a night entrance or a tunnel...
The English Heritage source is for the Grade listing, rather than the sentence before it. I've put in another link to National Rail's station layout to support the existence of the tunnel and cut the mention of the night entrance (for whatever reason, the station info on NR's website doesn't mention the ticket office closes at 19:30).Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The four platforms, not listed, were rebuilt in the 1920s and are split between two island platforms." is sourced to this source but I'm not seeing the information that the platforms were rebuilt in the 1920s nor that they aren't listed as historical things...
Both pieces of information are supported elsewhere - the English Heritage listing explicitly states 'Entrance block only' and the 1920s rebuild is referenced in the first para of the Modernisation section. For the sake of not having 3 references for a simple descriptive sentence, I've cut it back to 'The four platforms are split between two island platforms'.Tommy20000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given my three spot checks of three online sources showed issues with the sourcing for all three - I strongly suggest someone else do a thorough source check for this candidate article. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest auditing the whole article to make sure that there are no more issues with this sort of thing - Ealdgyth - Talk 11:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked all of the online sources to ensure they do what they say on the tin. I trimmed down the Victoria extension section (the ref for the fine detail was an enthusiast's website) and added a few more refs to the Services section. Everything else is fine, but it'd be helpful if someone else looked. Tommy20000 (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Today I've double-checked all of the online sources and compared the refs for hard-copy publications with my library notes. The text has been adjusted in a few places to better match the source and I've moved several references closer to the fact they are supporting, but the vast majority of the article checked out. A check of the article by a fresh pair of eyes would be appreciated. Tommy20000 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the start of the Description section the distance conversion looks a little overprecise and is out of step with the rest of the article that uses imperial first. Keith D (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'll just say 'close to Brockwell Park' - there's no real need for a measurement since the park is within throwing distance.Tommy20000 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comment on prose and comprehensiveness grounds (not done a spot check) - as a train-lover, I'll read through and jot any queries below. I've started reading this a couple of times already and gotten distracted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lead - The arrival of the railways transformed Herne Hill from a wealthy suburb into an urban area. - I see a suburb as urban - the two don't appear contrastive to me.....? much better.
Reworded as such to make the contrast clearer: "The arrival of the railways transformed Herne Hill from a wealthy suburb with large residential estates into a densely populated urban area."Tommy20000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of lead - passengers for other central London stations on the Thameslink route would then always have to change trains at Blackfriars. - "always" is redundant here I think. Means the same if removed.
(in order to remove Blackfriars Railway Bridge, which the author considered to be a blight on the river) - not sure we need parentheses here - just a comma?
Both changes made.Tommy20000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of the plans to achieve this goal by widening a railway viaduct through Borough Market prompted..... - had to read this twice - how about, " Criticism of the widening a railway viaduct through Borough Market to achieve this goal prompted....."
I've rewritten this section to provide more background and hopefully make it clearer - what do you think? "Network Rail began a major upgrade of the route in 2009. A key objective of the Thameslink Programme was allowing more trains to travel between central London and Brighton, which was prevented by a bottleneck between London Bridge and Blackfriars on a viaduct through the historic Borough Market. Network Rail initially suggested widening the viaduct and demolishing part of the market, but the public backlash against this plan prompted Network Rail to consider permanently routing all Thameslink trains to/from Brighton via Herne Hill, avoiding London Bridge and the market."Tommy20000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the added context is very helpful..... now, where was I..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The route between Holborn Viaduct and Herne Hill was disrupted by 62 incidents during the war. - by....errr, what? bombs? This sentence has me curious.....
I'd assume by bombs, although the source didn't specify, referring just to 62 disruptions. There could have been V2 attacks, troop train derailments or who knows what else, so probably best to leave it as is.Tommy20000 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wartime disruptions are not likely to have been reported in the press. This was partly because they were so common, but there were also issues of security to consider (a passenger train may have been held back to allow a vital munitions train through), and a feeling that morale should not be lowered. Instead, after the war, the railway or government press releases would have given summary figures such as this. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, that's fine then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well-developed, informative article (although a quick image check is yet missing). Two minor comments, both for "Accidents and disruption":

  • "6 November 1947", the incident is not completely clear to me. Why the emphasis on "The electric train, which was travelling to Tulse Hill, was correctly signalled"? It seems, both trains were signalled correctly, just one of them ignored it or acted incorrectly. The current wording implies somewhat, that the steam train got a wrong signal.
You're right, the 'correctly signalled' bit is redundant as the previous sentence made clear it was the steam loco that passed a signal at danger and caused the crash. I've snipped it.Tommy20000 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am feeling bad about mentioning it (it is a good story), but the didgeridoo incident appears a bit too much like trivia (just imagine, all similar events would be listed for larger stations ...). I suggest removing it. GermanJoe (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like having it in - it's a change in pace from the war and death of the section, and it's probably the one funny thing that has ever happened at HHRS. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Tommy20000 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal either way, the story is atleast interesting - have updated both points as done/explained. GermanJoe (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link Check - no broken external links, no DAB-links. GermanJoe (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image gallery - I have added an image gallery to the article to better illustrate the station's former layout; the images range from an elevated view of the station to a detailed technical schematic. I know that image galleries are generally frowned upon, but I think this one helps the reader to get their head around how the station used to look and understand the extent of the changes described in the following Modernisation section. What does everyone think? Tommy20000 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work for me. Breaks up the article, for no extremely good reason. I'd lose it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • We should see citations at the end of all paragraphs; at the moment they're missing from last two paras of Contruction, the last para in Modernisation, and the second para in 1988 to present.
I have added references to the second last para in Construction and the last para in Modernisation; the last sentence in the last para of Construction has been cut.
The last sentence in 1988 to present - "This marked the end of rail services to the continent via Herne Hill, which had been started by the LCDR in 1863 when the line between Victoria and Dover via Herne Hill was completed." - is difficult to reference because it's summing up previously stated and referenced facts; the LCDR ran boat trains from 1863 and trains from the Channel Tunnel ran from 1994 until 2007. I haven't come across a single source that sums this up, but it would be a bit of a shame to cut what is a symbolic part of the station's history.Tommy20000 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like we still need an image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an image check is a check of sources and licences, then I'm satisfied that all are well sourced and licenced, except for the following three, all of which have a common problem. They're photos taken in the 1900 to, say 1915 period. Photographer unknown. We assert they're in the public domain but have no evidence. It is easy to conceive of a 20-year old in 1900 taking a photo. If copyright is life + 70 years, and our photographer lived to 70 years, then they move into the PD in 1900+140-20 years = 2020. So whereas the strong probability is that they're PD, we're making an assumption and we might be wrong. I don't know how strict we consider we should be. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a dig around and had no luck finding the names of the photographers in question, so the dates of death are unknown, but, as Tag says, it's most likely the pictures are public domain.Tommy20000 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likely as it may be, unfortunately I don't think we can make that assumption. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The images have been removed and replaced with ones that are definitely PD - one is an 1894 Ordnance Survey map and another is a photo I took. Tommy20000 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for taking prompt action. The new images look unproblematic so I think we can wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I have a problem - the 1894 map has been given {{PD-US}}, but that applies only to works first published in the US. This is an Ordnance Survey map, where Crown Copyright applies, so should have been given {{PD-UKGov}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, fair point, I guess I had the William Jennings Bryan campaign FAC images on my mind -- Tommy, can you deal with this? Actually a bit more on the source would help too -- online, printed copy, whichever. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the tag has been changed and I've added the image's source (scanned from an 1894 original).Tommy20000 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 17:48, 13 May 2012 [21].

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store edit

Nominator(s): Silverseren, WWB Too

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that, after a GA nomination and two peer reviews (albeit, the second didn't have much interaction), the article meets the standards for FAC. Cracker Barrel is one of the more famous representations of Southern United States style and cooking and has long been known as one of the largest restaurant chains to come out of the Southern US. I worked on this article with WWB Too, who is my co-nominator, where he did most of the article text and finding the references and I did most of the formatting, fixing references, and the other technical stuff.

Note for transparency: I and WWB Too are members of Wikiproject Cooperation and he was paid in the past to improve this article. He has been completely straightforward about all of this and followed Wikipedia's guidelines to the letter. He was not involved in working on the controversies section in the article and removed himself from talk page discussion on that section.

Request: For the purposes of this FAC, as I don't want to have all of the improvements requested by reviewers to fall on me, I would like to request that WWB Too be allowed to edit the article directly for the purposes of implementing the changes and improvements that the reviewers to this FAC ask for. I don't feel like there should be any issues in this request (hopefully). SilverserenC 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Co-nominator here. This is my first time at FAC and I'm aware that the review process could be tough, so I'm intrigued to help see what I can do to give it the best shot at passing the test. As Silver notes, in 2011 I was engaged by Cracker Barrel to improve this article, and I did so by proposing new material for disinterested volunteer editors to implement. The project for Cracker Barrel has since ended, but it is probably still fair to consider that I have a COI with the topic, and I will primarily focus on providing information from research. I defer to others' views with regard to Silver's request that I be permitted to edit the mainspace. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. Some general comments:
    1. In article the terms "restaurant" and "store" are used interchangeably. This confusing at places. I think you should consistently use one term.
    2. In the 'New markets and refocus' section: In addition to the Corner Market stores, .... Sorry but I do not know what these Corner Market stores are. Please, explain.
    3. In the next section: The number of combined restaurants and stores owned by Cracker Barrel approximately doubled between 1997 and 2000, to over 420 locations. However in the previous section I read: By September 1997, Cracker Barrel had 314 restaurants .... 314*2≠420.
    4. In the 'Business model and partnerships' section the first two sentences duplicate what was said in the previous section 'Restaurants'.
More to follow. Ruslik_Zero 17:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will address and fix your other points in a little bit. But two questions:
1) In relation to the request above, is it okay if WWB Too directly edits the article? Because your questions are focusing more on the things he would know how to fix.
2) Do you think it would be better to use restaurant then, rather than store? I was also thinking we could use restaurant in an overarching manner and then also when discussing food, but use store when discussing the store part of the place. Though I do see how that could get confusing.
Let me know. SilverserenC 17:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restaurant vs. store is an interesting challenge. The fact is, each location contains both a store and a restaurant. In writing this originally, I sometimes used the different terms as synecdoche (part representing the whole) in order to avoid repetition. Perhaps it would be better to figure out which instance each is the primary subject, however I expect that this could read to overuse of location. Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments by Jim I could feel my arteries hardening just reading this. I'm a Brit, so there may be things I pick up which are obvious in the US, but not necessarily to your global audience. Generally pretty good, but some niggles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • US or U.S. — both occur in the lead alone
  • Since there were only 6 instances of U.S. and far more of US, I removed the former. SilverserenC 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see from the text that racial discrimination in the US is illegal as well as immoral, but that's not clear with the discrimination against women or gays. Can you clarify whether such discrimination is actually illegal in the States, as it would be, for example, in most of Europe?
  • biscuit — now, I'm pretty sure this isn't what I dunk in my tea. Link or gloss perhaps?
  • In addition to the Corner Market stores — What? Not mentioned previously, no indication of what they are. They appear here and slink silently away a few sentences later
  • salsa — I assume not the dance, link or gloss please
  • wake of controversies including charges of racial discrimination and controversy over its policy of firing gay employees — too many controversies
  • I changed the first controversies to incidents. SilverserenC 21:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Cracker Barrel is a Southern themed chain of restaurants and retail stores that serves traditional Southern comfort food often described as "down-home" country cooking, and sells gift items including toys and woodcrafts — does this really need four references? if so, can you conflate them so only one appears here.
  • I've pared it down to only two refs, which singularly used in the article for that sentence. SilverserenC 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nashville — link at first occurence
  • Cracker Barrel employees, funded by the chain's employees. — too many employees
  • are turnip tops actually edible?
  • Yes. As the turnip article says, "Turnip leaves are sometimes eaten as "turnip greens" ("turnip tops" in the UK), and they resemble mustard greens in flavor. Turnip greens are a common side dish in southeastern US cooking, primarily during late fall and winter." SilverserenC 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave the Corner market stuff to WWB. But as for sexual discrimination, it's a tricky legal field. There's a few laws that apply that you can invoke, but they're more general discrimination laws. I don't know if there's stuff specifically for sexual discrimination. Considering many places still don't follow the requirements of the Equal Pay act anyways. So i'm not quite sure how to clarify that in the article other than what it is, which is sexual harassment. SilverserenC 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'll leave to others the discussion of how to handle discrimination topics, I can offer three sources noting that the discrimination was not illegal (at least at the time).
  • From a Detroit News article currently used in the article (<ref name=Price/>) there is this passage:
Summerville was crushed but summoned the strength to speak out publicly. She helped put a human face on anti-gay job bias for millions of Americans who, like Summerville, were shocked to learn that Cracker Barrel's action was perfectly legal. (Thirteen states now outlaw anti-gay job bias, up from two at the start of 1991.)
  • And from Nation's Restaurant News (<ref name=Hayes/>), this:
Cracker Barrel's human-resources vice president, William Bridges, said the company checked with legal counsel to make certain its actions did not violate existing state or federal regulations.
"None of the states in which we operate has laws protecting employees on the basis of sexual preference, nor are there any federal statutes that do so," Bridges explained.
  • And a New York Times article I didn't use (however, just in case: <ref name=Noble>{{cite news |title=Gay Group Asks Accord In Job Dispute last1=Presley Noble |first1=Barbara |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/25/business/company-news-gay-group-asks-accord-in-job-dispute.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=November 25, 1992 |accessdate=April 2, 2012}}</ref>) explains the legal situation well:
Cracker Barrel created a controversy early last year when it said it would no longer "employ individuals whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values." It subsequently dismissed several employees for being homosexual. Gay men and lesbians are not protected by anti-discrimination laws in any of the states where Cracker Barrel operates.
Hope that's of help. WWB Too (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be away for a couple of days, but no rush. Now, what are "mustard greens"...... (;
Likewise, I'll leave the discrimination stuff to Silver. As for the Corner Markets: an earlier version had more information about them, and the article still notes in the following paragraph that their operation ceased three years later. Considering the New markets and refocus heading, it makes sense to include their existence; I suggest replacing the beginning of the second graf with the following:
In 1994, Cracker Barrel tested a [[Take-out|carry-out]] only store, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Corner Market, in suburban residential neighborhoods.<ref name=Moritz/> In addition, Cracker Barrel expanded...
Note, the citation used in that version is still present in the article, making it a relatively simple add. How does that sound? WWB Too (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and just added it.
Oh, and Jim, look here for mustard greens. SilverserenC 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a procedural request: please don't use graphical templates like {{dyktick}}, they slow down what is already a huge WP:FAC main page (the same advice is stated there as well). ClayClayClay 06:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them. SilverserenC 07:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Compare formatting on FNs 2 and 5, 1 vs 20
  • I've made all four formats consistent. Though do note that 1 and 2 don't have dates, since the website doesn't have dates for them. SilverserenC 16:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether or not there's a period after retrieval date
  • Use a consistent date format
  • I think I got all the ones I missed in a prior sweep for consistency. SilverserenC 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain this one? It's already in a cite web format. SilverserenC 16:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That, and the formatting of the website name isn't consistent with other web refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I fixed what you meant. It's now consistent with the format of the earlier Cracker Barrel website refs. SilverserenC 20:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. 1a passes, IMO.

  • The disclosure at the top is notable, given the possible turning point we face WRT paid editing. I have no problem if WWB responds to any issue raised; nor would I have a problem if s/he had worked on the so-called controversial parts. What matters is that the text is not POV. The disclosure makes close scrutiny on this point more likely, which is a healthy thing. Thank you.
    • Could we have lower case billion and million in the infobox? You could almost use M and bn, unspaced, after the numerals; but that's optional.
    • Exposed part of lead: "The chain ..." starts two successsive sentences; could one be substituted?
  • Just changed the second instance to "Cracker Barrel". SilverserenC 18:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repetition: "During the 1990s, the company was the subject of controversy for its company stance ...". Where is a programmer who'll collaborate with me to develop a rep-spotter in WP articles, for the use of all editors?
  • I changed the second instance of company to official. SilverserenC 18:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "African American"—sufficiently little-known to warrant a link? "Gay" and "lesbian" escape the it's-exotic signal.
    • "Biscuit" is a common term. "Grit" is a defensible wikilink, I think. Not done
  • Biscuit was asked to be wikilinked by a reviewer above, because biscuits in the south are significantly different from biscuits across the ocean in the UK (where they're more like a cookie). A wikilink avoids the confusion about what kind of biscuit we're talking about. SilverserenC 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It floated over ..." – the reader in a few milliseconds disambiguates in reverse: not floating over the cityscape, but "It floated more than half a million shares". It's still widely used in that sense, but I usually change it for this reason.
    • There's an errant dot after "2000s".
    • "the chain tested a carry-out only store" – strictly speaking, carry-out-only.
    • Who's gonna skip to the article on "Texas" or "New York" in the middle of reading about the dishes they added to the menu? Why not focus readers on the salsa and Reuben sandwiches, which aren't all that commonly known?
    • What a nasty lot of people, firing non-breeders.
  • I get the joke, but was there supposed to be anything actionable here? SilverserenC 19:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wondered about the quotes around "extremely loyal". Unsure. Known for "the loyalty of its customers"[ref]?
    • "As of 2002, 23%" – it's fine, but a fussy person would separate: 2002, minorities made up 23% of ...

Tony (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like i'm done with those. Any other concerns, Tony? SilverserenC 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious Concerns I have serious concerns about the balance of the article. The "controversies" section deals with a USDOJ consent agreement the company entered into. This is the second to last paragraph of the article - it is sourced to USA Today and the USDOJ. It makes up 129 words.
Alternatively, the the first paragraph on "Community involvement" is 6 paragraphs above, and it discusses all of the charities the CB donates to. It makes up 120 words. In those sentences, it discusses donating an entire ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!! of meals to Katrina recovery, the creation of "Cracker Barrel Cares Inc.," and the formation of exciting partnerships with the Wounded Warrior Project. It is sourced to exciting and dynamic newspapers like "Nation's Restaurant News," "The Montgomery Advertiser," "Charleston's The Post and Courier," "Chicago Defender," "Atlanta Inquirer," and "Tallahassee Democrat."
This is not balance, it's spin. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, in your view, what would be a good target for the sizes of the two sections? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the entirety of the first "Community involvement" paragraph as PRspeak, move the "In further attempts" to the "Diversity" section, integrate the "Controversies" section into the "Diversity," section, which should be written in chronological order as opposed to leading with the PR speak of "The company has recently focused on improving the company's diversity through training and providing resources to minority employees," reverse chron that makes the company look good, and then expand said section using sources such as [22], [23], [24], amongst many others (I just checked the New York Times). I wonder why none of the information from [25] made it into the article. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should really read the talk page. First off, WWB was not involved in making the controversy section, as I stated above, so if it's too short, that's because the people who were interested in expanding it decided it was good as it currently is. Secondly, there is already a talk page consensus that the Tom Delay information is undue weight, because Cracker Barrel is only one of several companies mentioned and they are only ever mentioned. It is extremely unimportant to Cracker Barrel's history and has to do with Delay, not anything else. SilverserenC 18:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A local consensus does not override WP:NPOV. Reviewing the talk page does not show any convincing of the people who believed they article was unbalanced, rather they appear to have been drowned in the noise created by some other people. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're gonna have to explain to me what information you think should be added in though. Your first reference has information that is already in the article. The second is about a very minor controversy over the guest of honor at a dinner, hardly important enough to include. The third, however, I have included in a sentence in the relevant section. It's good to have a contrast between what the vote was initially in 1993 and what it was 9 years later. Also, to better illustrate that it took nine years for the proposal to pass. SilverserenC 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a measly $1mm donation of product that was written up only in Nation's Restaurant News merits a sentence, why exactly does a minor controversy over the guest of honor at a dinner written up in, you know, The New York Times not get one? Is it because one was dug out of the deepest well by someone being paid to do so? Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's because that section is specifically about what Cracker Barrel has donated to. But do you really think a minor dinner controversy is important when compared to the other controversies they've been involved in? Shouldn't the focus be on the actually major controversies? SilverserenC 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that featured articles are required to be comprehensive of what's written in reliable sources, so I'm not sure that removing everything about their community involvement is a good idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if a triviality is addressed in a reliable source, it must appear in the article? That would mean that featured articles ignore our content policies, wouldn't it? Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't go that far. This is part of what's tough about writing featured articles, writing an article that is both comprehensive and avoids unnecessary detail. Which details are trivial or relevant is sometimes a matter of opinion, I know I've gone back and forth on several details in the featured articles that I've written. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: supported below I peer reviewed the article back in the day, it looks like intervening edits have improved the article. Beginning a read through, a couple small notes thus far:
  • In the second paragraph you start consecutive sentences with "The chain", perhaps rephrase one.
  • Tony beat you to the punch in asking for that one. SilverserenC 19:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use "in order to" a few times. Some people are Ok with that, others (myself included) would prefer to nix the "in order". Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 2000s. in the wake of incidents including charges of racial discrimination and controversy over its policy of firing gay employees" Looks like a mistake here.
  • You mean the period? Tony beat you to that one too. SilverserenC 19:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "New markets and refocus" and "Innovation and later growth" a lot of sentences begin "In X year, Cracker Barrel/the company did Y". You might want to introduce some variation in the structures, "Cracker Barrel did Y in X year". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped two of the sentences. Does it work better now? SilverserenC 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Locations, service, and decor" you have a one sentence paragraph, might want to try to avoid that. Also, could this part of the sentence be tightened? "Cracker Barrel maintains a warehouse in Tennessee for collecting artifacts from across the US, cataloging and storing them for future use."
  • I've merged the two sentences into the paragraph above. It's a slightly big paragraph now, but it's too short to properly turn into two paragraphs. I also reworded the sentence, but i'm not sure if its fixed the way you thought it should be. What do you think? SilverserenC 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Reception" section, you have "Cracker Barrel" six times in four sentences, might want to cut down on that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure "sponsored" needs a wikilink, ditto for "race", "white customers", and "black customers"
  • "The company was the first presenting sponsor of the Grand Ole Opry." What is a "presenting sponsor"?
  • "Presenting Sponsor: is the sponsor that has its name presented just above or below that of the sponsored property. A "presenting" sponsor differs from a "title" sponsor as the Event name and the Sponsor name are not fully integrated e.g. "The Skins Game Presented by Telus" versus "Telus Skins Game"."
Unfortunately, we don't have a wikipedia article that describes it. Do you need me to do anything here? SilverserenC 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company has also provided sponsorship to other groups." Not sure how much this sentence adds to the article.
  • "The company has recently focused on improving the company's diversity" Kind of a pet peeve of mine, but it's best to give a time frame instead of using "recently".
  • It almost seems counter intuitive to me to have their efforts to stop discrimination within the company before talking about the discrimination, I'd suggest swapping the order.
  • You want me to switch the controversy and corporate overview sections? I feel like that would cause other issues. I'll do it if you really think it improves the article. SilverserenC 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, here's another idea: what I'm thinking now is that it might be a good idea to integrate the second paragraph of "Diversity" into the first subsection of "Controversies" and the first paragraph of "Diversity" into the second subsection of "Controversies". Like this version. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope Tony didn't mention any of this, I haven't read his comments yet :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin just left some comments about the article on WT:FAC. I don't agree with her 100%, but I think her comments about lack of mention of segregation in the lead and the issue of out of place chronology have merit. Maybe tightening up the "Community involvement" would help ease concerns too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the segregation to the lede. Is there anything else specific that I can do? "Tightening up" kinda doesn't say much. :P SilverserenC 22:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the only difference there is that the sentence about the Cracker Barrel Cares charity is removed, which I feel is pretty important for the section. SilverserenC 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just looked again, yeah, I didn't mean to remove that. I think I managed to take out some of the wordiness though. Dif. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as you put the sentence about Cracker Barrel Cares back in, yeah, that's much better. More straightforward. SilverserenC 02:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I'm now ready to support this article's promotion to featured status. As best I can tell, it's well written and comprehensive. I've paid more attention to neutrality than I would normally do, and, as best I can tell at this point, it seems to be neutral. Good job guys. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Pyrrhus16. Only a few minor nitpicks:
  • "The peg games have been present in Cracker Barrel stores since the opening of the first store" - Perhaps remove the first 'store' in order to avoid repetition later in the sentence?
  • "Cracker Barrel is known for the loyalty of its customers;[11][13] some customers travel across the country to visit its different locations." - Perhaps remove the second 'customer' for the same reason as above?
  • "policy on a store-by-store basis from stores in Georgia and other states." - Perhaps change the third 'store' in the sentence to 'outlets' or another alternative word?
  • "An early proposal in 1993 was defeated, with 77% against and only 14% in support." - What was the position of the other 9%?
  • I've added the 9% abstaining to the sentence. SilverserenC 17:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on an interesting subject. Once my comments have been addressed, I will be happy to support. Pyrrhus16 20:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for taking so long to respond. Finals and all of that. I've got a plane flight in two hours, but i'll be home after that. So I should be able to fix these issues sometime tonight (Tuesday night), hopefully. SilverserenC 07:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My issues have been resolved. Pyrrhus16 20:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is pretty much an exemplary article on a commercial company, and for that WWB Too is to be congratulated – as is Silver seren of course. I'm supporting despite that fact that the idea of having to listen to country music while having a meal fills me with horror; heck the idea of having to listen to country music at all fills me with horror. Inevitably though I do have a few issues that I think ought to be addressed:
Food and gift shop
  • "Cracker Barrel is a Southern themed chain of restaurants and retail stores ...". How many times do we need to be told that? Would it really be possible to get this far down the article and not already be aware of what Cracker Barrel is? Shouldn't that be "Southern-themed" anyway?
  • I've added the dash there and i've also rearranged the sentence a bit, see if that helps. And Southern is only mentioned twice above that, once in the lede, which is correct because it's a summary of the article, and once in the very beginning of the history section, when discussing the creator's inspirations for it. I don't think that's all too much, really. And, well...Southern is kinda important to it. SilverserenC 22:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the "Southern" I'm complaining about, it's being told repeatedly that Cracker Barrel is a themed chain of restaurants and retail stores. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you think it should be reworded then? SilverserenC 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd drop the "of restaurants and retail stores" and leave it at "As a Southern-themed chain, Cracker Barrel serves traditional Southern comfort food ...". Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Business model and partnerships
  • "Cracker Barrel is a chain of wholly owned locations offering sit-down dining and retail." As above, we seem to be beaten over the head repeatedly with this. Surely by this point in the article we know what Cracker Barrel is?
Alleged racial and sexual discrimination
  • "Following the suits, Cracker Barrel stores began displaying a sign in their front foyer explaining its non-discrimination policy ...". That really doesn't work: the subject is "Cracker Barrel stores", so the "its" isn't right. Maybe change it to "the company's ..."?. Secondly, the stores don't all share a single foyer, therefore "their foyer" isn't correct. Why not "their foyers"?
  • I changed it to "the company's" and I changed "their front foyer" to "the front foyer". I think that works better. SilverserenC 22:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006, Cracker Barrel also paid a $2 million settlement ...". Why does it say "also", when the previous paragraph was apparently talking events that happened in 2004?
  • "Since the beginning of 2000s ..." Now that's really awkward. At the very least it needs to be "the 2000s", but better to recast it; perhaps something like "since the early part of this century", or "since the early 2000s"?
  • "In the early 2000s, the company began outreach to minority employees ...". That clashes with the sentence I complained about above. I'd suggest swapping this sentence and the one before it around, and dropping the introductory "In the early 2000s".
  • I've reworded and rearranged some things. Let me know if it looks alright. SilverserenC 23:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's better, but it still doesn't quite work for me. What does a company "improving its diversity" actually mean? Sounds like PR bullshit to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe if it said "improving its image on diversity"? Because that's pretty much what it's doing. SilverserenC 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That would do for me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As WWB Too has been so open about his involvement with this article, I'd be very interested to see what Cracker Barrel have made of this process, regardless of the outcome. It might teach us a lot. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they actually know about it, since they aren't paying him for this. But there's probably some sort of before/after revenue comparison that could be made. SilverserenC 00:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And just for the benefit of our colonial friends, prepositions are important. I said "made of", not "made from". Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you meant "made" as in what do they think of the FA process? SilverserenC 00:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this another one of these "two nations divided by a common language" misunderstandings? I find it hard to believe that a company with the profile of Cracker Barrel wouldn't be aware of what's going on here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd be surprised. But since WWB isn't working for them at the moment, I don't believe he informed them about this FAC or anything like that. So it's highly possible that they have no idea this is going on. You might want to ask him though. SilverserenC 02:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's not presently working for Cracker Barrel then how would he know? My point quite simply was that a large company very likely has a PR team watching its profile, and it would be interesting to know how that team has viewed this process. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I suppose, since they past interacted with this article, they probably watch it at this point. But for other companies, I think you'd be surprised at how many large companies likely have no idea about the goings-on in their Wikipedia articles. But, yes, it would be interesting to know what Cracker Barrel thinks about this. Thinking of using the information for future statistic analysis? SilverserenC 03:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally supportive on the basis of the prose. Attempts have been made to achieve better coverage, and therefore neutrality. Slight concern over the thematic smoothness.

  • "the chain chose to locate its restaurants"—redundancy, and avoid ch ch.
  • "In 2000 and 2001, the company addressed staffing and infrastructure issues related to this rapid growth by implementing a more rigorous recruitment strategy"—is this where discriminatory practices should be mentioned? I see the racist thing does get a mention further down. Why is the section title "Alleged racial and sexual discrimination"? Is anyone disputing that there was discrimination? This looks like spin: after all, no company's gonna settle for $2M when there was no discrimination. Sexual discrimination, too, is usually on the basis of gender rather than sexual orientation, but I can live with that wording. "has increased its efforts to improve its image on diversity by providing training and resources to minority employees"—bit awkward, the wording. And I'd have thought majority training would be more in order than training those discriminated against. It's the bully-boys who do it. Or is this just native Spanish-speakers we're talking about here. I get a little confused about the thematic treatment of the discrimination thing: it's as though these matters have been grafted on after the main text was written.
  • You think something about discrimination should be added into the history section? The racist stuff isn't in there either. The point is that it's addressed specifically in another section. SilverserenC 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not necessary, since it's prominent in the lead, I see. Tony (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed alleged. SilverserenC 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to fix the wording there. And, yeah, the training was for the minority employees. I think it did include English language training, among other things. Because, remember, the discrimination wasn't coming from the other white employees, but from the Cracker Barrel company itself not hiring minorities. SilverserenC 03:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of "also"s; some are OK, but here, it's jarring: "Also in 2010, Cracker Barrel established Cracker Barrel Cares Inc., an employee-funded non-profit organization that provides support to Cracker Barrel employees.[47] Cracker Barrel has also formed ...". Suggest "In the same year Cracker ...". Here's another, which could be just removed: "The 2011 survey also noted that"
  • Fixed both of those. With that, there are only 4 also's left in the entire article. SilverserenC 03:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about ""has provided training and resources to minority employees, to improve its image with respect to diversity" ("with respect to" isn't particularly nice, but "on" seemed a bit loose. Either is fine, I think, unless you can think of a third way that's better.) Tony (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in your sentence, but kept it as "on". It just sounds better to me than "with respect to", which sounds too wordy in the sentence. SilverserenC 04:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lesson in care about balance in corporate articles. I hope it ends up being promoted to featured status. Tony (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's note - An image review and spotchecks are required. Graham Colm (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone we can contact to do those? SilverserenC 10:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not in my Job Description :) but here you are. Graham Colm (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: By September 1997, Cracker Barrel had 314 restaurants, and aimed to increase the number of stores by approximately 50 per year over the following five years.
  • Source: The company, which started when Chairman Dan Evins opened his first restaurant in a Lebanon gas station in 1969, now has 314 restaurants extending from Milford, Conn., to Goodyear, Ariz., all of them company owned. It plans to add 50 a year for the next five years.
  • Article: In addition, it expanded into new markets through the establishment of more traditional Cracker Barrel locations, the majority of them outside the South, and tested alterations to its menus to adapt to new regions.
  • Source: The company has been learning other lessons as it expands -- for example, that Southern staples such as grits and fried okra don't cut it in the North. When the first Cracker Barrels opened in Wisconsin and Minnesota, sales were only about 60 percent of those in the Southeast...They then try to reproduce local favorites, such as Reuben sandwiches in upstate New York and eggs with salsa in Texas.
  • Article: Cracker Barrel is known for the loyalty of its customers, with some traveling across the country to visit its different locations
  • Source: A key ingredient in Cracker Barrel's success is the loyalty of its customers. Many are travelers -- most Cracker Barrels are right off an interstate -- who look for the familiar Cracker Barrel sign promising ``Good Country Cookin'. About half the chain's traffic is made up of tourists, who tend to be looser with their money than locals.
  • Article: Cracker Barrel has supported a wide range of charities, through one-off donations, promotional events, and partnerships with charitable organizations.
  • Source: Subscription required, but fact verified by Google searches
  • Article: In 2004, an investigation by the US Justice Department found evidence that Cracker Barrel had been segregating customer seating by race; seating or serving white customers before seating or serving black customers; providing inferior service to black customers, and allowing white servers to refuse to wait on black customers.
  • Source: The government said its investigations showed that Cracker Barrel segregated customers by race; allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers; and seated or served white customers before seating or serving similarly situated African-American customers. Justice further alleged that, in many cases, managers directed, participated or acquiesced in those practices. (Posted 5/7/2004 2:18 AM, Updated 5/7/2004 3:12 AM)
  • Article:..the firm has provided a scholarship through the National Black MBA Association
  • Source: Cracker Barrel is honored to present this scholarship...We're proud of our association with Araba and the National Black MBA Association.
  • Article: Its chief executive officer, Sandra Cochran, is the second woman in Tennessee to hold that office in a publicly traded company, as of August 2011.
  • Source: Sandra B. Cochran will be named CEO of the Lebanon-based restaurant chain Cracker Barrel next month, becoming the first woman to ascend to the top rung of a publicly traded company in Middle Tennessee and the second in the state.

Images These have appropriate licences. The one of Dolly Parton caused me to pause for thought as it was hard to believe that it was "taken or made during the course of the person's official duties". But further investigations verified this. Graham Colm (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thank you so very much for doing this. SilverserenC 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the other co-nominator, I'd also like to say: thanks! WWB Too (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 07:22, 13 May 2012 [26].

Santa Maria de Ovila edit

Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tragic story of architectural pillage, a famously acquisitive American millionaire taking a Spanish monastery out of its native country. The article came up recently at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Santa Maria de Ovila/archive1. Unfortunately, real life intervened for me and I did not get all the way through the points that were brought up. Since then I have addressed the points and I feel like the article is ready to progress forward. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Binksternet. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. It is an interesting article, but it has a number of problems:

  1. In the 'Foundation' section does 'church' and 'chapel' mean the same building? If so then a consistent terminology should be used. In addition, does this church have a name?
  2. In 'Removal to California' section the sentence in parentheses '(In 1954, it was re-assembled in Florida as a tourist attraction which was later made the St. Bernard de Clairvaux Church' is unclear to me. Does it mean that the monastery in Florida was made into a church? This does not make sense.
  3. Can the next section 'Spanish ruins' be rewritten in an orderly fashion? Now it has duplicative sentences like There are crumbling walls, yards, double arches of the Renaissance-era cloister, and part of the Gothic roof of the church turned into a garage and storage which duplicates the next paragraph. Or the first sentence of the second paragraph mentions 'nave', which is again is mentioned in the fourth sentence.
  4. In 'Wyntoon' section several sentences repeat what has been already said about dismantling the monastery. Can this duplication be removed?
Ruslik_Zero 16:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"it" in the parentheses refers to the monastery as a whole. It obviously can not be converted to a church. Ruslik_Zero 17:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the bit. It now says, "...a tourist attraction which was later acquired by the Episcopal Diocese of South Florida and called the St. Bernard de Clairvaux Church." Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  1. In the 'Foundation' section there is a sentence: "The abbey, the monastic quarters, the cloister and the church were built over three decades", but is not abbey a synomim of a monastery?
  2. The third paragraph (which was moved from another section) looks like a foreign object. It simply interupts the flow. I think it should be better integrated into this section.
  3. In addition, the last sentence reads "On the eastern side of the cloister was the monastery, the sacristy, the priory cell, and the chapter house" How can the whole (monastery) be on "the eastern side" of one of its parts?
Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed your three further comments. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article has become much better. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Its upper floor was built as a dormitory 27 by 90 feet (8.2 by 27 m) with a long barrel vaulted ceiling. There are crumbling walls, yards, double arches of the Renaissance-era cloister, and part of the Gothic roof of the church turned into a garage and storage." - source?
    • I separated today's crumbling walls et cetera from the buildings being used as storage before Byne came to look at them in late 1930. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of your bibliography section? These sources don't seem to be cited in the article
  • Bibliography entries should use same format as footnotes
  • Aache or AACHE Ediciones?
  • Publisher for Serrano 2001? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet replies
  • The chapel/church question is: they are the same. I streamlined the article by using 'church'.
  • Yes, the Florida reconstruction of the Spanish monastery St. Bernard de Clairvaux was later used by a church group, and thus became a church.
  • I will work to eliminate duplicate and redundant ideas.
  • The Spanish ruins information comes from the Spanish sources. I will pore through them to determine which one supports the church turned into a garage, etc.
  • The Bibliography section is vestigial, left over from my initial porting of text from Monasterio de Santa María de Óvila, the Spanish Wikipedia version. I added to it, making it a list of major works about the topic. I can push the entries up into the article as references if required, or I can turn the section into "Further reading", or a combination.
  • It's AACHE, of course. Corrected.
  • I added the publisher to Serrano 2001. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • I copyedited] about half of the article quickly, throwing up some less than optimal phrasing and missing links, not all of which I changed (& of course I hope I did not get anything wrong). I think a more thorough copy-edit is needed.
  • It's bound to be complicated, but I was left somewhat unclear as to what we now have left in the various locations. For example what does/will the New Trappists chapter house consist of? Medieval details built into modern walls and foundations? Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support from FayeDizard

Wyntoon *'because his fortunes were too far reduced, with too many projects to fund and the Great Depression shrinking his cash flow significantly' - feels a bit overloaded - maybe just one of the three reasons? * 'the Bernard Maybeck-designed fantasy chalet burned down in 1929.' - it's not obvious to me that the chalet is the one being replaced, maybe a bit of rearrangement... *'wished' -> 'wanted' *'a heroic scale.' - for me, this does not sound massively encyclopaedic maybe just a 'large' scale... maybe if you can quote the heroic it would suit...


Golden Gate Park

  • 'The museum plan was estimated to cost $500,000 but that amount was not available. Morgan eagerly drew up restrained and conservative plans for the museum, this project being more in her personal style than the fantasy of Wyntoon. She prepared several layouts for the city to approve, the final one having a different arrangement of the buildings than in Spain.' - I can't find this in source [3] - can you give me a bit of direction?
  • Maybe not the wikilinking of the hammer? But largely up to you...


University of San Francisco

  • 'In 1964–1965,' -> 'Between 1964–1965,'
  • 'It was in March 1931 that Hearst had agreed to purchase this church portal ' - maybe rephrase to 'Hearst had agreed to purchase this church portal in 1931'
  • Not sure what the significant of the university being a Jesuit university is? Maybe expand... <edit>Need to think about this a bit</edit>

Abbey of New Clairvaux

  • "On September 15, 1955—his first day in California—arriving by airplane to serve in Vina, California, at Our Lady of New Clairvaux, Trappists of the order known as Cistercians of the Strict Observance,[26] his superior drove him through Golden Gate Park where they stopped to see the stones sitting among the weeds. " feels like a long sentence that could do with a bit of adjustment for readability.
  • "From time to time in subsequent years, Davis inspected the stones to see that they were faring poorly, subject to weather and vandalism." -vandalism isn't mentioned in the source (various other causes are... and you could probably argue the point...)
  • I'm not convinced it's relevant that Margaret Burke has a doctorate - maybe make more clear in the text?
  • 'mounted a website' - I think 'launched' would be a better word.
  • 'he had several truckloads of stones delivered, but they were returned because of ownership questions.' - I think this is a really interesting bit of the article, but it feels a little glossed over - I'd really like to see the ownership questions part referenced individually (sounds a bit like he went and nicked them in the middle of the night...) <edit> this has (I think) been removed, was it not supported or has something odd happened?</edit>
  • more generally I have some unease about the structure of some of the fragments of prose - so 'the stones began to be fitted together', 'The strength of the building is doubled',
  • '"west of the Rockies", referring to the Rocky Mountains' - my instinct here is to drop the 'referring to the Rocky Mountains' and wikilink 'Rockies' but I've got no idea how that fits with MOS conventions.
  • 'arriving by airplane' I think we can reasonably say 'flying' here.
  • 'Davis made two further requests for the chapter house stones, in 1983 and 1987, but was unsuccessful in obtaining them' - how about 'Davis made two unsuccessful requests for the chapter house stones, in 1983 and 1987'
  • 'and the city was stimulated into action' I tend towards dropping this - I think it detracts from the important stuff around it.

Second lot of replies

Lede looks lovely...

  • 'Catholic institutions in land' - would be make sense to me as 'Catholic institutions on land' but I'm not sure either way…
  • 'The abbey, the monastic quarters, the cloister and the church were built over three decades' is this the three decades following 1181 or just a set period of time? it's not clear that those parts were started with the rest of the building in 1181…

*'renewed attack by the Moors.' I'm not too worried about this, but the sentance appears to suggest that the 'moors' would renew their attack on the monastery rather than the general area…

  • I'd drop 'cut very neatly' because detracts a little from the surrounding text...
  • 'Because of its prosperity and the repeated expansion projects, Santa María de Óvila contained examples of every Spanish religious architectural style used from 1200 to 1600.[5] Still, even at its height, Óvila remained one of the smallest Cistercian monasteries in the region of Castile.[4]' I'm not a massive fan of the structure here... maybe a bit of a reword? The 'still, even at' feels a bit unencyclopeidic and the part about the architectural style feels like it might want a quote - so maybe something along the lines of 'Despite it's small size (Óvila remained one of the smallest Cistercian monasteries in the region), John Smith has stated that "Santa María de Óvila contained examples of every Spanish religious architectural style used from 1200 to 1600".[5]'?
  • I'd drop 'changes to the areas surrounding Santa María de Óvila initiated a slow decline. '
  • I'd also drop 'precarious'
  • " The monastery's land holdings passed one by one into the hands' this implies that the monastery lost all the lands - would it be more correct to say 'Many of the monastery's land holdings passed into the hands'?

*'The precarious situation of the monastery was worsened in the 18th century by a fire which destroyed part of the monastery during the War of the Spanish Succession.[8]' Settling dates twice - how about 'The precarious situation of the monastery was worsened during the War of the Spanish Succession by a fire that destroyed part of the monastery.[8]

  • 'Other valuables such as books and historic documents were stolen and sold.' I think it would be nice if this sentence could have it's own citation, even if it is also cited by [5].
  • 'The cartulary of the monastery, a thick manuscript holding copies of royal privileges granted to the monastery in the Middle Ages, went to a private owner.' it's not clear if this is part of the auction or a separate thing…

*I'd drop 'handsome' although I'm aware that very much lessens the impact of the sentence...

  • I'd be inclined to move the description of the church shape from 'Spanish ruins' up to where the article describes building work, it feels a little odd to precisely describe what was left after 10,000 stones were removed...
  • ' 'long barrel-vaulted' doesn't mean much to me - can you link it to a particular style of architecture?

*I'm not following why 'worth about 900 grams of gold' is relevant? I think I must be missing something…

  • The sentence structure of 'Seeking to resell the buildings, Beloso invited Arthur Byne to look at them. Byne was an art agent living in Madrid; his biggest client was American newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst.' is a little bit uncomfortable, but I'm afraid I don't have much in the way of better idea… maybe switch '; his' for 'whose' and drop the 'Seeking to resell the buildings'…
  • For Hearst, Byne had previously bought a Spanish monastery in 1925, the monastery of Santa María la Real de Sacramenia which was dismantled, crated and shipped to New York where it was stored in a warehouse in the Bronx.[11]' I would rewrite to 'Byne had previously bought the monastery of Santa María la Real de Sacramenia in 1925 for Hearst, which was dismantled, crated and shipped to New York where it was stored in a warehouse in the Bronx.[11]' and if you want to reduce it a bit more, maybe even… 'In 1925 Byne had bought the monastery of Santa María la Real de Sacramenia for Hearst; it was dismantled and shipped to New York where it was stored in a warehouse.[11]'
  • I'd drop 'In 1930, Byne was working to satisfy a request from Hearst for another Spanish monastery; Beloso's buildings looked very promising.'
  • I'm not sure if 'a price roughly equivalent to $1.3 million in today's currency' should be cited - couldn't find anything in MOS that covered how wiki likes us to deal with 'in today's prices' questions…

*I'd drop 'spur' and 'steel' in the sentence 'To move all the stones, Byne and Steilberg had a spur road built to the Tagus, and a barge attached to a fixed steel cable was assigned to ferry stones across'

  • Can we merge the sentences 'Men pushed the small rail cars along the narrow gauge tracks. Cranes lifted stones onto and off the ferry at both sides of the river. '?
  • 'as truck after truck full of 700-year-old stones rumbled through Valencia to the docks' I'd drop as unencyclopedic…
    • I changed this bit to "as trucks hauled 700-year-old stones through Valencia to the docks." Okay like that? Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change 'Byne's lawyer persuaded the Minister of Labor to allow the work to continue—the minister understood that the illegal project employed more than a hundred men and put money into the severely depressed economy' to 'Byne's lawyer persuaded the Minister of Labor to allow the work to continue on the grounds that the project employed more than a hundred men and put money into the severely depressed economy'
Binksternet replies
  • There are a couple of suggestions here that go against MOS. One is to use the wording "Between 1964–1965" which is deprecated at WP:ENDASH. Another is to place a wikilink inside a direct quote which is deprecated at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Linking. The latter guide implies there are several possibilities for my formulation:
    • Existing: the oldest building in America "west of the Rockies", referring to the Rocky Mountains
    • Possible footnote: the oldest building in America "west of the Rockies"<ref>Note: "West of the Rockies" refers to the Rocky Mountains.</ref>
    • Possible summary: the oldest building in America west of the Rocky Mountains
    • Possible editorial insert: the oldest building in America "west of the [Rocky Mountains]"

      I will go with the simplest, the summary style solution. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I straightened out the bit in 1982 where some stones were trucked to Vina and then back to San Francisco. In searching for more detail I came across a fine new source from a paper in Chico that's local to the monks: Chico News & Review.
  • I think keeping the word "Jesuit" is useful to describe the university, so Catholic or other people who are concerned about religious aspects of the stones will know the context of the old portal's current home.
  • Regarding the point that it is unclear whether there are medieval details built into modern walls and foundations in the rebuilding chapter house in Vina, I don't know exactly. I think it is a mixture of old stones and new stones cut to replace the missing ones. In Spain, the chapter house walls were solid stone. I am guessing that the California version will have some of the Spanish stone cut away on the interior face to make room for steel reinforcement rods and such. The last stone was put in place on December 7, 2011, but the whole thing is not quite finished. I am waiting for a detailed description in architectural journals following completion. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still to be done: reduce repetitious text. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Been working on the suggestions, implemented a few. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setting aside some quality editing time today. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Image Review Images are good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Bibliography

What is the consensus here about the existence of the bibliography section below the reference section? The books and articles in the bibliography stand out as the best works that devote the most attention to the subject, but they can all be pushed upward into the reference section to make the bibliography disappear if needed. Nikkimaria questioned its existence, which is why I'm asking for people's thoughts. Compare this with the only other two articles that I championed for FA status: Port Chicago disaster has a similar layout but the sections are "Notes" (for cites) and "References" (for major books and articles); whereas the biography article Henry Edwards (entomologist) has a level 2 "References" section broken up into level 3 headings of "Notes" and "Bibliography". Other FA articles on the subject of architecture vary in style of reference sections and lists of sources: Millennium Park has level 2 "Notes" and "References" sections; Egyptian temple has level 2 "Notes and citations", "Works cited" and "Further reading" sections; Buckingham Palace has level 2 "Notes" and "References" which function exactly like Santa Maria de Ovila's "References" and "Bibliography". Should I rename the sections to match Buckingham Palace and Millennium Park? Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the two level format myself, but you've set it up differently than I do. I generally use the notes only for page citations; you've got full citations that I'd place in the Bibliography so I'm not sure that there's really any purpose to that section. And to be precise, Nikkimaria questioned the existence of the bibliography section because she didn't see any citations to any of the books there in the notes section. They are there, but they don't stand out among the full length citations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just changed the article as I suggested above. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update
  • Article redundancy has been reduced or eliminated (you be the judge!)
  • Indicated points have been addressed.
  • Ready for re-evaluation. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to have more supporters for it to progress to FA. Any takers besides FayeDizard? Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try reviewing other FACs so other people might be more interested in reviewing yours? There is a severe lack of reviewers right now so it would only make sense that some of our FAC writers could review as well. That being said, I will help out with spotchecks sometime later today. ClayClayClay 17:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. Btw, you can just fix these if you like and not reply, but if you reply, please reply line-by-line with two bullets rather than in a separate paragraph. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "For Hearst, Byne had previously bought a Spanish monastery in 1925, the monastery of Santa María la Real de Sacramenia which ...": word order, repetition, commas. I'd go with: In 1925, Byne had bought Hearst the monastery of Santa María la Real de Sacramenia, which ...
  • "a tourist attraction which was later made the St. Bernard de Clairvaux Church": became?
  • "in today's currency": See WP:DATED
    • The inflation template updates itself automatically, so the phrase "in today's currency" is always true. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is, a reader who isn't looking at the edit screen doesn't know that; they'll assume it was true on whatever day you wrote it. Thus the style guideline link. Some people use, for instance: "This is roughly equivalent to ${{Formatnum:{{Inflation|US|(price)|(year)|r=-2}}}} as of 20{{CURRENTYEARYY}}.{{Inflation-fn|US}}". - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arrived March 9, 1931": arrived on, per Garner's
  • "There are crumbling walls, open yards and part of the Gothic roof of the church turned into a garage and storage space.": Not sure what you're saying.
  • "with the monastery's chapter house serving as the castle's entrance hall, and the large church used to enclose a swimming pool": "enclosing"
  • "At the Port of San Francisco, each shipment of stones was inspected by Steilberg; several thousand crates in all.": At the Port of San Francisco, Steilberg inspected each shipment of stones, several thousand crates in all.
  • "in exchange for the payment by the city": in exchange for payment by the city, or in exchange for the city's payment
  • "Hearst stipulated the stones be used to construct a group of museum buildings in Golden Gate Park, adjoining the de Young Museum.": Hearst stipulated the stones be used to construct a group of museum buildings adjoining the de Young Museum in Golden Gate Park.
  • "Hindu-styled": ?
  • "In 1964–1965": Partly in 64 and partly in 65? ("In 1964 and 1965"). In 64 or 65, but you don't know which? ("In 1964 or 1965"). In a one-year period that began in 1964? ("In 1964's [whatever] year" sometimes works, but "and" or "or" can work too.)
    • Done: 1965 alone. That year was the year the kitty reached $40,000. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He arrived that day in San Francisco to serve as a new monk in Vina, California, at Our Lady of New Clairvaux, Trappists of the order known as Cistercians of the Strict Observance, whose land ...": "Our Lady of New Clairvaux" can serve as a place or a group of people, but not both at the same time.
  • "was once used by Leland Stanford to grow wine grapes. His superior ...": not Stanford's superior.
  • "there were more than half of the required stones for the chapter house, and more than 90% of the repeating-pattern stones needed as templates to carve replacements": Not sure what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done: "Of the missing stones, more than 90% were repeating-pattern stones with available templates to carve replacements." Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, all that's left is the "crumbling walls" bit and the inflation language. Note that my suggestion above includes a template that gives you a ref, required by the inflation template. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I see you fixed the inflation bit; I took a guess on the other and wrote "Crumbling walls ... were turned into a garage and storage space." Correct that if it's wrong, please. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I separated today's crumbling walls et cetera from the buildings being used as storage before Byne came to look at them in late 1930. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, leaning toward supporting. Great work on this—it's a very interesting read.
  • Consider "Today, the remnant buildings and walls stand on private farmland."
  • Some architectural/church jargon lost me: "barrel-vaulted great nave", "sacristy", "priory cell", "chapter house", etc. I see that you link chapter house later—need to link first mention.
  • "The refectory (dining hall) shows an architecture" The last phrase reads strangely to me. Is "an architecture" normal usage? Or should we say "shows an architectural style"?
  • The former is certainly an accepted architectural turn of phrase. To make it more accessible, I went with "architectural style". Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of its prosperity and the repeated expansion projects, Santa María de Óvila contained examples of every Spanish religious architectural style used from 1200 to 1600." Not crazy about "contained", which suggests the styles were all inside the monastery. Perhaps "exhibited".
  • "William Randolph Hearst" is wikilinked at least four times. --Laser brain (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of those instances are in image captions where they are appropriate. One is in the lead section and one is the article body. I think these four instances are fitting and defensible. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
  • Delegate notes
    • Best to ensure each paragraph finishes with a citation; some are missing this, including two under Foundation and one under Wyntoon.
      • Done. Relevant named refs at the ends of paragraphs. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spotcheck of sources needed; I've pinged Clay per his comment above to see if he's able to do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like Clay has other matters that keep him from responding. What are the concerns about sources? I am familiar with every source. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a particular concern, but every FAC nominator has to have a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing every so often. It's standard procedure now and has been for some time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: In 1191, the king confirmed the monastery and its surrounding fields as belonging to the Cistercian Order.
  • Source: The location, along with Muriel and its four granges and other property, was donated to the Cistercian Order on 29 June 1191 by the King.
  • Article:In 1928, the Spanish state sold the monastery to Fernando Beloso for a little more than 3,100 pesetas..
  • Source:..y a continuación en febrero de 1928 el Sr. Beloso adquirió del Estado los edificios monasteriales de Ovila en la cantidad de 3.130 pesetas.
  • Article: The foundation of the church can be seen
  • Source: I cannot find this fact, and the document was written in 1982.
  • Article: In 1981, architectural historian Margaret Burke began working under a grant from the Hearst Foundation to inventory the remaining stones.
  • Source: Here they are indeed, blocks 800 years old, once the sacred walls and soaring archways of the 12th-century Spanish monastery Santa Maria de Ovila -- and later the property of the brazenly wealthy American William Randolph Hearst. I can't see a reference to Margaret Burke.
  • Article: ... and the oldest building in America west of the Rocky Mountains.
  • Source: They constitute the oldest building west of the Rockies, one of the oldest in the U.S., one of three medieval Cistercian houses of worship in America and the only one still used by actual Cistercians.
  • Article:Hearst died in 1951, and Morgan died in 1957; neither of them saw anything built with the stones.
  • Source: He (Hearst) died in 1951 aged 88. I cannot find Morgan's death mentioned on this page.
  • Article: In 1925, Byne had bought Hearst the monastery of Santa María la Real de Sacramenia which was dismantled, crated and shipped to New York where it was stored in a warehouse in the Bronx
  • Source: No preview available.
  • Article: After Hearst conveyed his enthusiasm for the project, Beloso sold Byne the stones for $85,000, including the cloister, the chapter house, the refectory and the dormitory for novices.
  • Source: Nearly a century later, an art dealer working for Hearst, a voracious collector, stumbled across the ruins and purchased them for $85,000.
  • Article: Steilberg inspected each shipment of stones, several thousand crates in all.
  • Source: So all the stones arrived in San Francisco, where they were inspected by Steilberg and placed in the largest warehouse in the city.
  • Article: In September 1993, museum director Harry Parker joined with Davis to sign an unconditional permanent loan of the chapter house stones to New Clairvaux.
  • Source: Then the abbot asked for just the chapter house entrance portal pieces on permanent loan. ...Third, that a review of the loan agreement be conducted every five years. Finally, that the chapter house stones must go to the abbey on conditional loan...Father Thomas, who objected to the trustees’ seeking to impose conditions upon the abbey when their reconstruction efforts over the years had failed, signed an agreement with Parker on Sept. 12, 1993, giving the stones outright to the abbey with the promise the chapter house would be accurately restored and the public would have access three times a week for 10 years.
    • Three potential issues: The visibility of the foundations of the church, a reference for Morgan's death and Margaret Burke's inventory. Otherwise no problems. Graham Colm (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added the right page for Morgan's death, in the same book as Hearst's death. I added a news item in Spanish discussing the church site today. Regarding the 1981 Burke grant to inventory the stones, the fact is already cited in Banisky's article in the LA Times. It says, "In 1981, as a volunteer at the de Young and with grants, appropriately, from the Hearst Foundation, Burke began an inventory." Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 09:40, 12 May 2012 [27].

Banksia oblongifolia edit

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it got a very thorough review at GAN by J Milburn (talk · contribs) and...it just came together nicely I reckon. It's the twentieth banksia article nominated here to date and I reckon it's the equal of the others. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Don't italicize editions
  • Be consistent in whether to abbreviate UK or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • got 'em....I'll manage to get them all done preemptively one of these FA noms.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Nice work on this one. Some general comments follow that should be addressed before this is ready.
  • Should the label at the top of the taxobox be capitalized? Looks strange as-is.
  • Image captions are not capitalized either. See WP:CAPTION
  • "New leaves and branchlets are covered with a rusty fur. The leaves lose their hair..." Are "fur" and "hair" interchangeable as technical terms? I know fur and hair are two different things on animals.
  • I've seen them used interchangeably, but have aligned them now to minimise confusion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your strategy for providing and not providing imperial conversions of units is unclear to me.
  • aah, I missed some - I don't generally do ones that are tiny mm ones Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para of "Distribution and habitat": Can we recast at least one of sentences beginning with "It is also found..."
  • Sentence fragment: "In damp areas with poor drainage, along the edges of swamps and flats, as well as Wallum shrubland, or coastal plateaux."
  • attached to previous with an mdash (could use a colon here too I guess) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here Banksia oblongifolia is an understory plant in low open woodland, with scribbly gum, narrow-leaved apple and old man banksia (Banksia serrata) as canopy trees..." In its article, "Old Man Banksia" is capitalized.
  • "The woody infructescences also release seed as their follicles are opened with heat" Seed or seeds?
  • was thinking of seed here as a collective noun, but realise this introduces ambiguity, so fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other seed predators include unidentified species of moth" Unidentified why? Do you mean the source didn't identify them, or no one actually knows what they are?
  • The last few sentences of "Cultivation" are choppy. Consider combining some of them for a more cohesive read. --Laser brain (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - all photographs taken by Casliber, map self-made by Cas to CSIRO data so everything should be fine. Iridia (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I trust you will add that last source if you can get a hold of it, and if it's even necessary. The article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Comments by Sasata (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made many copyedits and added several links, please check
  • lead seems a bit thin for an article this size
  • "…and the old grey spikes are keep their flower parts." ?
  • missing some unit conversions in subsection "Variation"
  • "It is also found in open forest or woodland" I thought these terms were synonymous?
    • yet another article we need! Australian botanists have defined them differently, to do with the percentage of canopy cover (i.e. woodland more open than open forest, which is more open than forest). I had a great book on eucalypts which discussed this which I've had to return. I will try to fetch it again tomorrow and see what I can do. However, these might be Australian-only definitions.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • journal article titles are not consistently title or sentence case
  • Coverage looks pretty good to me, but how about the following article?
Title: The relative fertilities of Banksia robur, B. oblongifolia and their putative hybrid in southeast Queensland
Author(s): Clifford H. T.
Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland Volume: 103 Issue: 0 Pages: 13-16 Published: 1993
  • frustratingly I can't get that one digitally. I might be able to get to a hard copy of it today as it happens. From what I can make out, it is more about reduced seed fertility of robur and mentions hybridising (which I've covered overall) - will see if I can get it today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (although I've looked only at the surface language)—Cas, I'm here after Laser Brain mentioned this one on the FAC talk page. It's up to your usual excellent standards: a good read. I note especially that at least one of the pics is your own! A few points:

    • One photo?! They are all mine - traipsing round the bush...picked up a leech for my troubles a coupla weeks ago.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the "also" go from the end of the first para? (Could actually be ambiguous in relation to the foregoing.)
  • "Measuring 5–11 cm (2–4.4 in) in length and 1.5–2 cm (0.6–0.8 in) wide"—could you harmonise the grammar? "in width", or maybe "long ... wide" for neatness?
  • Possible comma after "reddish-brown"; not sure.
    • tricky one that....preferring by a smidgen to leave it out but no strong feelings against putting one in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between January–October"—Pretty sure MoS says to use "and" when there's "between before it; as opposed to "the January–October period". Minor point. The parenthetical is fine as a dash, but you may want to harmonise with the "to" for easy reading. And sorry to be a dash-nerd, but "5 to 15 cm (2–6 in)" -> "5–15 cm (2–6 in)" and "0.5–1.3 m high" and "6–14 cm high" below. It's range-rich and the dashes cut back the clutter. These comments follow major style guides in English, as well as MoS.
    • agreed on de-dashing the monthranges and done. think I got all the other dash additions...(?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance the opening para of "Description" could be split? Hard for me to tell the flow of theme as a non-expert.
    • split so first part is habit, branches and foliage and second is flowering/fruiting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banksia oblongifolia can be distinguished from B. robur, which it often co-occurs with, by its smaller leaves and bare fruiting spikes. B. robur has more metallic green flower spikes, and often grows in wetter areas within the same region." I'm a bit confused about the confluence of "which it often co-occurs with" and "often grows in wetter areas within the same region".
    • the two species often grow together, and you'll find them only metres apart with the robur in the soggier swampier areas. I'll think on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the description could have fit juvenile leaves of B. paludosa, B. integrifolia or even B. marginata as well."—Should it be "fitted"? You might even consider "could have been applied to". Needs you to decide on that. Do you need "as well"?
    • yes "applied" is nicer ("fit" maybe a smidgen colloquial), and "as well" is redundant and flicked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have been publishing the results of their ongoing cladistic analyses"—maybe "have been publishing results of ongoing cladistic analyses", just to confirm that it is their own DNA analysis?
  • Map: the green is pretty hard to see at thumbnail size (I wonder about the colour-blind too). Could it be red or some more distinctive colour against the grey background?
  • I'm being very fussy: "and that new buds grow within six months of after a fire"

Thanks. It's lovely. Tony (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you go into the bush with a lighter, under a leech with which to put? I believe salt does the trick too. Tony (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 05:28, 12 May 2012 [28].

Ralph Neville edit

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...after the usual copyedits, peer review, and research, we've gone from this in 2007 before I began editing to the current version. Obviously I'm responsible for most of the writing, but the polish has been supplied by Malleus, Brian, and a bunch of other editors who have polished my somewhat rough prose skills. Ralph was a medieval English Bishop of Chichester, as well as being one of the big henchmen of King John (of Robin Hood fame...) and after John's death went on to serve John's son. Although he got elected as Archbishop of Canterbury once, he didn't get confirmed by the papacy...Not really a "bad boy" but not a saint either ... Ralph was one of those very common administrator-bishops. He's been proofread, copyedited, and is ready for prime time... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither of those supstantially improve our understanding of Neville nor do they illustrate things from his life, though. Especially the national archives one - which is almost misleading ... it could lead the reader to think that he had something to do with that building. I have hunted for images for him - when I was at Chichester I didn't see any memorials to him in the cathedral or in the town... (He wasn't exactly the type to merit statues!). Chancery Lane isn't much like what it would have looked like in his time period... no tomb extant so we're kinda stuck. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: "Not really a bad boy but not a saint either": that is the epitaph I seek for myself. Until that day I will continue to pick over Ealdgyth's bishops, as I did this one with a long peer review and some copyediting which was then topped and tailed by Malleus. Although I sympathise with the above comment on images, I don't think that featured articles require decorative pics for appearances's sake (though I confess I am personally inclined to do this). If aomething appropriate can be found, well and good, but otherwise I'd leave it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Compare formatting of FNs 3 and 8
  • England and its Rulers or Its Rulers?
  • Clanchy or Clancy? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly meets the featured article standards, good work. I'm not familiar with the subject matter, but it reads very well. Although I had to read this in two sittings, I couldn't find much at all to nitpick. Just a few small comments:
  • I saw you use the serial comma a few times, missing one here: "supported students at schools in Lincoln, Oxford and Douai."
  • Is the first comma needed in these sentences? "In 1238, the cathedral chapter of the see of Winchester elected as Bishop of Winchester first William de Raley in opposition to the king's choice of William the Bishop of Valence, and when that election was quashed, they elected Neville." & "After the king's return in September 1243, Neville did seal a few documents with the Great Seal until his death a few months later." & "After Neville's death, Matthew Paris"
  • "Neville died between 1 and 4 February 1244 at the palace he had built in London in what was then New Street, but was renamed Chancery Lane because of the palace he built." Is there a good way around the repetition of "palace he had built... palace he built."? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth puts the commas in, and I take 'em out; I think all those issues have been addressed now. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, looks like it has. You know how excited we Americans get about our commas. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A really well-written article which makes readable and interesting what could have been quite dry and dull. I have a few nit-picks which you may feel free to ignore completely if you don't agree. My one reservation, and one that I expand a little below, is that much of the article is about a pretty complicated position, that of Lord Chancellor. As this office was very much in development around this time, particularly as Neville reformed parts of it himself, there is a danger that the non-specialist may be a little baffled by some of what is going on here. I'm also not too sure that the article Lord Chancellor is an enormous help, so perhaps a little more explanation and help for the non-specialist may be of benefit here. But feel free to disagree, and this does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Although he was also briefly Archbishop-elect of Canterbury and Bishop-elect of Winchester, on both occasions the elections were set aside and he was not appointed to those offices.": Is "set aside" sufficiently clear for the lead? Maybe "quashed", as used in the main body, would be better. Also, a touch clunky; maybe "Although he was also briefly Archbishop-elect of Canterbury and Bishop-elect of Winchester, both elections were set aside [or quashed] and he held neither office."
  • "Neville was deprived of the Great Seal in 1238…": Perhaps indicate why in the lead (i.e. disagreement with Henry)?
  • "[References to] the Ralph Neville who was the same Hugh de Neville's chaplain … may be to the future bishop … it is likely that early in his career Neville served as a chaplain to Hugh de Neville.": Possibly I'm missing something, but is this not a repetition of the same information?
  • Any indication or theories why he was given custody of the seal? I imagine not.
  • Probably lost in the missing records - we don't know why. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be worth briefly mentioning why having the custody of the seal was a big thing?
  • Unfortunately, I don't have a good reference for WHY this was important - the gist is that it's controlling patronage and the sign of royal favour. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, perhaps make clear what was involved in the roles/duties/powers of vice-chancellor and Lord Chancellor (particularly as the article mentions "the power of that office). Possibly just a word or two to establish the role, to avoid confusion with any modern political positions of the same name; there are a few hints and mentions of the changing role of the chancery throughout, but nothing which really nails it down. If he was a big reformer/developer of the office, it would be useful to know what he was reforming.
  • He really wasn't a big reformer/developer of the office, however. He's mainly amazing for retaining favour with Henry III for so long and not losing everything when he did finally lose favour. The big reformer as chancellor during the Angevins was probably Huber Walter, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, for the general reader, could it be made clear (if the sources permit) that the lack of knowledge of his career/whereabouts is not because he was a particularly mysterious figure but more due to the nature of the evidence used (which is touched on with "owing to the lack of royal records") and/or gaps in it.
  • I've noted where my sources note such gaps, otherwise I just don't have the secondary sources. If I did a survey myself of the primary records, it'd be OR, unfortunately! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "non-time limited grants": Should there be a hyphen in "time limited"?
  • I assume that if there should be, Malleus would have put one in... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With very few exceptions I hate those multiple hyphens, so I may have a blind spot. Sarastro1 is probably right, but I'd prefer to avoid the issue by rephrasing as "grants without a fixed time limit". Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also endowed a distribution of bread to the poor residents of Chichester, a gift that continued into the 20th century.": Has this actually stopped, or is it one of those things where the source is slightly out of date? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source (which was revised in 2008, so it's not that out of date) states "For the poor of the city of Chichester he endowed an annual distribution of bread which continued until the twentieth century."... I'd have to guess that it no longer continues from that phrasing, but I have no source for that information. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Sarastro, for the review. I will get to all of these shortly - Wed. and Thurs. are my hubby's days off so we're always really busy on these days... especially so with the wonderful spring weather we're having ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Everything looks to be in order for the most part—although I concur with Sarastro1 that the article could bear a bit more context about roles and importance of the positions mentioned. I'm not sure I agree that the lack of source material needs to be specifically mentioned though in places where we say something is unknown. I believe that should be evident without explicit statement. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate notes
    • Licensing for the solitary image looks okay.
    • Ealdgyth, can you just remind me of the last time you had a spotcheck of sources at FAC? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The last time Carcharoth reviewed one of my noms - not that long ago ... within the last six months? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I might've missed that one but I see Brian checked ODNB on Pain fitzJohn recently, so we'll give you a bye this round... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 14:42, 10 May 2012 [29].

Mary, Queen of Scots edit

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it meets the criteria. It also has abduction, murder and racy details. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Was Mary really a queen regnant when she was 6 days old, 9 months before she was crowned? That's not squaring with the dictionary definitions. (Of course, it wouldn't be the first word that historians use differently from lexicographers ... just asking.)
    • Yes. Queens become de jure queens regnant when they are proclaimed. Coronation follows take months or even years later. This is to allow a decent period of mourning for the former monarch. (King Edward VIII was never crowned.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Church of St. Michael": St or St.?
  • "he was not an agnatic descendant of Stewart kings, but rather of their immediate ancestors": Would "he was not a direct descendant ..." work?
  • So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Mary, Queen of Scots#Escape and imprisonment in England. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copy-edit.
  • Do you have an alternative suggestion for the lead sentence? Sovereign? monarch?
    • Well, she inherited the throne as a newborn. Whatever you think is best.
  • Changed.
  • No, because he was a direct descendant through a female line, but we could use "patrilineal"? DrKiernan (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 175: 194?
  • Missing citation info for Weir 2004, Weir 1988
  • FN 202: date?
  • Compare formatting of Bain and Boyd
  • Location for Williams and Swain?
  • Check alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An extremely well-written article, with just the right level of detail and, yes, "raciness"! I knew very little about Mary and found this very interesting and informative, but readable too. Just a few minor points which do not affect my support in any way. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Beaton's claim was based on an allegedly forged version of the late king's will": Allegedly is a little weak; if someone claimed it was a forgery, it is better to say who than use allegedly.
    • Changed to "that his opponents dismissed as a forgery".
  • Why did her mother not become regent until 1554? The obvious question is why Arran held the "position" when her mother was "available". What changed?
    • I shall look into this; I suspect the death of Edward VI led to a resurgence of the pro-Catholic party.
  • Second paragraph of "Life in France": Three consecutive sentence begin with "She". Very picky, but it stands out a little among the rest of the excellent prose.
    • Changed.
  • "Portraits of Mary show that she had a small, oval-shaped head, a long, graceful neck, bright auburn hair, hazel-brown eyes, under heavy lowered eyelids and finely arched brows, smooth pale skin, a high forehead, and regular, firm features": As written, this sounds a little like editorial opinion.
    • This is essentially from Fraser, but is also supported by Guy and Weir. There are also very similar descriptions in Donaldson's Mary, Queen of Scots (1974) p. 56.
  • "However, when her uncle the Cardinal of Lorraine began negotiations with Archduke Charles of Austria without her consent, she naturally objected": Again, a hint of editorial voice with "naturally"?
    • Changed to "angrily", which is much closer to the sources.
  • "where he apparently raped her": Not sure about "apparently". If it is a claim, who made it?
    • I've added the main contemporary source to the footnote; "apparently" is the word used by Wormald.
  • "his formidable wife": POV? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a standard characterisation of Bess of Hardwicke. Guy and Wormald call her redoubtable. Fraser calls her a formidable matron, and quotes others saying "termagent" and "a woman of masculine understanding and conduct, proud, furious, selfish and unfeeling". Donaldson says she "was a dominating character, shrewd and calculating in business and something of a termagent in the household" (p 159). Thank you for the support. DrKiernan (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After the accession of James I in England, William Camden wrote an officially-sanctioned biography .. - I'd add a word or two describing Camden, like historian.
  • Had other questions but answered elsewhere on this page. Nice work/ no dealbreakers outstanding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added "historian", as suggested. Thanks for the support and the read-through. DrKiernan (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and a few Comments It looks like there may be too many repeated wikilinks, feel free to revert my copyedits if they're not pleasing.
  • "While in the French court, she was a favourite with everyone, except Henry II's wife Catherine de' Medici." Is it known why Medici disliked her?
    • Added "Catherine's interests competed with those of the Guise family, and there may have been an element of jealousy or rivalry between the two queens" to the footnote.
  • "which Moray refused to do as Chastelard was already under restraint. He was tried for treason, and beheaded." Which one was tried for treason?
    • Clarified as Chastelard.
  • Might want to add some metric conversions, "he was over six feet tall", "ilver-gilt casket just less than one foot long" & " was two feet high and draped in black"
  • "Moray's death coincided with a rebellion in the North of England, which persuaded Elizabeth that Mary was a threat." Might want to note the motivation of the uprising.
    • Added "led by Catholic earls".
  • "Norfolk was executed, and the English Parliament introduced a bill barring Mary from the throne, to which Elizabeth refused to give royal assent." I'm a bit curious, is it known why should didn't give assent, wouldn't that have been a good bill from her perspective?
    • Not necessarily. I doubt Elizabeth ever wanted to exclude or debar Mary from the succession, and she definitely did not want James excluded. Her policy was to neither confirm nor exclude any successor.
  • "Mary was misled into thinking her letters were secure, while in reality they were deciphered and read by Walsingham.[196] From these letters it was clear that Mary had sanctioned the attempted assassination of Elizabeth." I take it that historians generally believe these were authentic and she really had sanctioned it? Mark Arsten (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes; her defenders focus on legal arguments or moral justification rather than outright denial. Thank you for the support and the review. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, your changes and explanations work for me. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some nitpicking from me.

Lead

  • "... there was a huge explosion at his residence ..." - that reads sensationalistic
  • "... James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, who was generally believed to have..." - unclear, that could use a little more context as for who did the believing, at least - are contemporaries meant or later historians?

Escape and imprisonment in England

  • "... refused to attend the inquiry at York personally (she sent representatives) but Elizabeth forbade her attendance anyway." - that sentence can do without the "anyway" at the end and be shortened and made more plain

Hekerui (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: Mary Stuart is the topic of a number of novels, dramas, including Stefan Zweig's biography and Friedrich Schiller's drama. However, there does not seem to be anything related to such topics in the article. Why not? Like this, I believe the article should be titled "Biography of Mary", instead of "Mary". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • My two cents: the longer an article gets, the less likely it is to be read (or reviewed!), and that's had the effect of limiting the size of articles, especially FACs. This article's length, given the subject, is already average-to-long. Judgment calls are needed; what would you take out of the current article to make room for the fictional treatments? - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been split off into Cultural depictions of Mary, Queen of Scots. The nominated article is a biography of the real Mary. The fictional Mary is treated in the other article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think it is unavoidable to have a summary of all the facts related to Mary, be it her real life or the reception history etc. in other works. IMO, this FAC candidacy can only be successful if a) the article is specifically limited to M's biography (in which case Biography of Mary, Queen of Scots should be created, and the current article should contain a summary of the biography and the cultural depictions (and other similar articles, should they exist) or b) this article gets a reasonable summary-style section covering containing the most important features of Cultural depictions of Mary, Queen of Scots. In the latter case, Dank is right, the article might benefit from some trimming of the biographical material. (The choice what to trim is probably best left to the authors, I'm certainly not in the position to judge that.) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what's going on here, but isn't it to be taken for granted that the article "Mary" would be a biography? I'd assume, if it gets too long, it would be better to follow the pattern of the other world leader articles I've checked and spin off her reign of Scotland to a separate article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent article! If there are reliable, secondary sources available on which to base a paragraph about her cultural depictions, linking to Cultural depictions of Mary, Queen of Scots as the main article, we should probably cover it here. I'd distinguish though between secondary source analysis and us simply noting "here are some fictional books in which she appears"! I can't volunteer any suggestions for secondary sources to use; from biographical articles I've written, they're often in short supply. If space was critical, I'd trim a little of the detail about her execution, or a paragraph of the Casket Letters section. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noticed this discussion and felt compelled to comment. I also think there should be a summary of Mary's cultural depictions. Just because it has its own designated article, doesn't mean there's no need to mention it in her main article. It can't be called comprehensive otherwise. Why not just add a paragraph at the end of the Legacy section? --Lobo (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.....I keep hearing the python skit....."Are you Mary Queen of Scots?"......(chuckle)Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Did I miss an image check above? If not, we'll need one.
  • DK, I'm sure you've had a spotcheck of sources at FAC recently but can you pls point the latest out to me?
  • No explicit sourcing for the Ancestry diagram -- does it just rehash cited material in the main body of the article? Otherwise we should include a source for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've pinged Laser Brain for an image check.
  • Re. spotchecking, yes, I remember the Elizabeth II one now, I requested it...! That's fine, I don't need to see one here then.
  • Re. the new table(s), can you just cite to one of those sources so it's clear to the reader? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure how to do that, so I've just floated the footnote marker below the section header. DrKiernan (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm, doesn't look great like that does it? Now that I've brought it up, I'm not sure we have a standard for this... MOS doesn't allow wikilinking section headers but I don't remember seeing a rule against adding a citation to a subheading -- although a better solution might be to simply use bold text in place of the two subheaders, and cite those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images verified to be public domain or another appropriate free license. But, I do have concerns with the encyclopedic use of the following images:

  • Fair enough. It sounds like a matter of my ignorance of how arms are used. --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tomb effigy of Mary, Queen of Scots (copy).jpg. Again, where is this discussed in the text? I see no mention of the National Museum of Scotland except in the image caption. This image is of low value since it's essentially a copy of the one above it and it depicts something that's not mentioned in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been included merely to show an alternative angle as the actual tomb is not easy to photograph because of the layout of the chapel. I'm not especially attached to it, but I did think it added something beyond the other image. DrKiernan (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your point about the alternative angle—but can we mention in the article text why a copy was made for National Museum of Scotland so the image has some context? --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the museum from the caption, as the reason for the file's inclusion is the alternative view rather than to mention the museum. DrKiernan (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks Andy for the image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 13:07, 6 May 2012 [30].

1740 Batavia massacre edit

Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it has been much improved since the last nomination in December. It is complete and I believe the BrE prose is up to snuff for an FA. Since the last nomination failed, this article has successfully undergone an A-class review and a copyedit by MathewTownsend. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small point: Is there a need to have two nearly-identical photos of Governor-General Valckenier in the article? I suggest removal of the second photo and placing the image description in the article body. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forget I ever made that comment :/ ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Chinezenmoord_van_stolk_(2).jpg and similar: life+90 tag doesn't make sense. The illustrator is unknown, so his date of death is unknown.
  • Fixed.
  • File:Adriaan_Valckenier_(1695-1751)_by_T.J._Rheen.jpg and File:Gustaaf_Willem_baron_van_Imhoff2.jpg need a US PD tag
  • Fixed.
  • Don't need ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes
  • In the notes section? That is to indicate that not the whole sentence was quoted. This is required per WP:ELLIPSES.
  • FN 39: formatting
  • Fixed.
  • Why do you have two different locations for Curzon? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. The Dobbins source had two locations mentioned in WorldCat.

Comments from Eisfbnore

  • "The massacre's legacy on popular culture is found in Dutch literature, in which it has figured heavily, and in the names of several areas in Jakarta, which historians have suggested evoke the massacre." – either 'legacy in' or 'influence on', certainly not 'legacy on'.
  • Changed to legacy in
  • "Because of declining sugar prices worldwide beginning in the 1720s, due to an increase in supplies sent to the European market, the sugar industry in the East Indies had suffered considerably" – the phrase is adverbial: the 'due to' should be 'owing to'.
  • Fixed.
  • "Although Dutch historian A.N. Paasman notes that at the time the Chinese were the "Jews of Asia", the actual situation was more complicated." – I'm pretty certain that Dank will disagree with me on this one, but the style guide of The Guardian prescribes, to the best of my recollection, the use of a def article before occupations; hence: "Although the Dutch historian A.N. Paasman".
  • Assuming it's standard BrE, I have no issue with adding "the".
  • "Vermeulen described the massacre as "one of the most striking events in 18th century [Dutch] colonialism"" – there should be a hyphen between '18th' and 'century', as it is a compound adjective. I note that Vermeulen got it right in his original Dutch quote; fascinating how equal the orthographies of the Teutonic languages are.
  • Fixed.
  • Re the translations of the Dutch source titles: As far as my very limited knowledge of Dutch goes, I am not quite convinced that the translations are idiomatic nor accurate. For instance, " Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek" would be better translated as "New Dutch Biographical Dictionary", both owing to the idiomatic expression/collocation 'biographical dictionary' in English ('book of biographies' is very rarely encountered in English) and to the more direct translation: biografisch = biographical and woordenboek = dictionary. On the other I think that Of Coolies, Klontong, and Captains: The Image of the Chinese in Indonesian-Dutch Literary Prose 1880–1950 is a bit too direct: 'literary prose' is a very rare English expression. Literature would be a better translation for literair proza. Also, it is a far step from multiculturele samenleving to multiculturalism. I suggest multicultural societies. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those you've indicated, I've fixed.
  • Thanks for the review, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have been addressed. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 13:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Resolved comments from Mark Arsten moved to talk page.
  • I think that's it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support You're right, that is it. I think this has been worked over enough that it meets the criteria, I'm glad the nominator took a second try at it! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed the original FAC in January, and have revisted this article again. Issues I raised then have been addressed and I dont see any additionals issues arising from the recent edits. Gnangarra 00:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – A solid and well-balanced article that meets all the FAC criteria, in my view. Full marks in particular for maintaining the dispassionate tone despite the shocking incidents detailed. Tim riley (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 12:51, 6 May 2012 [31].

Singapore strategy edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual military article on a war plan rather than an actual war or battle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brebner: formatting
  • Check for wikilinking consistency in References
  • Be consistent in how multi-author/editor works are notated
    • Should be. The templates have been used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need retrieval dates for Google Books, but if you're going to include them you should do so consistently
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • File:British_Empire_1921.png: on what source(s) was this image based?
    • No idea. I can provide a source to back it up if you like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Queen_Mary_in_Singapore_Gaving_Dock_Aug_1940.jpg: "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published"
  • File:Avro_Vulcan_Malaysia.jpg: can you demonstrate that the government holds the copyright to this image?
    • The AWM says it doesn't. I've removed the pic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:British_Empire_1897.jpg: see this conversation arising from the British Empire FAR. Basically, the cited source claims to have got the image either from Wikipedia or from Commons, and we weren't able to find the original source or verify copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Hey Hawkeye7, templates such as {{done}} are generally discouraged at FAC, as most slow down the page load time. Good luck! Auree ★★ 01:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Forgot about that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk
  • Support - Reads fairly complete to myself, a layperson when it comes to military history. Grammar seems fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nigel Ish
  • In the Origins section - the US was not a former ally - it was a "co-belligerant" in the First World War. Japan was a former ally, and it may be worthwhile discussing the nature of the end of the Anglo-Japanese treaty more. In addition, there probably should be more on the consequences of the Washington Treaty on the allowable defences for Singapore.
    • Removed the bit about Allies (see above). Added that the Singapore was specifically excluded under the Washington Naval Treaty. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a mention of the Automedon affair in the outcomes section? The effective admission that the Singapore Strategy was unworkable, and the capture by the Germans and subsequent transmission to the Japanese of these plans (and the failure of the British to tell anybody that these plans had been captured) seems relevant.
    • Will do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I will confess that I had never heard of it. Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion on post war plans for basing of nuclear weapons at Singapore seems of limited relevance to the rest of the article and seems incomplete - it mentions plans, but not whether or how they were implemented. British nuclear weapons were based at Singapore, as were nuclear-capable Canberra bombers, and there were regular detachments of V-bombers, particularly during the confrontation. This bit should either be expanded or removed.
    • Another editor wanted it included. I will improve it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a bit more. Did not want to devote too much space to it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article enerally seems a bit bitty at the moment - and the last point is tending to persuade me to oppose at the moment.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As FAC is apparently now a paid process I am striking my comments to avoid any accusations of corruption and want nothing more to do with FAC.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kirk

  • I've reviewed this twice already so maybe I'm biased but I think its a pretty impressive article.
  • The article is pretty long; specifically I think the Origins section could be more succinct.
    • The second sentence of the lead should be more clearly stated within the origins section somehow (maybe as a conclusion in the last paragraph).
      • I've added it a a paragraph at the front of the origins section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relative strength of the US Navy vs. the Royal Navy is complicated to measure since it could be compared in multiple ways: total ship tonnage, personnel and capital ship tonnage. In the pre-war period, The Royal Navy was ahead of the US Navy in total tonnage (but not by much), the US Navy definitely was ahead of the Royal Navy multiple times for the second in personnel, and capital ship tonnage was theoretically equal in the third while the treaties were in force (then it was also all over the place). I don't think this is the article to argue the 'largest' but you probably cite this (5th paragraph) with which measurement you are comparing.
      • That's not true. Personnel between the wars was comparable:
Comparision of US Navy and Royal Navy personnel 1919-1939
Year US Navy Royal Navy
1919 272,144 268,000
1920 121,845 220,281
1921 132,827 113,335
1922 100,211 104,649
1923 94,094 90,090
1924 98,184 89,128
1925 95,230 89,529
1926 93,304 89,850
1927 94,916 90,764
1928 95,803 91,096
1929 97,117 89,506
1930 96,890 86,841
1931 93,307 83,898
1932 93,384 81,498
1933 91,230 79,876
1934 92,312 81,021
1935 95,053 82,529
1936 106,292 87,350
1937 113,617 91,615
1938 119,088 100,870
1939 125,202 118,932

NB: excludes Marines and Coast Guard in both cases. USN source: [32] RN source: [33]

      • I don't think I was clear above (nice table btw): Throughout the 1920s, the Royal Navy therefore remained the world's largest navy but according to that table only in 1920 and 1922 the Royal Navy was bigger than the US Navy in terms of personnel; I assume the source you used meant total tonnage so I would add a citation to the fact and note the metric. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third sentence of the 2nd paragraph I would remove the fluff and merge it with the remainder of the paragraph e.g. (Rising tensions over the US Navy's building program led to the Admiralty developing a "one-power standard", under which the policy was to maintain a navy "not ... inferior in strength to the Navy of any other power" that became official when it was publicly announced at the 1921 Imperial Conference.)
    • The third paragraph seems off topic; the important bit is that the US wasn't considered a threat but I think that's a sentence or two not a paragraph.
    • The 5th paragraph I'm not clear what the 10 year rule has to do with the Singapore strategy; if you delete those two sentences its pretty good (other than my concern about the 'largest' navy). Similar problem with 6th paragraph, you could probably merge these paragraphs.
  • Other than that, way down in the Second World War section the sentence starting "At this time there were only two battleships..." seemed superfluous - The Admiralty considered sending capital ships to Singapore, there were 7 available but the one they considered sending was sunk. (and none of the ships in your list were Revenge-Class) Why no Aircraft Carriers?
    • Tracking the ships gets complicated. Trimmed per your suggestion, added a bit about the aircraft carrier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per my note below, I would probably say at the beginning of that the section the Eagle was based at Singapore until the DoW with Italy when it was moved to the Med. Also, I replaced 'old' with 'small' since I think that's the more important problem with Eagle. Finally, there's a disconnect between the paragraph (re-)sending Eagle vs. the next sending Indomitable, which didn't make it in time to join force-Z but was active in the theater before the fall of Singapore. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure there was a Far East fleet which was quickly recalled to the Mediterranean in 1939, maybe you should mention that (or did and I missed it)?
    • What I was thinking was at the outbreak of World War II the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle was on the East India Station and eventually went to the Mediterranean fleet after the declaration of war by Italy. Kirk (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the independence of Singapore is worth mentioning a little more explicitly (its obliquely in the last paragraph of the Fall of Singapore section). Kirk (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a couple more things, in addition...
  • It seems to me the picture(s) of the Singapore docks would be a better choice for the infobox or the 15" gun than the current pic. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Les3corbiers

(I am a French contributor and I am currently translating this article)

  • The introduction says "British naval planners did not expect that the Japanese would willingly fight" but it is written "British naval planners did expect that the Japanese would willingly fight" in the Plans section. Which one is correct ?
    • "British naval planners did not expect that the Japanese would willingly fight". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph of the Plans section : "In the event of a worst-case scenario [...] two approaches were considered". I do not find the second approach.
    • there are two. Re-worded to make this explicit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Utilisateur:Les3corbiers (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

  • Do you know the name of the warship in the Admiralty IX Dock on the picture in section Plans?
    • No. I searched through the series of photographs, but none of them say. I think it is a case of wartime censorship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which type is the 15 inch coastal gun shown on the picture in Base development and when was it made?
    • The type is in the article. I tracked down the manufacturing dates for the guns as being between 1903 and 1919. I also dug up some information on the fate of the guns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the people on the surrender picture in Fall of Singapore is Percival? Are there any other known officers on the picture? What is the name and rank of the japanese officer in the center of the picture? If this is not known, the picture caption should point on him as not being part of the british forces.
    • Left to Right: Major Cyril Wild (carrying white flag) interpreter; Brigadier T. K. Newbigging (carrying the Union flag) Chief Administrative Officer, Malaya Command; Lieutenant Colonel Ichiji Sugita; Brigadier K. S. Torrance, Brigadier General Staff Malaya Command; Lieutenant General Arthur Percival, General Officer Commanding, Malaya Command. Sugita participated in the Battle of Wake Island, the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, and the Battle of Leyte, and was present on the USS Missouri during the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. After the war he translated Japanese Army reports for the Allied historians. I think he later became Chief of the Ground Staff of the JSDF. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Bomzibar (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- No simple undertaking, this subject, so well done. Reviewed/passed for GA and reviewed/supported for MilHist A-Class and both times the article has been developed subsequently, so re-read it from top to bottom rather than going through diffs of changes. Specifically:

  • Coverage, referencing, supporting materials, and prose look good -- I just copyedited a couple of things this time round.
  • Structure-wise, article development and sectioning seem logical; I'd prefer to see more than just the word "Australia" as a heading but admittedly not sure of the best alternative ("Australian attitudes"? Perhaps you can think of something -- not a showstopper in any case).
  • Spotcheck-wise, I'm happy to give you a bye on this one in light of the one I did for Truman's Relief of General MacArthur in January but of course can't speak for the other delegates, who'll be responsible for closing this at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2012 (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 GrahamColm 12:37, 6 May 2012 [34].

Lactarius torminosus edit

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lactarius torminosus is a widespread poisonous mushroom that is made palatable after suitable preparation, and enjoyed in certain eastern and northern European countries. I've exhausted my sources, copyedited to diminishing returns, and think the article is now ready for an FAC run. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment on criteria 1a/c/d/e, 2 and 4. As usual, a nearly spotless and extremely engaging article on an interesting species. I've read up till the "Development" section, and so far have only made a few minor stylistic and punctuation tweaks. Just one query: Why "northern Asia" yet "Northern Europe"? Great work, looking forward to reading the rest. Auree ★★ 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've been keeping an eye on the (significant) changes made to this article since my support, and I believe the article still very much satisfies the criteria. Auree ★★ 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your copyedits so far. After consulting my sources, I've decided to remove "Northern" altogether as it is found throughout Europe. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, finished reading through. I can detect no issues apart from these three minor quibbles:
  • This sentence was a bit difficult for me to parse: "Lactarius normandensis was described by Alexander H. Smith in 1960 to account for the North American species closely resembling L. torminosus, but having instead latex that changed color from white to yellow upon exposure, and that stained tissues and paper yellow." In particular, "the North American species closely resembling L. torminosus, but having" made me have to restart from the beginning.
  • "The intensely peppery taste of the raw mushroom can blister the tongue if sampled in sufficient quantity." Maybe it's just me, but the usage of "sufficient" here almost makes it sound as if the blistering would be a desired result.
  • "This chemical has a lactarane skeleton, similar to compounds found in other Lactarius species, such as L. deliciosus and L. blennius, which both contain blennin A, and Lactarius rufus, which has lactarorufin N and deoxydihydroketolactarorufin N." Bit of a run-on; any way to split this one up?
Never mind this, my tired eyes must've misread it. Auree ★★ 04:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are good, some nitpicks:

  • Some references are missing publication languages, e.g. 3
  • Ref 33: formatting inconsistency for issue number
  • Use a consistent date format (compare refs 1 and 35)
  • Will look over sources again tomorrow; eyes are tired right now. Auree ★★ 04:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded the questionable prose and tweaked the refs. Also added a quote box for some flavor. Does it work? Sasata (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me, the increased gustatory aspect of the article almost make me hungry (: And on that note, I am happy to support this candidate's promotion. Good luck, Auree ★★ 12:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks kindly for the review, I appreciate it! Sasata (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - reading through now (note, I did early work on the article, so consider this...well, whatever/semi-involved) queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally, white mycelium is present at the base of the stem - I'd say, "Occasionally, white mycelium is visible at the base of the stem" (I mean, it's always going to be present....)
the dense tomentum withers to sparse whitish fibers - is there any meaning lost by using "fur/hairs", or some other plain english word, for "tomentum"?
  • In this case, I'd like to leave it as is with the following justifications: I avoided using the term in the lead; it's glossed at the first occurrence; I explicitly used the word in the figure caption to provide a visual of what it means; furry or hairy doesn't quite convey the same meaning as "covered with short, dense, matted hairs". Sasata (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking very good on prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Cas—does the new paragraph read ok? Sasata (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok, although I do wonder in "four phylogenetically distinct clades" - whether "phylogenetically" is necessary - maybe "four distinct lineages"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - overall looks good. Just a few comments:

  • In the lead, the description in the last sentence of the variety is quite abrupt, given that there is no mention earlier in the lead of a variety existing. I think it would be more cl:ear to have a sentence or two earlier in the lead that further discusses the taxonomy of the species, the variety, related species, etc., so that a description of a variety is not quite so jarring.
  • I have expanded and reorganized the lead to include more details from the taxonomy and similar species sections. Sasata (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy, "bellyach" Is this the spelling of the source? I've always seen "bellyache", but realize that this could just be an old spelling.
  • Yes, the spelling is per the (1821) source. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy, you say the species in this group are characterized by latex that doesn't change color or stain, yet later say the variety does both...
  • I'm surprised I missed this contradiction before. (... and reaffirms why I appreciate the extra eyes the FAC process brings!) Will think about how to present this and get back to you. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed the literature, and, if I'm not mistaken, it seems that by delegating this taxon as a variety of L. torminosus, Hesler and Smith violated their concept of subsection Piperites. I'm not sure I want to say this explicitly in the article, however, for fear of violating NOR, and making it seem like Wikipedia is presenting an editorial judgment about the taxonomical status of this variety by highlighting a possible error that no-one else seems to have reported yet. What I did was make to sure the origins of the taxonomic opinions are clearly stated (e.g. first by Smith 1960 and then Hesler and Smith 1979); readers can then make their own judgements about the validity of their infrageneric concepts (based on pre-molecular DNA understanding of fungal phylogeny). Does that seem like a good solution? Sasata (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are resolved, I look forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a new paragraph outlining quite recent changes in taxonomy. Reviewers, please let me know if it is accessible, with an appropriate level of detail; more information will eventually find its way to the genus pages Lactarius and Lactifluus (in preparation). Sasata (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the new paragraph, although "A proposal to conserve Lactarius with L. torminosus as a conserved type" seems a little repetitive with conserve/conserved. Also, the new addition further reinforces my feeling that the lead is a bit short, and low on taxonomic detail, for an article of this length. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point - we're not conserving the genus, but ensuring a larger bunch of taxa keep the name essentially - so need to think how to express that plainly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded to use one less "conserved". Technically however (if I am understanding this fully), they are conserving the genus (or "reconserving", as L. piperatus was established as the type in the 1988 Code) with L. torminosus as the conserved type. Sasata (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I did a copyedit and partial rewrites in bits, and I do have a bunch of comments for areas of improvement:

matters fully dealt with
  • Can we use group and link to clade in the taxonomy section instead of using the technical "clade" straight up?
  • Ok, swapped out clade and sister for less technical terms, while retaining the links. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the surface of adult specimen remains sticky? It said "initially", but failed to actually state if that changes. What is the exact term in use ("glutinous", "viscid" etc.), if any?
  • My sources fail to state explicitly if that changes with age (but I suspect it does). The source cited for that sentence uses "sticky", but a couple other use "viscid". Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is my "veil-like" wording accurate or is it considered an actual veil?
  • Your wording works; Arora says "... soft, wooly hairs ... that may mimic a veil.", so I cited that sentence to him. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's probably the term used by guides and technical, but I fail to see how "pale vinaceous" and "cream-tinged vinaceous" is supposed to be separable from, y'know, "pink".
  • Yeah, good point. I changed to "pink-tinged" (used by Arora), I think that covers it adequately. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Occasionally, white mycelium is visible at the base of the stem." i.e. above the ground? A slight dose of WP:OBVIOUS may be called for here.
  • Added "... where it meets the ground." Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "hymenium with granular hyaline contents." part is fairly confusing to me. Is it an additional description of the hymenium or referring to a specific type of hymenium in which macrocystidia are particularly abundant?
  • "[Pileis] surface is dry" Unless the cap remains sticky or this is relevant for distinguishing from other species, this is probably a bit unnecessary, especially since it's implied by "pruinose".
  • The only place I found "surface is dry" is in the description of the stem. I'd prefer to keep this statement, if only for the reason that several field guides also mention this fact. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to mention the type material of L. t. var. nordmanensis, shouldn't you do the same with that of L. torminosus itself? (it's rather oblique, but it seems to be a plate designated in the 2010 conservation proposal)
  • I've removed the bit about where the type is currently kept as being too much detail for Wikipedia, but kept the rest (whereabouts of type location) as it helps explain the origin of the name of the variety. Sasata (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the caps of L. cilicioides are zoned"... isn't L. torminosus' also?
  • "The similar North American species L. villosus is white before becoming tinted with orange" Is that an exposure thing or an aging thing?
  • I've removed this sentence; upon further investigation I found that Bessette et al. in their 2009 Lactarius monograph have placed this is synonymy with L. pubescens, "because of a lack of sufficient distinguishing characteristics". Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hans Steidle reported that although the mushroom was not toxic to "unicellular and cold-blooded organisms"" Presumably, given what follow right after, that is "when ingested"? WP:OBVIOUS call.
  • Does the "rare" mushroom poisonings refers to fatal ones or just poisonings in general? Because it seems like it happened quite enough for the symptoms and the fact it typically resolves by itself to be well known.
  • Because the source does not explain, I've removed this. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 1-octen-3-one a typical compound in mushrooms? It would be a useful contextual information here if it were (its page describes it as a somewhat typical mushroom smelling compound).
  • Have added that it's typical, and added a link to a useful page. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we discuss the toxic compound first, maybe in, you know, the toxicity section?
  • Maybe, but isn't it equally valid to discuss the chemical in the chemistry section? Sasata (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a thought, because the information seems weirdly spread. Given that there is no standard recommended structure for fungi articles, maybe moving "Ecology, distribution, and habitat" up so toxicity is directly followed by chemistry? And at least consider inserting a mention that Velleral is the likely culprit in the toxicity section?
  • Ok, I used your first suggestion. Sasata (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wither to sparse whitish fibers" Farly sure they don't stop being trichome just because they were worn out to only a few
  • (Cystidia, not trichomes) I'm paraphrasing the wording from the source: "...bearded when young, white-fibrillose with age". Arora says "... hairs sparse or even absent in age." Do you have a suggestion for a better wording? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's put it like this: if we are first characterising them as hair (implied with "tomentose", and then explicitly with "these hairs wither"), then that they are technically cystidia is irrelevant, isn't it? (though if you want, that a neat tidbit to put as an aside) Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "The tomentum diminishes with age." Sasata (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe development ought to be moved out of "description".
  • Yeah, it's a bit out of place in description, but on the other hand I didn't want to make a separate section for such a short paragraph. Suggestions? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • two possibilities come to mind: an unsectioned paragraph at the end of the description (since it already includes elements of it by describing how it changes as it grows), or some in the "Ecology and distribution" section. BTW, it was tugging at my mind, but now I realize it really wants to drop "habitat", which feels encompassed by "ecology": three-topic section titles feel iffy. Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved up the development section as suggested. Trimmed habitat out of the section header. (Do you feel similarly about "Taxonomy, classification, and phylogeny"?) Sasata (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a general statement regarding the similar species would be useful: i.e. how easy or hard are they to separate, whether this is considered a lot of lookalikes for the genus? Are any of the lookalikes closely related? As is it's really just a list turned into a paragraph, I know that kind of synoptic thing is hard to add without violating the original research policy, but it's what make a good guide really great.
  • I agree, it's hard to do this. I added a couple of sentences to open the section (said that sometimes microscopy is needed to distinguish similar species), and mentioned the one species that we know is closely related, but don't think I can stretch it much more than that. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I REALLY like how this quick diagnosis bit you added pulls the section out of the "disguised list" issue. Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved up the development section as suggested. Trimmed habitat out of the section header. (Do you feel similarly about "Taxonomy, classification, and phylogeny"?) Sasata (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Took out "classification" since it's redundant with "taxonomy", and IIRC we use taxonomy more consistently across wp: Circéus (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the description of the "stuffed" thing confusing, especially as the trama is discussed earlier. Consider discussing the trama separately instead of as element of these mushroom parts?
  • I swapped trama (in reference to the stem) for "The interior of the stem", does this help? (I prefer to keep discussion of the mushroom parts together, to have a presentation format consistent with other mushroom articles). Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Augh... I'm starting to think a picture would help (maybe linked to as a content note?). I cannot quite figure out what it's trying to say and it seems to contradict what I understand is a diagnostic character of Russulaceae. Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having trouble determining what's difficult to understand :) What diagnostic characteristic do you think it contradicts? Sasata (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'.m not sure if it's just me or if the color of the bike shed at play where people just skip over what they can't understand (since I do understand a most of the technical stuff in there). Maybe it's a WP:Obvious issue because the article fails to say that there are two different texture of trama in the pileus? (indeed it turns out to be a technical term: "filled with a soft pith"). I think dropping "stuffed" in favor of describing two distinct texture of trama is best.

Circéus (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a thorough review and text massaging, Circéus. I will work on these points over the next few days. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've just had a read through and checked a few sources. No quibbles at all- an excellent article. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the article has been significantly improved since coming in here. Circéus (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 09:34, 6 May 2012 [35].

Gabriel Fauré edit

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Fauré was one of France's greatest composers, writing works of great subtlety during a long and interesting life. The article on his piano music was promoted to FA earlier this year and I felt the article on the composer himself deserved to be brought up to the same level. It has twice been peer reviewed: once before GAN in 2010 and again in the last few weeks, after the overhaul and expansion of the article. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support While I have never listened to the man's work, and probably never will, I participated in the peer review and my concerns have been addressed. Very well done. Images not checked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the section on his vocal works, would it be possible, from the references, to mention about how his style of Melodie changed towards the end of his life? Eg in the cycle Le jardin clos, where subtlety is taken to an extreme (and extremes entirely avoided....) almost-instinct 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting point. I'd be surprised if the sources didn't have something to that effect. I'll rummage and see. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. At the recent peer review I found it a hard task to fault the eminently encyclopaedic and reader-friendly presentation of this important composer, who is known to the general public primarily for a single work ("Fauré's Requiem") but who also wrote so much more fascinating music. I think Tim Riley is doing a fine service to Fauré and Wikipedia here. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A great article and one which mirrors Piano music of Gabriel Fauré in terms of quality. I made a couple of minor consistency adjustments for the references but could see no other issues. A splendid job Tim! -- Cassianto (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you to MistyMorn and Cassianto for support. Tim riley (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:
  • It's under the "Show more" tab on the You Tube page. Graham Colm (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Faurepiece.ogg - That this was uploaded by one of the players should be made clearer. Perhaps use a self template?
  • That's all I have; I'm duly impressed. I plan to look at prose tomorrow morning (UTC+7) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two instances (one in the final paragraph of the lead and another in 'Orchestral and chamber works') where there is a missing e-acute accent on Fauré. Otherwise, pretty polished. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC
    • Aargh! Thank you very much! Shame on me. (Fauré had an almost exact contemporary, a travel writer, called Gabriel Faure (without an acute), and they got so used to being mistaken for each other that they became quite good friends.) Remedied the punctuation here. Tim riley (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, good prose and is comprehensive. I do have 'La bonne chanson' and 'Pavane' somewhere in my personal music catalogue, worth listening it to again in the near future! -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have sung some of Fauré's art songs, as well as the Requiem, and heard some other Fauré music, but before reading this article, I never knew of Fauré's importance in opening the French musical establishment to more modern or contemporary musical influences. In any case, I found this article to be well-written, as everything by Tim riley is, balanced to emphasize the most important points, comprehensive, thoroughly referenced and illustrated and otherwise exemplifying the best content in Wikipedia. It gives an excellent sense of who Fauré was as a musician, an educator and a person. I should note that I have participated in proofreading this article. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for this support, and for your proof-reading. Tim riley (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sources review: Spotchecks not carried out

  • Ref 32: "Jones, p. 28 and Grove" looks incomplete
    • I'm never sure what to do when referring obliquely to a reference (Grove in this case) that I have spelled out in full earlier. I'm reluctant to burden the reader with a full reappearance of "Nectoux, Jean-Michel. "Fauré, Gabriel (Urbain)", Grove Online, Oxford Music Online, accessed 21 August 2010 (subscription required)" Tim riley (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 75: "Prunières, Henry, quoted in Copland" The Copland source needs to be specified.
  • Ref 106: The elements in this multiple reference are separated by a colon, rather than by a semicolon per your normal pracice in this article
  • Ref 139: Some navigation aid required for this source
    • Drat! I put in the full url, but this website clearly ignores the search results url and defaults to its search home page. I really don't know what to do about this. I think it is probably technically impossible to take the reader closer to the search results that I found (with the kind help of User:Cg2p0B0u8m). Tim riley (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have carried out two lengthy peer reviews on this article, and there has been copious review input from elsewhere. I have nothing more to add beyond recognising this as an exceptionally well prepared article, the product of much dedicated work, which easily meets the FA criteria and will be an adornment to the corpus of composer biographies. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am, not for the first time, in your debt for your reviewing and your support. Many thanks! Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments from Crisco 1492 (image review above)
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
  • Tentative support pending clarification of YouTube copyright. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's Note - Thanks to the nominator and reviewers here, at PR and elsewhere, for making my job easy. Please see my comment above regarding the You Tube licence. Graham Colm (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 06:26, 5 May 2012 [36].

SMS Ostfriesland edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another German battleship, this vessel is probably best known for being sunk by Billy Mitchell's bombers off the Virginia Capes in 1921. I wrote this article in January 2011, when it also passed a GA review, and it passed a MILHIST ACR in August (see here). I think the article is at or near FA quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers during the nomination. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Fürstin of Innhausen und Knyphausen": This would be easier to read, and would be transparent to Germans as well, as "Princess of Innhausen and Knyphausen". I don't care one way or the other if you add a translation in the footnotes.
  • "Kapitän zur See": MisterBee suggested we set up a page giving best practices for using German in ship articles, and that would be great ... and any general principles that you guys agree on will probably be fine with me. I think German works a little better untranslated than other languages, because it's so close to English. (We should also probably have a page somewhere explaining that German is a little easier for English-speakers to read than it appears at first glance, as long as you know that 5 out of 6 words in English running text tend to originate from German, with some letters transposed and some morphed ... so in Kapitän zur See, the t and i transposed, and K morphed to C, z to t, u to o, and e to a, all common morphs. zur is a contraction of zu der.) Some German is also quite common in English sources on WWI and WWII. Still, I think we should always look for ways to quickly and unobtrusively make the meaning clear to English-speakers and German-speakers at the same time, and try to avoid 20-letter words with 15 consonants when possible :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. I don't think there's "too much German" here, my only request is that ship people get together and come up with some general guidelines on using German in ship articles. I recently mentioned that I'm cutting back on copyediting and supporting, but it would just be rude not to support on prose when I've already reviewed and supported this article before. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Is the Princess notable in her own right? And do we have an article on her title? If so link them.
    • Not that I know - we don't have an article for her or her title, as far as I know.
  • Consider adding a drawing or picture that illustrates the hexagonal turret arrangement.
    • I tracked down a linedrawing in the 1922 Britannica.
  • Torpedo diameter conversion differs between infobox and main body.
  • Horsepower is missing from main body.
  • How thick was her barbette armor?
  • Link keel.
  • Ostfriesland and the rest of I Squadron were sortied Delete the helping verb.
  • It would probably be a good idea to start the individual battle squadron articles, even if they're only stubs. That way people can figure out their hybrid name a bit more easily if you provide the original German name in the stub.
  • Probably worth clarifying that Slava was a predreadnought.
    • Isn't it already?
  • What does this mean? The German battlecruisers were steaming to starboard, while the British ships steamed to port.
    • The German line was steaming in the middle, between the British and German battlecruiser squadrons.
  • Typo alert: and killed then entire 857-man crew
  • Might be worth clarifying that Osfriedland was stationary when attacked by Mitchell's boys.
  • Images are good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether ranges are abbreviated or not
  • Check for consistency in notation of books published in NYC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both fixed - good eye on the first one. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

  • Sorry for asking but regarding Kaiserschießpreis and Friedrich der Grosse, isn't that inconsistent usage of the ß (Eszett)? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, it probably shouldn't use the eszett. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your other aricles use a footnote to explain what Ersatz means. I think this is very helpful and should be considered here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I had missed this - added the standard note now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- nice work as usual, specifics follow...

  • Prose/structure/detail -- completed my usual copyedit, hope that all sits okay; generally things look good, just a couple of points:
    • You probably should be employing non-breaking spaces for formations such as "I Squadron" -- I note they're used for "I Scouting Group" at least once (you also use them in some, but not all, dates).
    • With translated terms, be consistent in which comes first, German or English -- for instance you have "Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral)" and "Vizeadmiral (Vice Admiral)" but "Grand Admiral (Großadmiral)" later on. I'm not sure of the standard and frankly don't care too much as long as there's uniformity within the article.
  • Referencing -- happy to rely on Nikki for this.
  • Images -- ditto Storm.
  • Source spotcheck -- I think the last time you had one was in mid-2011, so probably time for another -- perhaps a Ships Project member could take care of that as they'd probably have access to print materials that I wouldn't. Once that's conducted successfully I'll be more than ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Ian, your edits look good to me. I added non-breaking spaces for the units and fixed the Grand Admiral bit. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks coming. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotchecks for all the refs for Staff (I) (and there are a lot of them) all check out, except note:
  • "On 24 April 1912, Ostfriesland replaced Westfalen as squadron flagship.": Staff (I), p. 43
  • "On 24 April 1912, Ostfriesland replaced Westfalen as the squadron flagship.": text
  • "... on 25–26 September 1916 covered an advance by the II Führer der Torpedoboote (Leader of Torpedo Boats) to Terschelling Bank.": Staff (I), p. 43
  • "On 25–26 September, [they] covered an advance conducted by the II Führer der Torpedoboote (Leader of Torpedo Boats) to the Terschelling Bank.": text
  • "For the majority of 1917, Ostfriesland was assigned to guard duty in the German Bight.": I don't see that on the given page.
  • "On 6 November, Ostfriesland was decommissioned and used as a barracks ship.": Staff (I) says 16 December.
  • Both Massie refs check out.
  • Gröner refs all check out, except:
  • "She had a crew of 42 officers and 1,027 enlisted men": Gröner, p. 25, says: "42/1071 (plus 13/66 as squadron flagship)"
  • "Derfflinger and Seydlitz had been seriously damaged at the Battle of Jutland ...": Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see on p. 56 or p. 57 that Derfflinger was damaged. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking these, Dan. Everything should be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That all looks good except for the German Bight bit ... was it another ref in that paragraph that covers it? Does the ref's text imply your sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh right, I was going to comment on that, but forgot apparently. The sentence is supported by the line "The year 1917 saw increased activity for the German battleships on picket duty and covering minesweeping forces..." - these activities took place in the German Bight. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tks for spotchecking/fixes Dan/Parsec -- happy to support now (see above). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 04:33, 5 May 2012 [37].

Tichborne case edit

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tichborne Claimant has been widely assumed to be a scheming London butcher who wickedly sought a title and fortune by pretending to be Roger Tichborne, the missing heir to that family's lands and wealth. He was proclaimed a fraud and a liar by the English courts, after many years of legal tussling that captivated and divided mid-Victorian England; the case had, in the short term at least, some broader consequences for radical British politics. Was the law's verdict fair and reasonable? Probably... but there will always be the possibility that he was, after all, who he said he was and thus the tragic victim of this intriguing case. The story is genuinely gripping, and I'm surprised that its filmic treatment to date has been so negligible. Please read on and draw your own conclusions. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Declaration of interest: I contributed one graphic used in this article, and took part in the peer review. I don't believe this disqualifies me from expressing full support here: the article seems to me to meet all FA criteria. I particularly admire the way it observes encyclopaedic scrupulousness while at the same time telling a gripping tale. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Tim for your excellent graphic, your reviewing, and your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport I was also involved in the peer review and all of my (minor) issues were addressed there. Fully meets the FA criteria and quite well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your help with images, particularly for finding the striking lead image, and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I was asked to review the images as part of the preparation for FAC and peer review process. They are all free, mostly because they were published long ago. The lead image has grids added to each photograph, but as it a historical composite that shows both Roger Tichborne and the Claimant, and attempts to show their facial resemblance (depsite the intervening years and pounds), I think it is a particularly apt lead image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took part in the peer review, and all of my concerns have been addressed. Excellent article. Meets the criteria. Finetooth (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your interest in the article, and for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this is getting crowded pretty fast. I've read about a third of the article, and it looks very well written thus far (and very entertaining, of course). I made a couple small copyedits, feel free to revert. My only question thus far is if there should be a comma after Guildford here: "notable supporters included Lord Rivers, a landowner and sportsman, and Guildford Onslow, the Liberal MP for Guildford who became...". For "Arthur Orton, a fellow-Englishman", the hyphen looks odd to me, but I presume this is just a convention I'm unfamiliar with. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question, should 21st century be hyphenated here: "equivalent to several millions in 21st century terms." Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are probably right on both of your hyphen-related queries. i.e. "fellow Englishman" (no hyphen necessary) and "21st-century" (hyphen necessary for the adjectival form). British English would not generall add the comma afte "Guildford" in the sentence you highlight. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, looks good to me.
  • Support Alright, I'm more than willing to support the article at this point, excellent example of our best work. The one nitpick I have left is one citation "McWilliam 2007, pp. 110–111", I think you just used two digits (110-11) on similar cites. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Mark, and well spotted (the extra digit, now removed). Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, was involved in the peer review, my concerns were addressed, fine article about an odd episode in English history.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature-quality articles require feature-quality reviews, and you have once again supplied this. Many thanks for your hard work and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review ... (special guest appearance from the past...)

  • Italicise Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - please. (shudders).
  • Okay, why "McWilliam 2007, p. XX" but "Woodruff, p. XX"? Consistency.
  • "Cambridge, U.K."? I thought ya'll like "UK"? And ... it's not consistent with the "Mineola, NY"...
  • Spotchecks of three ODNB sources show no issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome back to the dark art of source reviewing, at which you were for so long nonpareil. In answer to the above:-
  • My source is the online version of the ODNB, not the book version. They are not the same. In these circumstance it seems to me that italicisation might be misleading. I'm not sure why the shudders - should I italicise?
  • There is another MacWilliam source, dated May 2010. There is only one Woodruff.
  • UK it is.

Thanks for the checks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We generally italicize works - which the ODNB is ... And I don't SEE a McWilliam 2010 in either the references or the footnotes... I even did a "find" with my browser to be double sure ... no such source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 16: "McWilliam, Rohan (May 2010) etc". On italicisation, the point is that ODNB online is not the same work as the printed ODNB. It is a separate work, even though much of the content is shared with the printed book. We have the same issue with Grove Music Online which is not the same work as the printed Grove (and has little shared content). Italicisation would suggest that the online and printed versions were one and the same, and could confuse anyone checking sources. Therefore I prefer not to italicise, but if there is an absolute policy that says I must, I will reluctantly do so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... okay, see.. there is no McWilliam 2010 in the Bibliography to distinquish from the McWilliam 2007... thus it just looks very very odd to me. No, there is no policy requiring italicization of works but generally website names are italicized so you'd normally italicize all the works. But since you haven't italicized MeasuringWorth... you're good. (You could get around the problem with the McWilliam thing by going with my system of using "Author title of work p. X" instead of the silly "author p. X" system that MLA has pushed for years... no one remembers which year a work was published ... which forces everyone to look up the title anyway... but we won't get into the silliness that the MLA is...) You're good to go! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligence. I suppose we all develop our ways of doing these things and it's often hard to change methods. It is of course important to be consistent, which I think I have been. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – stunning article. Engaging prose of an exceptional quality, thoroughly and properly referenced and well illustrated. More than worthy of FA status in my book. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are very generous comments for which I am most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have a few more nitpicks concerning the citation formatting, if you don't mind:
  • Author name formatting for cit 3: Is it consistent with that for the others?
  • No author's name is given in cit. 3 (1n 1968 Times' correspondents were anonymous). "Sir A. Doughty-Tichborne" is the article's title. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, probably the most embarrassing blunder I've made to date. Sorry for that! Auree ★★ 02:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for doubled punctuation (in both citations and bibliography)
  • Fixed (they are a regrettable byproduct of citation templates) Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are indeed; there's also a doubled bracket in cit 16, hehe Auree ★★ 02:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boston MA" vs "Mineola, NY"
Otherwise good work! Auree ★★ 21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:58, 2 May 2012 [38].

John Sherman Cooper edit

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since my next Kentucky governor FAC is still undergoing an A-class review, I bring you U.S. Senator John Sherman Cooper. The son of a local political family, Cooper held some minor offices and ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1939. Later, he served under George Patton in World War II, earning the Bronze Star Medal for reorganizing the Bavarian judicial system. He served two partial terms in the Senate before being appointed Ambassador to India by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. During the Cold War, he tried to steer the new Indian state away from Communism. After his third partial term in the Senate, he was finally elected to a full term in 1960. He became one of only a few Republican voices in the Senate that opposed escalation of the Vietnam War. His final act of public service was as Ambassador to East Germany in the mid-1970s.

This article successfully underwent both a GA review and a MILHIST A-class review. I look forward to responding to comments as quickly as possible. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I thought that this article was of FA class when I commented on its A class review and am happy to see that it's been nominated; great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Some of these are explained at WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "to the time": I'd go with "up to that time".
  • "a partial term the Senate": a partial term in the Senate
  • "recently-independent": recently independent
  • "Newly-elected": Newly elected
  • "advocating for": usually a transitive verb
  • "He died in a Washington, D.C. retirement home on February 21, 1991 ...": a two-fer. See WP:Checklist#second comma.
  • "of the seven children born to": of seven children born to
  • "who were active in": active in
  • "worked delivering newspapers, in railroad yards, and his father's coal mines": See WP:Checklist#series
  • "that the could not": that he could not - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed all these. I know you will have more. Always appreciate your thorough reviews. May not be on-wiki this weekend to respond to comments. Will hopefully be watching the Cats play their way to a second straight Final Four. :) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • See you there. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tough break for the Heels with Marshall's wrist. Before all that, I indeed had a Cats and Heels title game. Not sure they can do it without Marshall, but you guys were fortunate to get Ohio as your first game without him. Good luck to you folks as well (for the next 3 games, anyway!) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was formerly the law partner": Better is "and had been the law partner" or "and the former law partner".
  • "Lexington circuit court judge and former Congressman King Swope": Some readers find this easier to parse: "King Swope, a Lexington circuit court judge and former congressman"
  • "Even though at 41 years old, he was well above the draft age,": Look for opportunities to remove forms of "to be" and synonyms per WP:Checklist#conciseness. "Even though well above the draft age at 41 years old,"
  • "an immediately-offered officer's commission": sounds more Germanic than English to me
  • "Patton ordered ordered": a no-no.
  • "hotly-contested": search for "ly-" throughout
  • "Washington, D.C. proved": Check for second commas throughout. Use "Washington, D.C.," or "Washington D.C." since those still have more support in relevant style guides, although I admit second commas are waning, certainly in journalistic prose.
  • "war surplus material": material or materiel?
  • "veterans injured as prisoner of war": prisoners
  • "In the area of organized labor, he opposed bans on industrywide collective bargaining ...": More common is "He opposed bans on industrywide collective bargaining for organized labor ..."
  • "vocally opposing ... and resisted ...": vocally opposing ... and resisting
  • "At the end of his partial term in the Senate, he had voted with the Republicans just 51% of the time – the lowest average of any member of the party. Despite his party independence, Cooper headed the Kentucky delegation to the 1948 Republican National Convention.": Although he had voted with the Republicans just 51% of the time during his partial term – the lowest average of any member of the party – Cooper headed the Kentucky delegation to the 1948 Republican National Convention.
  • "that created North Atlantic Treaty Organization": that created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
  • "cautioning that "Many ... ": cautioning that "many ..., or cautioning, "Many ...
  • "U.S.-India relations": At FAC, U.S.–India relations
  • "file a formal protest to": file a formal protest with
  • "the largest sale of surplus agricultural products by the United States to any country to that time in history": I'd go with: "the largest sale ever of surplus agricultural products by the United States to any country". Bad suggestion on my part, I fixed it.
  • So far so good except as above. My comments cover two-thirds of the article, down to John Sherman Cooper#Later service in the Senate, and this is all I have time to do on this one. I've asked for help finishing up at WT:MHC#FACs that need copyediting attention. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The measure failed by three votes but increased congressional scrutiny": How did a failed measure increase scrutiny?
  • "alternate delegate": Fine like it is ... for the doubters, 185K ghits, not "alternative delegate" (12K hits)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No citations to Senate Historical Office biography
  • Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:John_Sherman_Cooper_bust.jpg: what is the copyright status of the bust? The US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture
    • Not sure. I didn't know that a 2D representation of a 3D sculpture would have the same copyright status as the sculpture itself. The sculpter died in 1998, and the bust was installed in the capitol in 1987. None of these indicate any kind of PD status on account of age. That's all I know about it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, based on that I'm afraid you'll probably have to remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you mind to nominate it for deletion at Commons, then? I'd hate for someone else to try and use it under the same false assumption of PD status that I did. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dwight_D._Eisenhower,_official_Presidential_portrait.jpg: source link is dead
    • Not sure what to do about this. I can't find that page in Archive.org, and I can't find anywhere else that indicates that it is his official presidential portrait, yet I have no doubt that it is, given the original source URL. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:JohnShermanCooper.jpg is tagged as lacking author and date info. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which seldom gives that info. I've looked for another image that I can provide that information for, but surprisingly, for someone who was so active for so long at the federal level, there isn't much. The few that are at Commons are all either from a good distance or from the side. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments supported below Will try to do a full review in the next few days, before then, I noticed you have Closed shop double linked in the same paragraph. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed that once and intended to fix it, but the thought didn't stay in my head long enough. Thanks for reminding me. Look forward to your full review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, back again, thus far this looks like it's pretty well written. I made a few minor copyedits as I went though. (Feel free to revert, of course). I've read through "Service in World War II".
  • "Although Centre was known as one of Kentucky's foremost colleges, Cooper's father wanted him to broaden his education, and after one year at Centre, Cooper transferred to Yale College." Might want to not that Yale is pretty prestigious, since some non-Americans may not realize that. Ditto for Skull and Bones.
  • "Cooper brought this to the attention of General Patton, who rescinded the repatriation order in the Third Army's occupation zone.[9] He received a citation from the Third Army's military government section for his action." Who received the citation?
  • Missing a "p" "Schulman, p. 97–98" Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was an alternate delegate to that body in 1950 and 1951." Should this be "alternate" or "alternative"? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one of the rare times when WP:MOS (specifically, WP:COMMONALITY) will let you down. See my comment above; there's no such thing as an "alternative delegate" in AmEng (unless they're leading an alternative lifestyle!) There are other uses of the word "alternate" that can't be substituted by "alternative" or "alternating"; the only way to tell is by looking them up or searching. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, thanks for the explanation, I'll file that in the back of my mind for next time. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the clarification, Dank. Your explanation was much better than mine would have been. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume that his service as ambassador in Germany was fairly unremarkable?
    • Apparently. I haven't been able to find any sources that say much beyond "he was appointed and served X years". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Opposition to the measure developed in both Kentucky and Tennessee" Do we know why that was?
    • The LHL article quotes several people, all with different reasons that range from "it's always been called that" to "no other national parks are named after people" to "we already printed the brochures" (seriously). I've added that the opposition was for a variety of reasons. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some people frown on starting sentences with "Due to", you do that one toward the end.
  • Support A top notch article, very little I could find that wasn't very well done. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your review. Good luck with your MILHIST ACR on William T. Anderson. I assume that one will land here at FAC next. If so, drop me a line. I generally don't do FA reviews, but I after doing a PR on Anderson, I might as well weigh in at FAC, too. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, pending a handful of issues:
  • The narrative lost me here: "Cooper returned to Harvard after his father's death, but soon discovered that he could not simultaneously pursue a law degree and manage his family's affairs. He was admitted to the bar by examination in 1928 and opened a legal practice in Somerset." The first sentence suggests that he left law school to manage his affairs. How then was he admitted to the bar? Can one be admitted to the bar without completing a law degree?
  • Yes, actually. According to Schulman, "he was able to win certification for admittance to the bar only by passing a Kentucky state examination in 1928, a procedure then proper but no longer allowed." I tried to convey this by noting that his admission was "by examination". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After being urged into politics by his uncle, Judge Roscoe Tarter" Tarter, or Tartar (mother's maiden name in Early Life)?
  • Service in World War II: I don't follow why he was offered a commission but then he turned it down, enlisted as a private, and went to OCS anyway. If he intended to become an officer, why did he turn down the initial commission?
  • The sources don't say, as far as I can recall. From what I read of him, it was probably a show of humility on his part, but that would obviously be WP:OR. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, once again. I've read enough of your work that I think I know as much about Kentucky's political history as I do my own state's! --Laser brain (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. A jaunt through central Kentucky with me is either enlightening or painful, depending on how interested you are in the state's history. Always appreciate your comments. Seems like my FACs always come down to the wire, with a few editors swooping in with late reviews to save them from not being promoted due to lack of interest. Thanks as always. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I don't know who would visit a new state and not want to know its history? Anyway, good luck with the remainder of the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Promoting without a source spotcheck, given that it got a going over at its recent A-Class Review, and other recent FAC noms of AC's have had such checks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2012&oldid=495230552"