Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2010

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Featured log

April 2010 edit

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:16, 30 April 2010 [1].

Battle of Pulo Aura edit

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


An article on an unusual naval engagement in 1804, in which an undefended fleet of British merchant ships worth the equivalent of more than £500 million in today's money successfully intimidated a powerful squadron of French warships into withdrawing, when the French had the fleet at their mercy. It has been through GA and I have been assisted with images, sources and French language issues by users Benea and Rama. All comments welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Checked images. All images are fine in terms of alt text, license and caption.
    • The empty Notes section in "Admiral Linois's squadron" table is distracting. Kindly remove it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the editor below that this box would be more distracing if it was absent, although I will endeavour to fill the boxes with relevant information.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I didn't find the empty notes section distracting. I thought it would be more distracting if the tables were not aligned. And there may be notes that are added later.
  • I've got to disclose a sentimental attachment to this article. It is one of the first articles I reviewed for GA status (it might have been the first), and I use this battle in a course I teach on spies and assassins in 19th century Europe. I've watched the development of this article from a wee bitty thing to what it is today. Okay, that said, I support this wholeheartedly, although there are probably some niggling things to find in the prose. In one, you use the word convoyed and convoy twice in the same sentence, when the warships convoyed the ships to through the straight and across the IO. I'd just say conducted there. There also might be some misplaced prepositional phrases in the aftermath section, but I'll leave that to some of the others, because it might not be as glaring.
  • Sources are reliable, and there are no major sources omitted. I also spot checked some of the citations in my copies of these sources, and they are fine. The Clowes is venerable, but I appreciate editors who use some of the old sources; these can often provide us with "color" that we wouldn't normally get in the clinical language of historiography of the late 20th century.
  • Again, Jackyd, another fine job. I'll read it again in a few days, but I can't imagine changing my support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for those very kind words! I have changed the "convoyed" not that you've mentioned. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  • Enjoyed reading it. V. minor points follow:
  • First para, first sentence; "a large squadron" of "large ships" - repetition of "large" - don't know if there's an alternative adjective.
  • Third para: "mistake a large East Indiamen" - is the singular of Indiamen "Indiaman"?
  • In the aftermath section: "but failing to press his numerical superiority against British naval forces". It felt to me as though this should say "but failing to successfully press...", as the rest of the sentence describes him engaging in two battles.

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, all suggestions implemented.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent citation style. What is the comma about at the end of citations like this one?

  • —Linois, quoted in translation in William James' The Naval History of Great Britain during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, Volume 3, 1827, [23]

And why is the citation given in the footnote and repeated in the text? Same in tables. If citations are footnoted, why are they also included in text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comma seems to be part of the template and I can't get rid of it through the normal channels. The two citation issues you raise were written that way because: 1) The one copied above comes after a quote (and this format has already appeared in a number of successful FAs). When presenting a formal quote like that, I feel it is important to very clearly and immediately illustrate where it comes from, particularly when (as in this case) it is a translation from the original language. In my experience this is normal practice in academic writing that requires citation. The inline citation at the end of the text citation is to conform with guidelines that an inline citation should always follow a quote, but I can remove it if it is a problem (If I remember rightly, I was told to add it at one of the previous FACs). 2) The text citations at the end of the tables are to show where information that covers the whole table comes from - I couldn't find another way to clearly illustrate this that also looked neat (and this is standard practice in "Order of battle" FLCs). Hope this clarifies things a bit--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, however I agree with Sandy that you don't need the citations to Linois/Dance just after the quotes; the footnote should be enough. The beginning of the sentences makes it very clear that these are the words of those men; the footnote is enough to id the source. I don't have a problem with the source of the tables being displayed as it currently is. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this nomination has now closed, but I'm just dropping a note to say thankyou and assure you that I will get on to your comments soon. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:16, 30 April 2010 [2].

David A. Johnston edit

Nominator(s): Carcharoth, ceranthor 23:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC), Awickert[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a well-written, comprehensive, engaging, and well-illustrated account of Mr. Johnston. I mentioned this as a collaboration to Awickert, knowing it would take a lot of work, and thought it would be an impossible task. But the invaluable work of Awickert, Carcharoth, and several others has improved this article to a very high quality.

It was a difficult article to take on, and a very sensitive one at that. Johnston's shortened life was still one full of vitality, and I think this article reflects that. We have worked (more Carcharoth and Awickert) to acquire high-quality sources and fine-tune the prose so that the article met a featured article quality. Because of our determination to create a high-quality account of Mr. Johnston's life, I think the article has turned out well. I hope that anyone who reads it will agree. ceranthor 23:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional addendum: After checking with Ceranthor, I left notices on the talk pages of the three WikiProjects that seem most relevant to this article ([3], [4], [5]). I think this would normally be done at the peer review or earlier review stages, but I've done it here because those earlier reviews haven't taken place and I think getting input from other editors active in the relevant topic areas is needed here to make sure the article is as good as it can be. I've also asked anyone who comments here due to those notices to say how they became aware of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 01:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment . Was still adding some more material and quotes and tidying a few things, but have finished that now. Will be available to help address any concerns raised, especially if it relates to parts of the article I worked on (mainly the images, memorials section, and copyediting in various places), plus suggestions made on the talk page. I do have some ideas on some rearrangements that could be done in the text, but will wait and let people review the nominated version first. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well written, referenced, illustrated, timely and comprehensive. Fixed a couple minor bits - spelling and links. The authors are to be complimented, well done. Vsmith (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. We have worked hard on this article. :) ceranthor 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to look it over, Awickert (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "The eruption blew more than 1,000 feet (305 m) of rock off of the volcano..." is unclear. Does it mean the peak of the mountain is now 1000 ft lower than prior to the eruption? The current phrasing almost implies a volume of rock being removed from the mountain with a value that has mismatched units. It also needs to be referenced; I can't find it in the citation at the end of the sentence. -Atmoz (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is mentioned in the latter half of the reference. I will fix the phrasing. ceranthor 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and per the ref, I just made it more precise to 1313 ft. Thanks for catching that, Atmoz. Awickert (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 1EVENT only apply to people with marginal notability? Johnston became quite famous for his involvement with the eruption and his legacy is almost as famous among volcanologists. I believe that the amount of sources support this. ceranthor 17:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1EVENT only results in merger (or deletion) where the individual is of marginal notability. Here I am not proposing merger, just that this type of article should not be showcased, since it has a very real problem. 1EVENT always applies where an individual is significant [only] for their role in a single event. --Bejnar (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the subject (whose name was Johnston, not Johnson) was a geologist who had gained his PhD two years earlier and was employed by the USGS at the time he was killed in a volcanic eruption, hence the usual approach of a career retrospective is difficult to do here. What has been done is a summary of his career from published memoriam articles and obituaries, an account of how he died, and a look at the legacy that resulted. Not a normal sort of biographical article, because a normal biographical article is difficult to do here for obvious reasons. Johnston clearly wasn't notable at the time of his death, but if there is a legacy then that can provide the basis for an expansion of the article. Most articles of those known only for the manner of their death will never be expanded, but some of them have possibilities, as I hope this article demonstrates. I have more to say about WP:1E articles resulting from natural disasters, but that is getting off topic, so I'll go to your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:1E applies here. Rationale:
  • WP:PROF #1 ("The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources") and #7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") The obituaries, etc. talk about the importance of his studies of the gas phase in volcanic eruptions, and he was highly involved in warning the public about the danger posed by Mt. St. Helens.
  • Per WP:1E: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." The event clearly was large. Dr. Johnston's role was, per my research, also large, because he worked to quantify the volcanic hazard and keep people away from the volcano, and he was often interviewed about this.
  • Per WP:1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." (See my comments on his role above)
  • If you don't buy that, WP:1E says that, "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles,"
  • WP:TOOLONG and WP:UNDUE: David A. Johnston is 50 K, Mt. St. Helens is 51K; they couldn't be combined without deleting a lot of the info that we've assembled, which would be sort of a bummer; I think that a forked article on Johnston is a much better solution in this case.
Awickert (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on further thinking about this, I'm not entirely sure that his publications alone would meet WP:PROF. But I do think that there are quite enough other factors that make this individual notable, and following his death, there were many things named for him (which can't necessarily be said for the other individuals who died). Awickert (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • selected publications who selected these and why? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Awickert or Carcharoth. We thought it was a nice touch to show that he had work published. ceranthor 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awickert started the section here and if you click through the next few edits, that pretty much covers that section. I suspect it is "selected" because it would be difficult to get a complete list of publications. I suppose it is a question of whether you include an incomplete list, have criteria for selecting the papers to be mentioned (e.g. only those mentioned secondarily), or leave the list out altogether. Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list of his major publications (i.e., everything not including conference abstracts). What is the reason for concern? (Is it the section heading?) Awickert (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed to "major publications", hope this is better. Awickert (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing some copyediting... will post questions along the way
  • Why "Mt. Augustine" in some cases but "Mount" in others?
  • The gas phase is extremely important in propelling volcanic eruptions; Johnston therefore mastered the many analytical techniques required to tease information about gases present during eruptions out of glass-vapor inclusions in phenocrysts embedded in the lavas. I'm not sure how "therefore" applies here.
  • Refs use inconsistent date formatting (day month year and month day year).
  • The "Final signs" and "USGS team" sections seem a bit disorganized with regard to Johnston's death, especially since the first section, which details his situation, doesn't explicitly state that he died.
  • What road were the workers building when they found Johnston's trailer?
  • Dr. Stephen Malone described Johnston as a "fire dog"; he agreed that Johnston died in a way that he would have preferred, and that he "was very good at his work." - The wording here seems a bit... I don't know, I just think "preferred" isn't really a great word choice.
  • Glicken was being mentored by Johnston, who relieved Glicken of his watch at the Coldwater II observation post 13 hours before Mount St. Helens erupted. Glicken was leaving the post to visit the University of California graduate school, but after the eruption he missed the flight in a frantic search to determine whether Johnston was alive. - It seems like this information was already presented previously.

I hope my contributions and comments have and will continue to help build an article that does justice for this brave man. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Julian. Don't want to break up your comments, so:
  • Mt. Augustine: I'm confused as to what to do, but I changed them all to "Mount" as per my best guess. My gut says "ah, they're the same", MOS:ABBR (which trumps me) says that things like "Mount" and "Saint" should be spelled out, but the highly-relevant Mount St. Helens article has "St." instead of "Saint". Ah, well, I think making them all "Mount Augustine" will work.
  • "Gas phase": wow - this was one confusing sentence (and I wrote it!). Separated it into three sentences, hopefully it is easier to read now.
  • I'm still not sure I understand the correlation between the two ideas ("Because of...") –Juliancolton | Talk 15:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea is that these inclusions can show what gas phases are present. I brought it back to two sentences to hopefully connect this better, The gas phase is extremely important in propelling volcanic eruptions. Because of this, Johnston mastered the many techniques required to analyze glass-vapor inclusions in phenocrysts embedded in lavas, which provide information about gases present during past eruptions. If it still doesn't make sense, let us know. Awickert (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I see now. Perhaps a bit complex still, but I won't hold anybody up. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the gas=important --> study evidence of gas in past eruptions thing seems very clear to me, but if it doesn't to you, then maybe it is a real problem. Would you (or any other watchers of this page) have a better way to say this? Awickert (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly the disconnect is not making clear that gases coming out of the molten rock makes it explode and turn into ash? At least I think that is what happens. And some of the gases left in the rock can be analysed by volcanologists before, during and after eruptions to find things out about the volcano and its magma? Or maybe, the question is why analysing the gases helps? Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it is is a positive feedback in which decreasing pressure as the magma rises allows gas bubbles to expand, further decreasing the density and increasing the buoyancy of the magma, and so on until the eruption. Tephra are actually the small bits of material between these bubble walls, which is why they are so sharp. I'm not actually sure if it's the gases themselves, or simply products of the gases, that are analyzed after the eruptions. But I do know that volcanologists use such studies to find the gases present in previous eruptions to understand what caused them. I'll try to see what fixes I can make in the morning, Awickert (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates: Made them all YYYY-MM-DD
That's all I've had time for now; I'll ping Ceranthor and Carcharoth right before I go to bed (in say, 5 minutes...). Everything I haven't yet done will be fixed up within the day. Awickert (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - some more, signing individually to keep discussion together better Awickert (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC):[reply]
  • "USGS team" and "Final Signs" sections: The USGS team section is anachronistic (in its first paragraph) because we organized that part thematically; it seemed to me at least that it was better to separate the larger scale of the eruption from the individual stories than to put everything together in one big section (which IMO would be pretty messy and more difficult to logically navigate). As far as not actually saying that Johnston died, we do write that, Before being struck by a series of flows that at their fastest would have taken less than a minute to reach his position, Johnston managed to radio "Vancouver! Vancouver! This is it!" to his USGS co-workers. Seconds later, the signal from the radio went blank.[20] Initially, there was some debate as to whether Johnston had survived; records soon showed a radio message from fellow eruption victim and amateur radio operator Jerry Martin, located near the Coldwater peak and further north of Johnston's position, reporting his sighting of the eruption enveloping the Coldwater II observation post. As the blast overwhelmed Johnston's post, Martin declared solemnly, "It's gonna get me, too." before his radio, too, went blank.[21]. I thought that his death was pretty obvious here, but do you think that adding on a sentence that says that he died would improve clarity? Awickert (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that it isn't clear, but it just seems a bit odd to me to state his death more clearly in the subsequent section than in the initial one. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Named the road that was under construction. The source just says that it was the road leading to the Johnston Ridge Observatory, but there is only one road leading there, so I took the liberty of giving its name. Awickert (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "preferred" to "doing what he loved" [6]. Good point; I wouldn't particularly prefer to be scorched to death by extremely hot rock fragments; poor guy. Awickert (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeat info: Removed the second sentence, but kept the first, because it contains the core of the cruel irony. Awickert (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit, Julian. I've copyedited the copyedit to fix a few things, but most of it was a real improvement in wording - thanks. I've also looked at Awickert's changes, and agree with them, and hopefully those changes address your comments. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and make the TFA for the 20th anniversary of the eruption on May 18th! I was going to copyedit this article but can't find anything wrong with it. Comprehensive, great prose, high quality references and all other FA criteria met. Great work! --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 20:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (30th anniversary, actually, but still thanks for the compliment!) Awickert (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn I'm getting old! Lost 10 years there... :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 12:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

  • General
    • I agree with the above concerns about notability for a single event, and in that vein I am on the fence about the general notability of this article. That aside, I will review it anyway.
      I did promise myself not to get into a discussion about notability here, but there are many examples of people who die, and get newspaper coverage, ending up with a legacy taking shape, leading to enough material for an article. The clearest example I found of this recently was Jack Cornwell. Where the line is drawn, I don't know. Carcharoth (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link geology
      Done. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link Michigan
      Done. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm confused now because it seems it was already linked. Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link volcanologist
      Done. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, this term was already linked. Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      They were linked in the lead, but not at their first use in the body, as is done with the other terms linked in the lead. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. I've corrected that now. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In fact, seismographs were not installed until 1972." , remove "in fact", see WP:ALLEGED
      Done. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole "Eruption section" seems to have very little to do directly with the subject of this article, and is in large part redundant with already featured 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. You could sum up that section as it pertains to this person in about four paragraphs and point users to the other article as a see also at the head of the section. This is my opinion.
      • That section could do with reworking to focus more on Johnston. I've looked again at the sources, and there was more he did here that hasn't been mentioned yet. I may try and tweak and slightly expand this section to address this point, unless someone else gets there first. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Johnston's story was also featured in an episode of the 2006 docudrama series Surviving Disaster." - this is a single sentence paragraph, consider integrating it elsewhere.
      Want to expand as follows, but needs sourcing. [...] I would mention the books, but that seems superfluous given that they are used as sources. Carcharoth (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Now expanded this as best I could. I hope this addresses the original concern raised here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Post above redacted to remove block quote that is no longer needed.[reply]
  • Prose
    • "His parents both worked, his father as an engineer at a local company and his mother as a newspaper editor" - How about just, "His father worked as an engineer at a local company and his mother as a newspaper editor"
      Done. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After only 25 months, he graduated in 1978 with his Ph.D..." perhaps remove "only".
      Done. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The "only 25 months" came from the source: Only 25 months later, Dave turned in his Ph.D. thesis, not on his nearly completed Cimarron project, but on Augustine. This was a remarkable achievement, since both studies were labor-intensive and of high quality. I think this should be noted in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't object to the inclusion of the idea of "only" - but why is twenty-five months significantly less than normal? If so, it should say that instead of only. Most readers won't understand the point of "only twenty-five months" without context. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After graduation, in 1978 and 1979, Johnston led..." he graduated twice? I suggest a rewording to avoid ambiguity
      Reworded here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Just before the Mount St. Helens eruptive activity began in 1980, Johnston was working at the Menlo Park, California branch of USGS. When the first earthquakes shook the volcano on March 16, Johnston was at the University of Washington, where he had pursued his doctorate." - Ok so, just before was he in Washington or California? I suggest rephrasing this to better explain the progression of events, rather than tying the timeline to St. Helens, many people will not know the dates when those events occurred.
      Menlo Park was his main base, but he was travelling and nearby at the time the first earthquakes struck. I've clarified this here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...and soon became a leader for the USGS team..." "a" leader, or "the" leader? Sounds like there was only one team.
      He was the expert on volcanic gas analysis. He wasn't the leader (but he was more senior than, say, Glicken and others). I've said a leader "within" the team to make this less of a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations needed
    • "There was initially some doubt as to whether the earthquakes were precursors to an eruption."
Cited. ceranthor 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By March 26, more than seven earthquakes over magnitude 4.0 had been recorded, and the next day, hazard warnings were publicly issued"
Cited. ceranthor 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By late March, the volcano was erupting up to 100 times per day."
Cited. ceranthor 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he was called "an exemplary scientist" by a USGS dedication paper, which also described him as "unaffectedly genuine, with an infectious curiosity and enthusiasm." - uncited quotes
      Cited. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Co-worker Andrew Alden states that Johnston had great potential, declaring that he "had many friends and a bright future"." uncited quote
      Cited. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, most of his colleagues and family asserted that Johnston died "doing what he wanted to do." " uncited quote
      Cited. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There have been several tellings of Johnston's story in documentaries, films and docudramas about the eruption." - this is also a single sentence paragraph. consider integrating it with the following one.
      Expanded to lead into this section. Carcharoth (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
    • Reference # 3 is not following a punctuation point
      I think you were referring to the mid-sentence references after "Pete Lipman". I think I've fixed this here. I'm not sure what the consensus is on whether references in the middle of sentences break up the flow too much (which is what I presume you mean when you say references should follow a punctuation mark), or whether it is better to put a reference immediately following the information it sources. In this case, the sentence is a combination of information from both sources, so having both sources at the end of that sentence seems a reasonable way to present things here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes http://sthelenshero.homestead.com/DavidJohnston.html a reliable source?
      The site appears to be hosting (with permission) a newspaper article. See here: an article from 1995 that was in the Longview Daily News. The other page used (here) quotes from other newspaper articles. What should be done in cases like this? I've also taken the opportunity to double-check the other sources used, and I'm happy with all of them except this one, and since the information about the Hoffstadt Bluffs plaque is sourced to a newspaper article already, I will move the olywa.net reference down to the external links. Carcharoth (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I noticed that the Brettman reference (the Longview Daily News article from 1995) was already being used elsewhere, so I combined the references and used the homestead.com site as a courtesy link - the questions remaining are whether to accept the "with permission" statement and whether the transcription was reliable. Ideally, someone would verify this, but I can't find the article online anywhere else, though I did find this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, you could just site the newspaper article directly, and cut out the middleman. Maybe put the link in external links? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe this has been done. ceranthor 19:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It has, and I've now included it in the external links as well and bypassed the other reference that was being used (it was to a summary of the news article, when citing the news article direct is simpler). I think the original concern raised has been addressed now. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference # 12 should only have the title linked, not the date and year
    • Ref # 14, 16 should be delinked - the link is at the reference entry
    • This is common I see. Only titles should be linked. Check out WP:CITEX for detailed examples. Consider using cite templates, as this will format the references properly by default.
      First two points about the references I agree with and will aim to fix (sthelenshero.homestead.com can't be considered reliable, but it does provide its sources, so it can be verified and bypassed, and included in the external links as a courtesy). Regarding references 12, from what I can tell, cite templates have been used for this and other references, and what you are calling "date and year" are part of the title of the work. References 14 and 16 are courtesy links to the specific pages as displayed on Google Books. I am not sure what you mean by "the link is at the reference entry". Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) PS. The reference numbers will change in a few minutes, so I will try and note which references you were referring to here.[reply]
      Sorry - I should be more clear. Titles are the only parts of references which should be linked to the work. Authors, page numbers, and years should not be linked to the source, but possible to other things. I won't haggle on this, but what is customary is for the reference in the list of books to be linked to where it is available online, but to not link the individual shortened citations. In short, only full citations should be linked to the source, because the shortened citations do not contain a title to link from. WP:CITEX provides many examples of how this is done. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I get this now. I've made changes here and here. It does mean that people have to go and look up the reference themselves, but that is needed here as some of these previews are limited and not all page are available online. There should really be links from the shortened references down to the list of books, but that is fiddly so I'll leave that unless someone asks for it to be done or does it themselves. There was also one book (the Harris one) listed in the references but not in the bibliography, but I've fixed that now. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
    • File:Mt st helens Johnston ridge 25 years later.jpg - the source of this image is not clear
      Source looks clear to me. A photograph from 30 July 2005 by User:Colin.faulkingham (last edited in 2008, so requesting OTRS confirmation may be problematic). Is there more needed here? Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It is clear that the uploader thought that person took the picture - but how did the uploader get that information? The link showing were he got it points back to the same page. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Excuse me if I'm wrong, but it does say "from en.wikipedia [1] 16:31, 9 August 2005 . . Colin.faulkingham (Talk) . . 2580x1932 (2706781 bytes)". Doesn't that indicate that it was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia and the user just moved it? I could of course be wrong. ceranthor 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that is probably the case, yes - but I can't be certain. If it was renamed there, where is the original? There is no link back to the original, and it is not clear why it was moved - is this a deritive, or an exact copy of original? There is no page history.. looking I see it was moved over before the current move to commons method was available, so the page history is lost. You are probably right though.. so I will strike it. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The image page history is here (probably an admin-only link). I'm not sure if that history should be undeleted or not to allow a proper transfer, but I can confirm that the original upload was on 16:31, 9 August 2005, by User:Colin.faulkingham, and that the history is still there if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The size of some images are forced, WP:IMAGES discourages this unless there is a good reason because it overrides user preferences.
      Done. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to oppose for now, primarily because of the needed citations. I suspect those can be easily addressed though. The prose is my secondary concern, there are a few rough patches, but nothing terrible. If you can address these issues, I will give the article a second read and see if I can detect any more prose issues and consider supporting. This article is coming along very well, it is really interesting to see how his death had an effect on things. Good job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will try to address your concerns asap. We must be ready by May 18, or else we'll be in trouble. Thank you very much for the suggestions. ceranthor 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and fixed some of the easier prose-related issues to honor my promise to copyedit this article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck off the ones that are resolved. The reference issues are the only ones that are preventing me from supporting. :) Good job. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very, very much Mav. I have been limited this week in terms of freedom in general. Your help is greatly appreciated. I am going to try to fix the remaining concerns tonight. ceranthor 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we have resolved the majority of your concerns, Charles. Correct me if I am wrong, of course! ceranthor 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support yes you have! And I am glad to support this article. Let me note I think it meets all the FA criteria - my conditional support is based on the general notabilty of the subject; I think that is still open to debate but, so long as consensus is that it is notable, you have my full support. As an article it is excellent! Good job. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, nonetheless. :) ceranthor 21:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:16, 30 April 2010 [7].

USS President (1800) edit

Nominator(s): Brad (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Article passed A-Class last October. Since then I've been able to expand it and overhaul the references too. Those who have mentioned in the past about explaining the controversy over the building of these frigates can now go to the main article which I've substantially expanded to cover the controversy. Brad (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think this would be easier to read if it were two sentences instead of one: "In 1811 President was at the center of the Little Belt Affair firing upon HMS Little Belt mistakenly identifying her as HMS Guerriere while searching for impressed American seaman." - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I've got, reading quickly. - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I broke the sentence up. Looks better now. --Brad (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Prose. Some suggestions/comments...do with them what you wish:
  • "She was named by George Washington to reflect a principal of the United States Constitution." A "principal" doesn't sound quite right. Perhaps "named in honor of the executive office of the United States" or simply, "named by George Washington."
  • "Forman Cheeseman built her…" I understand your meaning, but it sounds a bit as though he did it single-handedly. Perhaps "supervised her construction" or something similar.
  • "The incident increased tensions between the two countries, tensions that led up to the War of 1812…" Repetition is a bit awkward. I suggest "The incident increased tensions between the two countries leading up to the War of 1812."
  • "President launched on 10 April 1800—the last of the original six frigates to do so—and after her fitting out, and with Captain Thomas Truxtun in command, she departed for Guadalupe on 5 August." This is awkward. Can it be broken up into multiple, shorter sentences?
  • "During the United States' preoccupation with the Quasi-War, the United States paid tribute…" I suggest: "During the Quasi-War, the United States paid tribute..."
  • "U.S. Congress did not ratify…" I think "United States" should be used here rather than the abbreviation.
  • "President changed course and attempting to outrun them discovered the damage she suffered the night before significantly reduced her speed. In an attempt to gain speed…" The word "attempt" is used three times in this paragraph. I would re-word slightly.
As to the above, I've corrected the prose as you suggested. A "copyeditor" recently reworked it which is one of the frustrating parts of wikipedia. An "improvement" is often not. The changes you suggested are pretty much the way the article was previously. --Brad (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification needed:
  • "…revealed that the impact had twisted off a short section of her keel." Is there information of when/where she was repaired? The transition here is a bit abrupt.
She went to Toulon afterward but my sources aren't specific as to what repairs were made. Obviously repairs were made to the keel but nothing I have can directly cite that. I didn't think the geographical location was all that important. --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April President Jefferson decided …" I'd suggest you add a year here.
Done --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Congress began authorizing naval appropriations and President recommissioned in 1809..." Can you add a sentence or two on her whereabouts between 1805 and 1809? Was she de-commissioned?
I've been faced with this before. Sources do not say what the ship was doing in that period. It's very likely she was decommissioned and placed in ordinary, which was common procedure, but I cannot cite that fact. I can cite that she recommissioned in 1809. --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Decatur and his crew were briefly held as prisoners there." Where? I believe you mean Bermuda, but it should probably be spelled out.
Done --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: I think the article would benefit from an image or two of the commanding officers...especially Rodgers.
Added Rogers but I'm trying to avoid a photo gallery article. --Brad (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Jackyd101 brings up an important point below. Once that's dealt with, I'd be happy to support. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my comments above have been addressed and photo issue below is resolved. Nice work. Historical Perspective (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The tags on File:USS-President.jpg are all wrong. I think this guy is still alive - he certainly painted World War II scenes, so he cannot possibly have been dead more than 70 years! --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After some searching of google images this goes a lot further. I cannot find any source that the photo may have originated from so that we could determine it to be PD. There are several other sites with the photo on it but they appear to be wikipedia rips. However, I did find this photo which if I'm not mistaken could be used here under the license of "two dimensional reproductions of an out of copyright work" since the credits state it was created in 1904. Comments welcome. --Brad (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me, however I am far from an expert in such matters. It might be a good idea to seek an opinion from the folks in the licensing department at Wikimedia Commons. Historical Perspective (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a suitably licensed photo for the article and have changed the lead photo in this article. The license was changed on the one you brought into question but seeing as it's a guessing game I'm not going to use it. Commons conversation over this issue is here. --Brad (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on that, the new image is certainly acceptable. Just to add in case it helps, I recognised this image as being in copyright because it is stylistically rooted in later 20th century maritime painting, which is usually a giveaway. When I looked the name up, I found things like this from World War I and this from World War II. Although I don't know for sure whether he is still alive or not, it seems that he definately died within the proscribed 70 years.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"Review by Charles Edward

  • In the lead - "The Admiralty had her broken up in 1818, although she had served only a few years." - Perhaps say "British" or "Royal" Admiralty for clarity.
  • "Joshua Humphreys' design was unusual for the time..." This is a bit jarring change. His design was unusual, but why did that matter? I suggest adding a sentence before this one explaining that he was given the task of designing the ships.
  • Query: "President's nominal "rating" was that of a 44-gun ship" - why is "rating" in quotes?
  • Link Guadalupe
  • Link Gibraltar
  • "..but they were actually two French frigates..", maybe say "...but they were actually two friendly French frigates..." Maybe "neutral", if not "friendly". Either way, the French were at war with Britain too, but at peace with the US.
    • That passage has annoyed me for sometime now. Roosevelt was the only source to mention the encounter and describes it thus:
      • "On the 25th, in lat. 19° N. and long. 35° W., the President, during the night, fell in with two frigates, and came so close that the head-most fired at her, when she made off. These were thought to be British, but were in reality the two French 40-gun frigates Nymphe and Meduse, one month out of Brest."
    • Otherwise Roosevelt offers no consequence of the encounter or any further analysis as to why President was fired upon. Perhaps the French ships mistook President for a British ship but saying that would be nothing but speculation. I may just remove the whole mention of the encounter for simplicity sake. --Brad (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link gale
  • Reference #17 is not following a punctuation point
  • References are good
  • Only MOS issues are listed
  • Images check out
  • Prose is good

Support Just a few nitpicks here, none enough to oppose over. Overall this article looks great to me. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues have been addressed and I'm sure that Steve's most excellent copy editing has removed all of them. The Roosevelt problem is still a problem, however. Not exactly sure what to do about that presently. --Brad (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments, leaning support. Edited by Steve T • C at 21:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I was going to lodge a relatively weak oppose, based on finding too many prose niggles. I started on a list, but realised it would be quicker to just do them. I hope you don't mind (see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each); I wouldn't have bothered if I didn't feel the article was close to FA. Everything else seems to check out fine (sources, images, etc.). The only thing I can't speak to is comprehensiveness, because of my lack of experience with the topic. A few things I couldn't resolve during copyediting:[reply]

  • "The squadron arrived at Gibraltar on 1 July; President and Enterprise quickly continued to Algiers. Their presence convinced the regent to withdraw the threats he had made against American merchant ships."—whose presence, where (the squadron or the two ships, Algiers or Tripoli)?
    • The squadron was sent to deal with Tripoli but by the time they arrived at Gibraltar Algiers had made some threats against the US. In response to those threats, President and Enterprise went to Algiers. The ships presence off Algiers was enough for the regent of Algiers to withdraw his threats. A show of force. --Brad (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That clears things up in my mind, thanks. I think the ambiguity needed resolving in the article; as it stood, it wasn't clear, as "the threats he had made" makes it sound like something the article has already introduced—the only threat/demand so far is from Karamanli of Tripoli. I took a swing at it. Steve T • C
  • "by mid-1804 they had successfully fought the Battle of Tripoli Harbor."—successfully fighting a battle doesn't necessarily mean winning it. It's unclear because the linked article implies that Preble wasn't particularly effective, even if the US ultimately won. I'm also not sure what the line is doing here, as the subsequent section jumps back a couple of months.
    • First a note: Sailors serve in a ship instead of on a ship. This is a picky military point but important nonetheless. I removed "successfully"; I'm not really sure why that was there. The date of the battle more specifically took place in July. There is a time overlap here attempting to explain what happened in the Med before President got there. When Jefferson heard about the capture of Philadelphia he sent reinforcements for Preble. However, Preble's men successfully burned Philadelphia to the waterline before President's arrival. --Brad (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. (Sorry about the on/in thing too). Steve T • C
  • "Rodgers ordered his gun crews to fire at will and several accurate broadsides did much damage in return."—it's unclear whether President's broadsides caused "much damage", or ones from Little Belt in answer to Rodgers'. It's the "in return" that does it.
    • It was Little Belt that suffered damage from that exchange. I added the clarification; hopefully. --Brad (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that, the investigations result in no clear assignment of blame for the first shots, as the US and British don't agree. Fine, but in our account prior, we say—unequivocally—that Little Belt was the first to fire. Is the source taking Rodgers' word for it? Does the source have access to information that the US and British investigations didn't?
    • It breaks down like this: Beach and Toll pull a neutral attitude simply saying a gun was fired without knowing the origin. Maclay and Cooper say it was Little Belt that fired first. So we have a draw here. I'm not opposed to pulling the neutral for this article but it is an article about the US Navy ship that Rodgers commanded during this incident. My thinking was to use Rodgers' version of events. --Brad (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck, per below. Steve T • C
  • Some of the images are a little small; fancy bumping them up a bit?
    • I'm not opposed to the idea but usually leave the thumb setting for those readers who have their own size preferences set. --Brad (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, nice work. Steve T • C 13:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I most appreciate your copy editing. It's very difficult to find such a person. You were good enough that your changes did not even rub against what the references back up which is another difficulty. I will address the rest of your issues later today. --Brad (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done; looking good to go, so I switched my vote above. Best, Steve T • C 21:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support provided that the following issue is cleared up. As Steve mentions, the article currently presents the US perspective on the Little Belt incident. I think this would be more NPOV to use the neutral, or, at the very least, to make it clear in the beginning of that paragraph that there is disagreement as to which ship fired first (perhaps, "according to Rodgers..."). Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've changed the wording to reflect. --Brad (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. OK, I'm going to have a swing at this. Steve T • C Five images, all claimed free:
    • File:Usspresidentatanchor.jpg—United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation; source country public domain status claimed because the Canadian author, Edward John Russell (1832–1906) died more than fifty years ago. Both claims check out OK, and the image page is appropriately tagged.
    • File:Little Belt, Sloop of War.jpg— United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation; source country public domain status claimed because the British author, William Elmes (1797-1815), died prior to 1 January 1940. Both claims check out OK, and the image page is appropriately tagged.
    • File:Presidentgunexplosion.jpg—United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation. The author is unknown, but it was first published in The Naval History of the United States (1896). Tagged appropriately.
    • File:John Rodgers (naval officer, War of 1812).jpg—United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation. First published in The Polyanthos (1813). Tagged appropriately.
    • File:President and endymion.jpg—United States public domain status claimed because of its pre-January 1, 1923 creation. It was first published in The Naval History of the United States (1896). Tagged appropriately.
  • All the best, Steve T • C 08:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:16, 30 April 2010 [8].

Battle of The Cedars edit

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Having previously nominated two "battles" that hardly merit the epithet, I present another one. This article is about a set of military maneuvers that I found to be somewhat (sadly) comic when viewed from on high (although I had trouble justifying the inclusion of humor in anything beyond one of the place names, which went through some interesting linguistic changes over time). Lack of communication nets a bunch of prisoners for one side, that are soon after returned; the events are overblown in the press and public discussion, resulting in some diplomatic difficulties later on in the war.

Is it worthy of FA? You be the judge. (It has been through MILHIST ACR.) Magic♪piano 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 20:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - not perfect, but improved enough to merit some support. Specific concerns have been addressed; the prose, while not brilliant, is now of a professional level. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Weak oppose pending a thorough copy-editing. In my opinion, this article does not currently meet the requirement for "brilliant" prose, although it shouldn't take too much work to get it to that level. Other problems: Smith appears twice on the reference list; per the guidelines at WP:LEAD, lead is too long for an article of this size; two-sentence paragraphs should generally be avoided; distinguish between "General" and "Brigadier General", as these are different military ranks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will work on the prose (and enlist others if possible). I've correctly labeled the various generals (at least the first occurrence); Brianboulton has helpfully rewritten the lead. As far as the Smith refs, I'm open to suggestions on the appropriate way to link the online versions of both volumes if there is to be a single bibliographic entry. Magic♪piano 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps have something like "Smith, Justin H (1907). Our Struggle for the Fourteenth Colony, Vols [1] and [2]" where it's the numbers themselves that are linked? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once points above are resolved. Small battle, not many dead, and in Canada. I thought the prose good, if not exactly brilliant. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I can't promise a full copyedit, but I'll do what I can over the next day or so. Meanwhile there are other issues:-
  • Infobox map: I found this quite hard to follow, and to relate the narrative to it. It is presumably the only free map available; would it be possible to adapt the map by marking key points on it, and explaining these in the caption?
    • The deficiencies of the lead map are what prompted me to make the SVG map further down. Would it be better to present a different lead image (either the SVG map or something innocuous like a portrait)? I can also doctor the historic map with colored dots to indicate the key places. (I'm now thinking I should also provide a second SVG map showing the movements after the battles; i.e. the advance and retreat of Forster, the advance of Arnold.) Magic♪piano 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have extended the caption to the lead map to make it more explanatory. That might be enough. However, I have some difficulty reconciling this 1764 map with the SVG maps later in the article. For example, the 1764 map shows two substantial water features - Las Les Deux Montagnes and Lac St Louis - which don't appear on the SVG maps. This may be partly a question of different scales, but the lakes look a bit large to disappear altogether. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think they're needed on the scale of the first map, but I will modify the second map to include them. Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the comment, above, that the lead is too long. It is around 300 words - a bit less since I've copyedited it. However, I am quite confused by the wording. These points in particular I can't work out from the lead:-
    • Why is the invasion of Quebec termed a "colonial" invasion? The term is not used again in the article.
    • What garrison was Butterfield second-in-command of?
    • What garrison was Bedel in command of? These last two points are clarified in the text, but the lead has to be clear, too.
    • Does the parenthetical note beginning "(who had gone to Montreal...) apply to both Butterfield and Bedel, or to Bedel only?
      • I've recast the parts of the lead that you raise in these points. As presently written, I don't think it's necessary to identify the regiment. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Montreal section
    • I was confused here, too, trying to follow the narrative—perhaps there is too much background detail. For example, I read that "the military administration of Montreal passed to General Benedict Arnold", but a little later I find: "When Wooster departed Montreal, he left Moses Hazen, the Canadian commander of the 2nd Canadian Regiment temporarily in command."
      • I've made the sequence more clear, I hope. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schuyler is linked twice in the section, and doesn't need to be spelled out as "General Philip Schuyler" both times.
    • Why was the departure of two fur traders significant?
      • Because they participated in the various recruitment expeditions. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but was it known in advance that they would do this? Why did they require "authorisation" to depart? There seems to be some shortage of explanation here. Other than on this point, this section is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Americans had forbidden movements up the river, primarily to prevent "warlike supplies" from reaching the British forces in the forts upriver and on the Great Lakes. I will add a sentence or two on this. Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • British call to arms
    • Clarify who had made the neutrality pledges.
    • "in this battle" – what battle?
    • The information in the last two paragraphs, particularly the last, seems of scant relevance. Do we need to know about Brant, who was seemingly uninvolved in the affair (worth a footnote at most, I'd say).
      • I felt that the scope of the British recruiting was worth mentioning, even if it was not successful; hence the paragraph on Stoddard and his activities. I agree that Brant's non-participation is not germane to the action itself, but it does form part of the event's historiography, and deserves some sort of mention. If there was more interesting historiography to document, I'd normally put a section toward the end of the article; with only this item, it's less clear to me what the best way is to present it. I could certainly put it in a footnote. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would recommend putting the Brant paragraph as a footnote. Your intention to cover the scope of British recruiting is covered by the Goddard (not Stoddard) paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Prelude
    • Rather than say "bateaux", and force use of a link, it may be better to say "shallow-draft boats, known as bateaux".
    • Major Butterfield? He was a lieutenant when we last met him. Quick double-promotion?
    • "He returned to Montreal with a report that..." Shouldn't this be "He returned to Montreal with and reported that..."?
    • Who is Major Henry Sherburne?
  • The Cedars
    • I have wikilinked Canadiens. But...why would a French unit want to help the British? This cuts across my admittedly only half-remembered knowledge of the Revolutionary War.
      • Some French Canadians participated actively on both sides, at levels military leaders on both sides were unhappy with. They were mildly supportive of the Americans at the start of the invasion, and rather unhappy about the occupation toward the end for a variety of reasons. The politics in Quebec at this time was rather complicated, and is really the subject for a whole article of its own. Magic♪piano 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quinze-Chene
    • "Sherburne, who reached Fort Anne, across the Ottawa River from Quinze-Chênes on the May 17, had sent a scout across the river on May 18." This is very clumsy wording and needs a complete rephrase.

Support once prose points and a few minor issues are resolved (above). I've made a couple of very minor tweaks as I read it, removing some extra spaces, etc. Please feel free to revert if I've messed up the meaning. My comments are addressed. I also added the See also (instead of monument), simply linking to the battle monument. I like this article. While the prose isn't brilliant, it also isn't confusing.I should learn something from this.I should learn something from this. The article is well assembled, covers a range of literature on the subject, from the early discussions to more or less present day. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of "colonial" invasion would be the United Colonies invasion. United Colonies=colonial. I've added a piped link there.
I've changed this to Continental Army, since United Colonies is a dab link. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources. Seem okay. I particularly like the way the older and newer discussions of this battle have been woven together in the article.
    • cites are consistent. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I usually try to mix sources available online (which include old books, and can be more readily checked by reviewers) with sources from my area libraries that may or may not be available (even in limited access) online. The mix is to demonstrate that modern sources cover and (to the extent used) confirm what the older sources say. Magic♪piano 00:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more comments

  • which took place.... probably should be that took place, but you don't really need it anyway.
    • Indeed; I have have removed.
  • At the end of Montreal section, you describe the fortification of the Cedars. At the end of the following paragraph in the next section, you have a sentence (same source) that describes fortifying the Cedars.
    • Well, there is a chicken-egg problem here. I felt it best to present all of the situation in Montreal before going into the British activities, but how the various actions were coordinated ought to be shown. While there is evidence of American suspicions as early as early March of British activity, they appear to begin before Lorimier's departure. Presumably the reports of his activities are on a stronger foundation than earlier reports (or his reputation was known to Hazen in a way it would not have been known to Wooster), but this is not clear from the sources. Magic♪piano 12:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean Canadiens or Canadians under Jean-Baptiste Testard de Montigny (I italicized Canadiens as a foreign word). Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canadien is linked in the Prelude. My assumption (which Canadians may freely correct) is that the word is an acceptable Canadian English usage to describe French-speaking Canadians. (See also my comments in the ACR, where the term was also briefly discussed.) Magic♪piano 12:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The location of the battle referred to as "the Cedars" (article title), "The Cedars" (first paragraph of lead), and "Les Cèdres" (infobox). Pick one and stick with it for consistency. Is there any particular reason Les Cèdres isn't used in the article title? Surely proper nouns shouldn't be translated? Nev1 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly the Canadian way, surely? Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that inconsistency is the Canadian way? (-:
I will standardize the terminology on "The Cedars" (with capital The), since that seems to be the appropriate English spelling. This will entail moving the article... Magic♪piano 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Done Magic♪piano 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, all of the supports entered are conditional; please ping all reviewers for a revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • " The skirmishes, which involved limited combat," → Uh, this is the "Battle of the Cedars". What kind of military skirmishes in wars don't include fighting people? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some battles involve lots of combat, some only a little. This would be an instance of the latter and not the former. Magic♪piano 00:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read this article when it first came to FAC and had a few concerns, but see they have been addressed. I find it well wrote, well references, well illustrated, and in compliance with the MOS. You may consider adding the American Revolutionary War Campaign template in the aftermath section, so a reader could easily connect with other theaters of the war. A portal link to Portal:American Revolutionary War would also be useful in the see also section. Great work! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Are you referring to {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War}} (I'm unaware of a navbox with the content you describe.)? This template is normally only placed on ARW campaign articles, and not those of individual actions. (For example, it's in Invasion of Canada (1775), the campaign article covering this battle.) As far as portal links, I recall guidance at one point that portal pointers weren't welcome in mainspace. I've been unable to locate any specific guidance one way or the other, and the presence or absence of them in mainspace pages appears quite haphazard to me. (I have no objection to placing a portal link; I'm happy to defer to guidance on this point.) Magic♪piano 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that campaign box was the one I was referring too. (I am surprised there is not a broader ARW template made, that could be useful navigation aid) I don't think there is a specific guideline on portal links, but they are common, and usually in the see also section. I will leave its inclusion to your discretion. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does have the campaign's campaignboxI suppose something along the lines of {{American Civil War}} might be nice for the ARW, but it doesn't currently exist. (The level of activity on ARW-related things in general seems to be to fairly modest.) Magic♪piano 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:10, 27 April 2010 [9].

Gustav Mahler edit

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 July 2010 sees the 150th anniversary of the composer Gustav Mahler's birth. I would very much like to nominate this article as TFA on that date. The article has been around for a long time; much of its early development was due to users Pfistermeister and Andy M. Wang. I have expanded and refashioned the article to meet today's FA criteria; it has recently been through a thorough peer review here, for which I am most grateful. Whether you like Mahler's music or not (surprisingly many don't), he is a hugely influential musical figure; I hope the article does him justice. Comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 15:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was involved in the extensive peer review and made some edits then - all of my concerns were addressed in the PR and I think this both meets the FAC criteria and would also be a fitting Main Page article on July 7. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I too was involved in the peer review, which was, as Ruhrfisch says, extensive. All my queries (which were in any case very minor) were addressed then, and I concur that the article meets the FAC criteria. It is a credit to its nominator and indeed to Wikipedia. - Tim riley (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was another person involved in the peer review of this article, as well as an extensive commentary preceding the peer review. All of my concerns were addressed in those two sessions. Like Brian's work on the whole, this piece is clearly written, exhaustively researched, and I believe meets FA criteria. It would be a fitting Main Page article for July 7. Jonyungk (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thorough, informative and, without a doubt, meeting Featured Article qualities. I added a couple of links --DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Quite superb. Aaroncrick TALK 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - You surpased yourself again (before was Bedrich Smetana) and this one is even better! I realyy look forward to see it on the Main Page. I was not involved in its PR, so my support is relative: I-ve only read it once. --OboeCrack (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your support, adding the Worthensee hut image, which is much better than the general lakeside view it replaces. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks to all the above for the support and generous comments. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looking good however music file File:Gustav_Mahler_-_Trombone_Solo_from_3rd_Symphony,_1st_movement.ogg has licensing information as a dead link 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I will look to see if there is an alternative link. Otherwise I will withdraw the file - it's not very good anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the soundfile. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Note: the unsigned "looking good" note is from Fasach Nua. Does this amount to an image/media review?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have updated the links in this media, in case, anybody is interested in having it back in the article. Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think consensus might be to leave it out, but if someone feels strongly that it ought to be in, they can reinstate it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I love Mahler's music and this article certainly does the composer justice. The sources are excellent. The structure and prose style make this long article easy to read, a joy in fact, in one sitting. I found one or two typos, which I fixed. Brian, the usual accolades apply. Awesome. Graham Colm (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A superb article. The British spelling is somewhat jarring to this American, but I'm sure the reverse is true, so I have no complaint. The "Philharmonic" subsection of "Vienna, 1897-1907" seems out of place, as we read of Mahler's departure for New York in 1907, and then jump back nine years to learn about his abbreviated association with the Vienna Philharmonic's subscription series. I'd suggest considerable shortening of this paragraph and weaving it into the narrative above. However, I don't feel strongly about this, and my support is not conditional on any change Brian may or may not choose to make here. This is a very fine article. Truly Mahler's time has come (on Wikipedia).--Paul (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support. The point you make is reasonable; however, it is not unusual in a biography to relate parallel experiences one after the other. In this case I wanted to draw the clear distinction between Mahler's highly successful conductorship of the Hofoper and his relatively inglorious period in charge of the Vienna Phil. So I'd prefer not to shorten or weave the two together, though this is a personal choice; I'm sure it could also work differently. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • "During his ten years in Vienna, Mahler experienced opposition and hostility, much of it from the anti-Semitic press—he had converted to Catholicism from Judaism." I don't understand the connective logic of the dash.
  • "The Russian Dmitri Shostakovich and the British Benjamin Britten were among many later 20th century composers who admired and were influenced by Mahler, in whose memory the International Gustav Mahler Institute was established in 1955." "British" is a bump here ("Briton" would be correct but old-fashioned). Hyphen for "20th-century" required. The last clause is an awkward add-on, swivelling on the word "Mahler", approached and left from quite different angles.
    • There are problems with alliteration ("British Benjamin Britten") and assonance ("British" and "Britten") which make for awkward-sounding prose. I have reworded, removing "British" and "Russian" designations. I have also separated the Institute information from the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of this early work"—"early" is redundant in the context, I think. Should it be "have" instead of "has"?
    • According to my "Rules of grammar": Two singular subjects connected by either/or or neither/nor require a singular verb. Therefore "has" is correct. (I have deleted "early") Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read further yet. Tony (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS the orchestral excerpt arranged for trombone and organ? I can't bear to listen to it. Doesn't it degrade the music horribly? Tony (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not good, but after much searching it appears to be the only free version of Mahler that's around. However, you are right; the article is better without it, and I have removed it. Perhaps in time something better will be available. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Excellent article on an important figure. I offer these comments. I also have no objection to my comments being collapsed once we've finished the discussion.:

Lede:
  • "his status as a conductor was established beyond question". Obviously a favourable status, but I would say so and also avoid the passive voice, which I personally hate as covering up (in other articles, of course) all sorts of sloppiness.
    • He is described as a "leading conductor" in the opening sentence, so I think the nature of his "status" is already clear. On the question of passive voice, I don't think it is objectionable here, but please suggest an alternative phrasing if you think the matter is significant. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his own music" I was going to go ahead and strike the word "own", but then I saw the point you were trying to make. On balance, still, I would take out "own" as not really adding much meaning.
    • I think we need the "own", to distinguish between the music that he wrote and the music he interpreted.Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a ban in much of Europe during the Nazi era," Were there really bans outside German-controlled territory? If not, is that "much of Europe"?
    • I'll consider this together with AuntieRuth's point on the same sentence, below. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reworded the sentence for greater clarity (see also my response to AuntieRuth below). "Much of Europe" seems to me to be reasonable, given how much the Nazis controlled, even though for relatively short periods in some cases. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a period of relative neglect, the music was discovered and championed by a new generation in the post-war age." It seems to me that an knowledgeable reader (like me) would see three periods here: Nazi era, then a period of neglect, then a period of popularity which still continues. If so, I would modify the words "post-war", I see that as 1945 onwards, rather than 1945 plus a period of neglect, onwards. Also, do you really need to make the point about Mahler's postwar (or whatever) rise twice in successive sentences?
    • I have modified the wording. The "relative neglect" (note relative) covers the period broadly from Mahler's death to after 1945, and includes the Nazi ban. I hope the new wording makes this clear, but I want to consider AuntieRuth's comments further, before finalising the phrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rising importance" Is this a Britishism? I would probably say "increasing importance", but as the article is written in British English, disregard if so.
  • "the New York Metropolitan Opera". Not its name. Suggest New York's Metropolitan Opera. This also occurs in the body of the article. I would also strike the word "Orchestra" after Philharmonic.
"own music output is relatively small" Perhaps a more dignified term instead of "output"? Collected works? Oeuvre?
Early life:
  • "of humble circumstances" Consider putting "and were" before this, or otherwise rephrasing the sentence.
  • "and the regular band concerts given by the local military garrison." Perhaps rearrange to "and the regular concerts given by the local military garrison's band."
  • "Many of these elements would later become parts of his musical vocabulary." I know what you mean here, but I'm not certain you are actually saying it. What you mean is that these melodies, or perhaps parts of them and melodic tricks from them, would show up in his works. Perhaps a more specific rephrase would help.
    • I have altered "become" to "provide"; I'm not sure that any other rephrasing is necessary. What I am saying is that the aforementioned elements (street songs, folk tunes, dances and band music) all entered into Mahler's music. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "failed to settle there" Perhaps "was unhappy there"?
  • "Despite having a reputation as something of a bully" I read a "despite" phrase as something of a contradiction to the phrase following, and see no contradiction (nor great relevance) to Bernhard being a bit of a bully, yet be supportive of his son's career. We haven't fallen into the Mozart articles by mistake, have we? !} Hoeever, if the person he was bullying was Gustav, that should perhaps be fleshed out a bit.
    • I see that Auntie has queried this phrasing, so I'll return to this later. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Later) I have removed the bullying reference for reasons explained in my response to AuntieRuth. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gained his first conducting experiences" I would have said "experience" but this is perhaps again a Britishism.
  • "As a student," Surely surplus language?
  • "unable to submit" A common phrase used in such situations is "unable or unwilling".
  • "never his formal pupil" Suggest "never formally his pupil"
  • "though there is no evidence that he attended any of Wagner's operas when they were staged in Vienna." This phrase carries an implicit negative to my ears. If it is simply not known whether he saw Wagner's works while in Vienna, I would phrase it that way.
    • My initial phrasing actually missed the source's main point, which was that Mahler was more interested in the sound of Wagner than the staging of his works. I have added this, and incorporated it with your suggested wording. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More later. You know me. Picky, picky.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

Early conducting career:
  • "had told him" strike "had"
  • "In the following year" I would strike "In" or else say "In 1881".
    • BritEng requires the "In", but I'll make it "In 1881..."
  • "Back in Vienna," I guess we are now after Laibach ended. A word or two on why it ended after six months might be helpful for continuity reasons.
"An ardent but ultimately unfulfilled love affair" A bit of ambiguity here. Are we saying "unfulfilled" because they did not have sex, or did not marry? I guess probably the latter (and most likely both!), but I would rephrase.
    • "Unfulfilled" means no happy conclusion. I find this quite hard to rephrase, as the sources don't give much information other than that the affair ended unhappily, though exactly why is not clear. This was a very minor incident in Mahler's life, and I can't honestly see the ambiguity in the phrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which became the text of his song cycle" Suggest inserting the word "later" before "became".
    • It wasn't "later", it was concurrent. Mahler wrote the poems annd set them to music while it was still "on" with Joanna. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Without a post, Mahler returned to Prague" I assume he returned to the Neues Deutsches Theater? I would state the theatre name, rather than the city name.
  • "Guido Adler" Has article on German Wikipedia, here suggest interwiki link. So does Die drei Pintos.
    • Die drei Pintos is linked to its English Wikipedia article - what would be the purpose of linking to its German equivalent? Nor do I see much value in a link on Adler to an article in German. Probably a better idea simply to redlink him, then maybe someone will create an article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the years of Mahler's early conducting work" Suggest more effective as "In the early years of Mahler's conducting work"
  • Wunderhorn Somewhere in there, can you put in a interwiki link to de:Des Knaben Wunderhorn (Mahler)?
    • Again, why a link to a German article? Another problem is the distinction between the general folk-poem collection Des Knaben Wunderhorn, and Mahler's song collection of the same name, two quite different entities. I'll check out the Wunderhorn links again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "second part of the Ring cycle" Suggest "remainder of the Ring cycle" due to the confusion caused by the fact that the Ring cycle is staged as a prologue and three nights, so by some accounts, "the second part" might mean Die Walkure (too lazy for umlauts) and for some Siegfried.
  • "in the autumn" As Australians can't keep their seasons straight, we are admonished to avoid stating a season. Suggest "In late ..."
  • Is it possible to mention when a Mahler work was first conducted by somebody else?

That brings me up to Vienna. Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vienna
  • Hans Richter. It might well be worth mentioning he was the original conductor of the Ring cycle.
  • "Vienna's first uncut version of the complete Ring cycle." Surely "complete" is unneeded?
  • "in his new status". If "office" doesn't work, what about "position"?
  • "whose list of demands". Suggest strike "list of"
  • "In fact, attendances rose sharply in Mahler's first season," I'd strike "In fact". I really don't think that the fact attendence rose (so many other possible factors) proves that Mahler was or was not capable of protecting German music. If you want to be fancy, and if the source will support it, I'd consider saying "German art", as an echo of Hans Sach's diatribe at the end of Meistersinger.
  • "Maiernigg" Another interwiki link to de wiki is in order. Also for Das klagende Lied. Of course if you don't like them, feel free to disregard, but I found them useful in the Rudolf Wolters article.
    • As stated above, I am not convinced they are helpful.Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the scandals about him and every young woman who aspired to sing in opera" This might be worth mentioning outside the quotation, if such scandals plagued Mahler.
    • This, I am sure, is Almaspeak - exaggeration for effect. Having ploughed my way through many biographies, I know that Mahler had affairs, but he wasn't by any means the Lothario Alma implies. Let it rest, I think> Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Later years
  • "position with the Metropolitan". Speaking as a New Yorker born and a subscriber to the Met for over a decade (though not anymore), I rarely if ever heard it called "the Metropolitan", a phrase which I would be more likely to associate with the art museum. I'm sure it is called that sometimes, but it is not common. Suggest "the opera company".
  • "the last of his works premiered in his lifetime." Awkward. Perhaps "the last of his work to premiere in his lifetime"
    • That form doesn't sound right to my BritEng ears. I've made it "to be premiered". Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The International Gustav Mahler Society was founded in 1955 in Vienna," Perhaps move to music section?
    • I can't see nay obvious place for it in the Music section. Since this section is dealing with the distant aftermath od Gustav's life, it seems as well placed here as anywhere. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I will not get to do the music section today, I will complete it as time permits, hopefully over the weekend. Hope these are helpful and expect to support. Very interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your meticulous auditing. Where I have not commented you can take it that I have adopted your recommendation, or as near as makes no difference. I look forward to receiving the rest of your comments presently. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lovely article. Here's me, being picky:

.... As a composer he acted as a bridge between the 19th century Austro-German tradition and the modernism of the early 20th century.... In character, style, and technique (or whatever), his compositions bridged the Austro-German tradition of the 19th century and the modernism of the early 20th century.
  • That seems like good wording, but I'd like to think about it a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a ban in much of Europe during the Nazi era, and a period of relative neglect, the music was discovered and championed by a new generation in the post-war age. ...it is unclear what is banned here. The Nazis banned his compositions in much of Europe. After the war, his music was discovered and championed by ....
  • I have clarified my meaning and reworded. See above (Wehwalt's comment on the same point). Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
school reports from the Iglau Gymnasium portray him as absent-minded... portrayed.
  • Done
failed to settle there and soon returned to Iglau.... settle? He wouldn't live there? He didn't fit in? He didn't like it?
  • Amended to "was unhappy"
a bitter personal blow when his younger brother Ernst... a bitter personal loss...?
  • Done
Despite having a reputation as something of a bully.... something of a bully? Despite having a reputation as a bully.
  • I have removed the reference to Bernhard's "bullying". The evidence isn't strong enough to sustain it. Basically, older sources follow Alma Mahler's "he was a bully" line, later sources look for evidence to support Alma's assertions and don't find anything conclusive. Hence my cautious wording. But the implication is best removed altogether. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the first sentences of the student days paragraph is "was this" and "was that". Mahler auditioned for...Berhard Mahler supported his son's....
  • Sorry, I can't work out the point you're making here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hugo Wolf comma with whom...
  • Done
cantata should be wikilinked?
  • Done

More later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Auntie, to help keep this page to a reasonable length, perhaps further minor comments – "nitpicks" – could be noted on the talkpage?). Brianboulton (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: per requests, I have been vetting the article's images for a few months; all are correctly hosted on our servers, and are verifiably in the public domain or licensed appropriately. Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the German wiki, I only meant to suggest those with respect to those where there is no English equivalent. I personally believe it is superior to a red link, as at least it gives info, which the reader can run through google translate. If you feel otherwise, no problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the German link to Adler. The other articles have English wikipedia equivalents, I believe. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link because a redlink is better (to make people start an article), and then I see there is an article - I wonder what the problem was. Hekerui (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A complete hash on my part, I fear. Thanks for tidying it up. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments (Tony):

  • "This technique is also used by Mahler's Danish contemporary Carl Nielsen. Mahler first employed the device ..."—past tense "was" to avoid the clash?
    • Agreed and done
  • "and which is often used "to symbolise the gradual ascendancy of a certain value by progress from one key to another over the whole course of a symphony""—What do you believe Cooke meant by "a certain value"? Just before this, do you think the readers will know what "symphonic conflict" refers to?
    • I interpret "a certain value" as meaning a particular musical mood. Cooke was writing for an informed readership, but I feel the quotation can be readily understood in the context of this article, given previous reference to the "struggle" inherent in Mahler's music. Likewise I see no problem in the general reader understanding the reference to "symphonic conflict". Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Czech composer-journalist Max Brod has identified Jewish tunes and rhythms in Mahler's music, perhaps unsurprising given Mahler's origins. Musicologist Vladimír Karbusický maintains that the composer's Jewish roots had lasting effects on his creative output; he pinpoints the central part of the third movement of the First Symphony as the most characteristically "Yiddish" music in Mahler's work.[137]" Is the first statement attributed to ref 137 too? Any chance the two statements could be reverted and the "unsurprising" bit dropped? Err ... not sure ... something like: "Musicologist Vladimír Karbusický maintains that the composer's Jewish roots had lasting effects on his creative output; he pinpoints the central part of the third movement of the First Symphony as the most characteristically "Yiddish" music in Mahler's work. The Czech composer-journalist Max Brod has identified Jewish tunes and rhythms in Mahler's music."
    • Ref [137] covers the Brod statement, which is further reinforced in Blaukopf, p. 140. I'm happy to accept your proposed reorganisation of the phrasing, with the addition of the word "also" before "identified", and will add the Blaukopf reference for good measure. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was that in private correspondence to Sibelius (early in "Style")?
    • This widely recorded remark, according to Sibelius's biographer, was made when the two composers met in Helsinki in October 1907. However, it doesn't seem necessary to include such specific detail in this article.Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have Grove, but how does the "Style" section compare with it? Tony (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last point is difficult to answer, since I didn't write my section to compare with Franklin's article. His "Musical Style" section precedes lengthy discussions of individual works. It covers some of the ground which I have summarised, though it is not written in an accessible, general encyclopedic style. I have drawn on it, as well as other sources, in compiling my own section. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have only read the lead and the Early life section. Here are my comments so far:

  • The French spelling of "oeuvre" is "œuvre", I'm not sure which is correct here (since you have italicized the word, I took it that you meant to use the French word)
    • It seems from my dictionary that either "oeuvre" or "œuvre" is correct French form, so I'll go for the diphthong version. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use two different spellings of "peddlar", be consistent.
    • Somebody (17.54 on 22 April) changed "pedlar" (English) to "peddler" (American?), and no one noticed, so well spotted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence containing the word "Isidor" seems to have a problem.
    • Does it? Can you say what you think the problem is? Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kalischt (now Kaliště)" and "Iglau (now Jihlava" -> In the first instance you link the new name, in the second you link the first. Be consistent.
    • Fixed
  • Of the 12 children, ... only six -> Be consistent
    • Wikipedia style is that numbers of below ten in value are normally written out. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to not make use of the Oxford comma. However, "tunes of the day, folk songs, dances, and the regular concerts" uses it.
    • Fixed
  • Maybe link "libretto"? Fixed,

128.232.247.32 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with six and 12. Tony (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these points - you have a sharp eye. If you intend to offer more comments, can I suggest that those relating to punctuation, linking or minor prose matters be posted on the article's talkpage? This would help prevent this FAC page from becoming excessively long (it's pretty long already). I can assure you that any points raised on the talkpage will be addressed. Points of significance (e.g. questions on matters of fact, reliability of sources, comprehensiveness of coverage etc) should of course be brought here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and I have. A few minor quibbles are on the article talk page, but I see no need to wait to enter my support. Very impressive article about an important musical figure. Definitely deserves promotion and its day as TFA in 2 1/2 months. Well done indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources appear reliable and otherwise appropriate for use. Very impressive, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are a maximal hyphenater (I almost pointed out "his more experienced fellow-conductor"), which is fine. So why "composing was a spare time activity"? And is there any better way of saying it? Can't think of one. Oh, and Support. Well done indeed; please keep going on music articles.
  • "which included pieces by relatively unknown composers such as Hermann Goetz, Wilhelm Kienzl and the Italian Lorenzo Perosi." Ickypooh. No wonder the orchestra was complaining. Tony (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not a fan of these, then? Me neither. Perhaps they were the Edmund Rubbras of their day, quite popular once but then utterly forgotten. Support appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC). This article is very good, as far as I non-musicologist can tell. Some comments:[reply]

  • Freischutz should be Freischütz.
  • The first sentence in the Prague and Leipzig section could perhaps be smoothened--it is not immediately clear (to me) why or whether the N.D.T. is sort of an antagonist of C.N.T.
    • I have rewritten this first sentence in a form that offers a brief explanation Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, here and elsewhere, German terms should probably be translated at their first occurrence. (Mostly it is well-done.) Examples: Neues Deutsches Theater, Kapellmeister
    • I don't think the term "Kapellmeister" lends itself to literal translation ("choirmaster"?). The nature of the job varied widely, and I think is best served by the link. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tangentially, the all-powerful Herbert von Karajan customarily gave his occupation as "Kapellmeister" on official documents etc (ref: R. Osborne's biog of Karajan). A literal translation wouldn't help Anglophones, one feels. - Tim riley (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is worth including a portrait of M's character at some point? (In addition to the mentions of his demanding lead of the various orchestras).
    • I've added a sentence, and a quote from Natalie Bauer-Lechner, to the "Marriage, family, tragedy" section. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand "in the event, Nikisch's illness". Just write "N's illness"?
  • I'm not sure the locution "Apprentice composer" and later "Mature composer" (subsection headings) is appropriate, given that already his first symphs are considered quite mature.
    • Well, suggestions for alternative titles will be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had proved that he was not a composer" -- perhaps reword to "had proved not to be ..." would eliminate the question what "he" refers to
  • I faintly remember that Todtenfeier was played at von Bülow's funeral? If so, it might be worth including?
    • I'd say that's extremely unlikely. When Mahler played the piano version to von Bülow in 1891, it seems that the old man hated it: "If that's music, then I know nothing about music!" Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Three creative periods" section is, to me, the weakest part of the article. In the first place, I would expect it to be more detailed. The development of his style is described, but quite briefly. It would be good to have more on this, possibly underlined by some sample scores or even audio samples? (The latter is surely beyond the scope of the FA requirements, but perhaps we can convince some CD labels to "donate" (pieces) of historical recordings etc. to WIkimedia Commons for 2011?)
    • I think that what you are proposing would be a considerable undertaking that obviously could not be done within the timescale of this FAC. Nor am I convinced that it is necessary. The purpose of this section is to provide, in summary style, an outline structure of Mahler's composing life. The kind of depth you suggest might be more appropriate for a daughter article—this present article, at 88kb and 8,700 words, is already beginning to push at recommended size limits. As to audio files, I am entirely with you there, and will continue to search for appropriate and usable illustrations. Again, however, this will take time. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, that section is based on the analysis of only one musicologist, Cooke. Is it possible to balance his view by other ones?
    • Its a pretty factual summary rather than an analysis. It draws on several other authorities besides Cooke. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Max Brod
  • I think there should be something on the Alma problem.
    • Rather than extend the text, I have added a footnote that includes a long quote from Carr and also provides a link to the Alma problem article. That useful article, incidentally, would benefit greatly if someone would deal with its entire lack of inline citations. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and your helpful suggestions which I have done my best to incorporate into the article. Where I have not commented, I have merely implemented your suggestions.

Note: Because of the somewhat extended nature of this review, here is a Wehwalt-style summary as of Sunday 25 April: image review OK, sources review OK, and eleven supports. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - This article undoubtedly meet the FA criteria, well written and very well structured. Good job! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brian, I don't know what the final line about "Authority control" is; please drop me a note on my talk. Does that belong in External links? Also, some Volume numbers have commas, others don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:10, 27 April 2010 [10].

Oryzomys couesi edit

Nominator(s): Ucucha 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Together with the marsh rice rat, which became a FA some weeks ago, this is one of the two widespread species of Oryzomys rice rats. We know something about its biology, though a lot less than about the marsh rice rat, and are still learning about its classification—it probably actually consists of four species, if not more. This article treats the subject comprehensively, using all the sources I could find; I am looking forward to any reviews. Ucucha 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: This being my second review, I will try to offer a comprehensive review, though as you know personally, my ability to search the literature and double-check your sources is extremely limited.

  • In the lead, you go from describing the rats to talking about its taxonomic history, and then back to more details about the rats themselves. Maybe you were trying to follow the order of the body text, but it just doesn't flow for me. Personally, I'd suggest putting the lengthy taxonomy text at the end, after you've told us about these little critters.
    • You're right, moved it around a bit.
  • The range map is beautiful! Normally I request a reference for range maps, but looking at the sources listed on the image description page, I think I'll have to let this one slide... unless, of course, a single source can be used as a general reference?
    • No; I really had to use all the sources listed.
  • I think some people prefer that refs follow punctuation. Personally, I don't care... but it's something that often comes up when my articles are reviewed.
    • Do you mean the mid-sentence refs without any punctuation surrounding them? I don't think there is any rule against them, and I believe the people who think there is are misunderstanding the MOS rule which says that you shouldn't place refs before punctuation, like "this[1], this, and that".
  • I recommend adding non-breaking spaces between stand-alone numbers and the words that follow them... but that's ultimately up to you.
    • Most did already; I added some.
  • "That crinitus, which occurs at over 2000 m (6600 ft) altitude in the Valley of Mexico, was the same species as peninsulae from the lowlands of the Baja California Peninsula they could not accept..." It may be grammatically correct, but I don't like how it reads.
    • Really? I do like it.
  • "but it has been supposed to be from the Valley of Mexico." Again, sounds like bad grammar.
    • Rewritten
  • Serial comma, or no? Sorry to not fix them, but I just starting noticing the lack of consistency half way through.
    • There should be serial commas (except in the refs), but I didn't notice any places where they are missing.
      • I can't even find the one that tipped me off, let alone any others. Maybe I was just tired. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oryzomys jalapae Allen and Chapman, 1897, from Veracruz; Oryzomys jalapae rufinus Merriam, 1901, from Veracruz; Oryzomys teapensis Merriam, 1901, from Tabasco; Oryzomys goldmani Merriam, 1901, from Veracruz; Oryzomys jalapae apatelius Eliot, 1904, from Veracruz; and Oryzomys richardsoni Allen, 1910, from Nicaragua." When including the binomial authority in a sentence, is this the proper way to do it? For me, it makes the sentence much harder to read.
    • I am afraid it is; it's also how Carleton and Arroyo-Cabrales do it.
  • "The form of the sex chromosomes has been used to distinguish the marsh rice rat from Oryzomys couesi, but there are no consistent differences." Differences between what? The the marsh rice rat and Oryzomys couesi, or between different populations of Oryzomys couesi?
    • Between palustris and couesi. Clarified. You can see some of the confusion on Oryzomys karyotypes in User:Ucucha/Sandbox; according to Schmidt and Engstrom, earlier authors had misidentified the Y chromosome in couesi, and it seems that some people have also been confusing FN and FNa.
  • Some terms get multiple parenthetical explanations (e.g. zygomatic arch), and others do not. Sorry... it was hard to keep track of which do and don't. I just noticed that one and possibly a few others.
    • I think I fixed those.
  • The idea of a sortable table sounds good, but when you actually use the ability, all of your colspan location headers get thrown to the top or the bottom, mixing all the populations together. Maybe drop the sorting feature.
    • Done so. Being able to sort was instructive, though.
      • I also wish it could have been sortable. I just wish there was a way to make it work... – VisionHolder « talk » 14:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad to see my Template:DentalFormula put to such good use outside of lemur and other primate articles. Should we protect the template since it's starting to be widely used? (I know... this isn't an FAC issue, but it does affect this article.)
    • Perhaps, don't know what the threshold for that is considered to be.
  • "The second lower molar bears a crest, the anterolophid, before the two cusps that form the front edge of the molar in some other oryzomyines, the protoconid and metaconid." At first glance, the "protoconid and metaconid" modify "oryzomyines"... maybe restructure this sentence?
    • Rearranged.
  • "It probably breeds around the year..." Do you mean, "It probably breeds year-round..."?
    • Yes, that's better.
  • Incomplete sentences in footnotes treated as sentences?
    • I like to end everything with a period, but that can be changed if necessary.

The first thing I have to say is that it's a very nice article! I love the organization for handling the synonyms. The second things is: Wow! You can sure write about the things I hate the most—taxonomy and skeletal/morphological descriptions. I should hire you to write the lemur articles! Anyway, take my comments with a grain of salt given my lack of experience at this. Sorry I didn't copy-edit more, but it's getting late and I may be reading things wrong. And by the way... have you asked Hanson or any of the co-authors to review this article? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful suggestions and nice comments. I haven't asked Hanson or anyone else, no—but I probably should at some time. Ucucha 12:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked images. All have good licenses and description. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments A few nitpicks, but mostly minor so supporting anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ucucha 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • a medium-sized to large rat. — personally I'd prefer either a medium to large rat or a medium to large-sized rat.
  • "a medium rat" doesn't make sense to me, because it could be in medium in color or what not instead of size, and "large-sized" is a tautology, so I don't like either of those constructions.
  • found evidence to separate species from the Pacific and eastern sides of Mexico and Central America and two additional species from Panama and Costa Rica. — I don't think the meaning of this is immediately apparent
  • Reworded.
  • give birth to about four young — I'd prefer either the range or the average rather than unnecessary vagueness
  • There are two different, and conflicting ranges and averages given in the text. Giving both would be too much for the lead, so I opted for a phrasing that aligns with either.
  • They become reproductively active when seven months old and have a short life cycle — I'd prefer The young instead of they because it was unclear what the subject was (could have been the pregnant females last mentioned), although meaning is unchanged
  • Reworded.

Support Comments by Sasata (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider all points below stricken. Meets all FA criteria. I checked a few sources, and did a literature scan, but as expected, nothing was amiss. Sasata (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Ucucha 11:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead: suggest linking scrubland (BTW, it's "shrubland" in the Ecology section), buff, DNA sequence data, Panama, Costa Rica
    • Done
  • "The animal is infected by several different" -> "is" to "can be" (unless we know that every individual is infected)
    • Done
  • "In 1918, Edward Alphonso Goldman consolidated most into the single species Oryzomys couesi and in 1960 Raymond Hall united this species with its United States relative, the marsh rice rat (O. palustris), into a single widespread species; subsequently, many related, localized species retained by Goldman were also included in this species." Could this be reworded a bit so that the word "species" doesn't appear 5 times? (maybe replace one with "taxon"?)
    • I replaced the two uses where "species" is not essential to the meaning with "taxon"
  • "After studies of the contact zone in Texas in 1979…" two things: the studies were probably earlier than 1979 (but published that year), and maybe "contact zone" needs to be explained a bit more clearly
    • Reworded.
  • "Oryzomys couesi as a whole is common and of no conservation concern" should link to conservation status there. I also don't like the phrase "as a whole"; how about "Generally, Oryzomys couesi is common" or "Collectively, …"
    • I used "generally". I don't really see a need to link to conservation status; it doesn't fit the sentence, and the link doesn't add that much.
  • "Oryzomys couesi and at least six more narrowly distributed species with peripheral distributions together form the O. couesi group within the genus Oryzomys, which also includes the O. palustris group, with the marsh rice rat (O. palustris) as its only member" unclear to me… does O. couesi + six also include the O. palustris group, or does the genus Oryzomys also include the O. palustris group? Then "…with the marsh rice rat (O. palustris) as its only member" How can it be a group with only one member?
    • Reworded. As for the one-member group, ask the sources, not me. :)
  • link classified
    • Done
  • "Additional studies of the palustris–couesi contact zone in Texas published in 1979 indicated that the two species are in fact easily distinguishable there…" If they are so easily distinguishable, why wasn't Hall able to figure that out in 1960? Any comment in the 1979 paper about this?
    • Hall had few specimens and didn't look at some of the characters that distinguish the two. I clarified a little.
  • I haven't usually seen gene names written with a mixture of caps and lowercase… is this what the sources use?
    • Yes, that's directly from Hanson et al.
  • link genetic distance
    • Done.
  • "In the same paper…" paper->publication
    • Done.
  • "extended the range of the species by 400 mi (640 km)" your other converts are metric first
    • This was miles in the original; the others are metric in the original.
  • "The types of regillus and aztecus" link type species?
    • Just used "holotype" again instead
  • link hybridization, Belize
    • Done
  • I don't think any of the skull pic captions need fullstops
    • Removed
  • there's a lot of talk of % of sequence difference between various taxa, so it would be worthwhile to include a sentence about what % divergence is typically considered sufficient for species to be considered distinct
    • I added the benchmarks Hanson et al. used.
  • link/define ochraceous
    • Linked
  • "… is buff to reddish above and becomes paler towards the sides…" -> "above, becoming paler", sound better?
    • Yes.
  • "The fur is shorter, brighter, and more intense than in the marsh rice rat." How is fur intense?
    • In color.
  • "…the moderately large eyes emit reddish eyeshade." "emit" doesn't seem like the correct verb to use here
    • Used "show"
  • "In Texas, males are slightly larger than females." Everything is slightly larger in Texas, haven't you heard?
    • Texas marsh rice rats are pretty small, actually. O. couesi aquaticus is a large form, though.
  • link chromosome (hasn't been linked since the lead)
    • Done.
  • I did not know that a baculum was a penis bone… that should be linked
    • Done.
  • somewhere Process (anatomy) should be linked
    • Done.
  • link coastal plain
    • Done.
  • "Cozumel rice rats rarely cross roads" I chuckled when I read this. Wonder if a poor grad student had to monitor a road to check for rice rat crossings to determine this?
    • All the sources for ecological information on Cozumel O. couesi trace back to a few MA theses, so probably yes.
  • "ecologically similar" needs hyphen?
    • No, no hyphens after -ly, saith the MOS.
  • link population density?
    • Done.
  • "…the life cycle is short." maybe link life cycle, but is this being used as a synonym for lifespan?
    • Introduced the link; the source doesn't specify
  • "The introduced snake" link introduced
    • Done
  • link reservoir
    • Done
  • "Populations even persist in the Valley of Mexico, as evidenced by a recent photograph." Huh? What photograph? This leaves me hanging...
    • I changed to "published in 2006", which will age better. It's in Medellin and Medellin, and Carleton and Arroyo-Cabrales say directly that the photograph provides evidence that populations referable to crinitus still exist. I don't know what else to make of it.
  • Support Comments - beginning a read-through now. Please revert any inadvertent changes to meaning I make. I will jot queries below (I need to get a template to say this!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is much geographic variation in size, color, and other features. - "other features" seems like a bit of a throwaway line - odd to have two specific criteria and then a nebulous one. Better specified.
There are many different "other features"—relative length of the nasals and premaxillaries, relative size of the molars, size of the zygomatic arches, form of the interparietal bone, presence of the sphenopalatine vacuities. I don't think it serves any purpose to list those here.
How about "There is much geographic variation in size, color, and bony features", "skeletal features" or "anatomical features"?
All are in the skull, so used that instead. After I did so, I remembered that lambi is distinguished by relative tail length, so I added "proportions" to the list. Ucucha 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Texas, males are slightly larger than females - is that because Texas is the only place both males and females have been measured (and hence may occur elsewhere), or is it a trait unique to Texas? Clarifying that should e straightforward.
Only place where it's measured. I attempted a clarification.
:I'd link 'oxbow lakes' to something, especially as the local word is redlinked
Done.
I've not seen 'plague' used as a noun thus to describe an organism. I might say 'plague species' instead.
It's used as such in Dutch (and Spanish—the source says "es considerado como plago"). I'll trust you that using "plague species" is better in English.
Funny the little idioms in each language. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall looking very polished and just some minor quibbles to deal with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Ucucha 13:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images I think the use of two different styles of maps in the one article makes the overall feel incoherent, both with itself and with other wp articles Fasach Nua (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second map is historical and thus uses the historical style. Ucucha 13:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an editorial decision or MOS? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The former. Ucucha 21:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments (all minor):
  • "Oryzomys couesi […] is a semiaquatic rodent in the family Cricetidae which occurs from southernmost Texas through Mexico and Central America into northwestern Colombia"—is it O.C. that occurs from Texas to Columbia, or the family? (I know this is explained later on, but it needs to be clear in the lead.);
  • You're right, it is somewhat ambiguous. I tried replacing "which occurs" with "occurring"; does that work?
  • Regarding the dental pattern, I know "one upper and one lower incisor and three upper and three lower molars" is the standard way of descriping a dental pattern, but for someone not familiar with biology conventions, it appears to suggest that they only have four teeth on each jaw. It could maybe (emphasis on "maybe") do with an explanatory footnote; remember that if this makes TFA the majority of its readers will be people whose only rat-knowledge will be "like a big mouse";
  • I added "on each side of the jaws" here to clarify; you're right that an unsuspecting reader may be led on the wrong track.
  • Do we know what the typical lifespan is?
  • Not as far as I am aware.
  • Possibly a silly question, but is there anything in the literature about how they interact with humans, given that they're endemic to such heavily populated areas; are they kept as pets? exterminated as vermin? hunted for food?
  • Nothing I am aware of except what is in the article—they're considered a pest in some areas. Perhaps they're persecuted in those places, though I doubt they would be separated from other ratas.
All minor and the answer to all may well be "we don't know". – iridescent 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and helpful comments. Ucucha 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the "Taxonomic synonyms" tables causing extra white space above them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:10, 27 April 2010 [11].

Central London Railway edit

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It is 110 years this June/July since the opening of the Central London Railway (depending on which opening date is used). Despite early technical difficulties with its trains, the line was the most financially successful of the Edwardian tube lines and, today forms the backbone of the London Underground's Central line. If successful at FAC, I aim to nominate this for main page on one of the two opening date anniversaries. DavidCane (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. You have links to disambiguation pages Bridge rail and Hammersmith Station; no dead external links. Ucucha 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The first has been fixed - it had been changed from a redirect to a disambiguation since I last checked. The second is intentional to indicate the three Hammersmith stations without linking to each separately. The link is not vital, and could be removed if this is thought to be inappropriate. DavidCane (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reason for linking to the dab page seems reasonable to me; but others may disagree and it's probably safest to find some way to avoid the link. Ucucha 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I've taken the dab links out from the main text and reference [48], which identifies whose stations they were. DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Ucucha 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments, leaning to support: another of the conscientious and thorough railway histories which are gradually covering the whole of London's Underground system. This looks to me like one of the best; the maps look particularly good this time. I have made a few tweaks while reading through and have the following generally minor points:-

  • Lead: the first sentence of the third paragraph is unreasonably long and needs to be split into at least two parts.
  • Origin 1889-92: "approximately £215 million today"; give a year, since "today" is a moving entity. I am, however, a little confused by the financial information given here. Can you clarify: is it that ECTL would receive £2,544,000 in money, and £700,000 in debenture stock, so that the total cost of construction to the syndicate was £3,244,000? (Also, "plus" does not read well in prose.)
    • "today" is used because the {{Inflation}} template automatically uses the most recent data, so the displayed conversion will change gradually as time passes.
    • Your interpretation is correct, although the £700,000 was the nominal face value of the debenture stock, which could go up or down, and it entitled the holder to dividends, so the true, upfront cost to the syndicate was probably closer to the £2.5 million.--DavidCane (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction 1896-1900
    • "To prepare the design for the railway..." seems unnecessarily wordy, Why not "To design the railway..."
    • "Delays on this work were so costly that it nearly bankrupted the company." Conflict between "Delays" (plural) and "it" (singular).
    • "The elevations were faced in beige terracotta and each station had lifts manufactured by the Sprague Electric Company in New York" Inappropriate "and" conjunction between unrelated clauses.
      • Changed the sentences around a bit to avoid this.--DavidCane (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling stock
    • The parenthetical note "(syndicate member Darius Ogden Mills was a director)" should be "(of which syndicate member Darius Ogden Mills was a director)".
    • "occupiers along the route" needs a bit of expansion, e.g. "occupiers of buildings above the route" or something similar.

That about covers the first third of the article. I will read on, make further comments, and look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:-

  • Reversing loops: Reading "two alternatives" always causes a slight wince, since the word "alternative" means a choice between two. Better to say: "For the eastern loop the alternatives were..."
    • Intereting. Never considered that before, text amended and slack speech shall in future be tightened. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loop lines 1902-1905
    • "At the southern end of Hammersmith Grove a station was to be provided on the corner of Brook Green Road (now Shepherd's Bush Road) to provide an interchange with the three stations already located there." This is not entirely clear - "the three stations already located there" - is this actually three stations, or three lines interconnecting at a single station (Hammersmith)?
      • There were three stations on three separate lines: Hammersmith (L&SWR), Hammersmith (MDR) and Hammersmith (MR). I originally put in a link to the disambiguation link, but this was taken out as part of the discussion with Ucucha above. Note 49 provides more detail.--DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a while since we heard what MDR means, so perhaps spell it out again? In this same paragraph and the one following, I wonder if such a detailed description of the new route - basically, mentioning the location of every station - is necessary, given that the information is shown in the adjacent chart. Would it be possible to reduce the text?
      • No problem with the first.
      • The images are really intended to illustrate the text. The problem with relying on the image to provide the information is those who, for whatever reason, cannot see the image, cannot see the information. Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images, seems to indicate that the detail should be in the text. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The MR opposed..." Again, it's a long time since MR was defined.
    • "...seeing further competition to its services on the Inner Circle." This is first mention of "Inner Circle"; readers need to be told that this is a Tube line.
      • I've added a reference to the Inner Circle in the Origin, 1889–1892 section with a new note 6. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Questions were raised in Parliament about the safety of tunnelling so close to the vaults of many City banks and the risk that subsidence might cause vault doors to jam shut or undermine the foundations of the Dutch Church in Austin Friars." The church issues is separate from those raised in Parliament about the banks, so I would split: "Questions were raised in Parliament about the safety of tunnelling so close to the vaults of many City banks and the risk that subsidence might cause vault doors to jam shut. Another concern was the danger of undermining the foundations of the Dutch Church in Austin Friars."
    • "In late 1902, the PC&NELR plans collapsed after a falling out between the scheme's promoters led a crucial part of the planned route coming under the control of a rival..." Dodgy grammar - should it be "led to..."?
      • Quite right. Fixed. I think that was a faulty edit, changing from "led a crucial part of the planned route to come under..."--DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wood Lane
    • "In 1905 plans were announced by the government..." Passive voice, better as "In 1905 the government announced plans..."
    • "...on which a new station close to the exhibition's entrance would be built." Name the station.
      • OK. Moved link up from the following paragraph. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clumsy sentence needing reconstruction: "Construction work on the exhibition site had started in January 1907 and the exhibition, which also included that year's Olympics, and the new Wood Lane station opened on 14 May 1908." Too many assorted facts; "Olympics" should read "Olympic Games"; "and ... and" etc.
      • Afterthought to include mention of games, but it is not really necessary, so I removed that. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liverpool Street
    • "the GER" I'd forgotten who they were, maybe spell it out?
    • Confused prose: "Following their successful introduction..." etc. The sentence is too long, too many facts, and its construction is somewhat muddled. "Escalators" should be linked - and do stations "use" escalators? Passengers do, but perhaps in this instance "install" would be better.
  • Ealing Broadway
    • Another very unwieldly sentence, beginning "From Ealing..." Needs redrafting for clarity.
  • Richmond
    • Ths captions to the maps should explain why the Richmond connection is shown in green.
      • Yes. I had thought the same myself and have redone the maps with a key, which I will upload. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...although the company made no attempt to carry out any of the work." Which company is this (two mentioned earlier in the sentence)? This section rather leaves things hanging in he air, since a line to Richmond was indeed built, though not by the CLR.
      • Clarified that it was the CLR that didn't do the work. The line to Richmond already existed and was in use by the MDR and the unused spare set of L&SWR tracks to Turnham Green were used later by the Piccadilly line. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Competition etc: "The co-operation between the CLR and UERL was taken a step further from 1 January 1913 when the UERL took over the CLR, swapping one of its own shares for each of the CLR's." This seems a rather casual way of describing the demise of the CLR as an entity. Also, describing a takeover as "taking co-operation a step further" is, well, odd. Would it not be appropriate to insert a short piece of text explaining that discussions towards a UERL-CLR takeover or merger had been proceeding, and that these were completed in January 1913, rather than the bald fact as stated?
    • I have rephrased. Other than the fact that all of the companies were struggling, there is little on the background of the take-over. Wolmar indicates that the announcement of the take-over was made in November 1912 after a "series of secret talks", and Bruce & Croome simply say "...in late 1912 the Underground Group made offers to both companies." and that "Both groups of shareholders accepted, and both railways were formally taken over from 1st January 1913." I have clarified that the CLR continued as a separate entity although under the UERL umbrella. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvements and integration
    • "with those of the other lines" → "with those of its other lines"?
    • Clarify whether the new Holden-designed entrance comment applies only to Bond Street
    • Is the Holborn station referred to here the same one now known as Holborn (Kingsway)? When did the "Kingsway" get added to the name?
      • It is. "Kingsway" was added to the name in May 1933, shortly before the CLR platforms were opened. I've removed mention of Kingsway from the line diagram to avoid confusion. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No comments on the last couple of sections. I have made several typo corrections and punctuation adjustments; a quick check-through for others might be worthwhile. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, as always. --DavidCane (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes look good. It's a strong article, and I have moved to full support, noted above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with my usual bunch of minor points:
  • "The Central London Railway (CLR), also known as the Twopenny Tube, was a railway company…" – undoubtedly true, but generally in the article you're using CLR to refer to the route, not the company; as a reductio ad absurdum, consider "The Waterloo & City line is an administrative division of the London Underground, which operates a line…";
    • The form of the opening sentence is exactly the same as for the FA articles on the CCE&HR, the GNP&BR and the BS&WR. It was arrived at during the FA on the first of these I think. The first use of "railway" is necessary as it is part of the name. The second use is strictly redundant but included because "railway company" is a common compound. The third use is necessary as part of "tube railway".
    • I agree the CLR abbreviation has a dual usage, but I actually think I've used it more as a synonym of "the company" rather than to mean the route.--DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what you mean by "Among the [1901] committee's recommendations were […] that a line from Hammersmith to the City of London would benefit London's commuters", but I have the same books as you. I can guarantee that the reaction of most readers with a basic knowledge of the tube's history but not a detailed knowledge will be, "surely there were already two lines between Hammersmith and the City", given that one of the few Tube Facts Everyone Knows is "the Hammersmith & City Line is the oldest underground line in the world". (That and "Pimlico is the only tube station containing none of the letters of the word Badger".) Even though it will make the article longer, I think that section warrants an explanation of steam vs electric and relative journey times;
    • I've slightly clarified this and will add a note tomorrow. --DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Wood Lane, 1906–1908" section probably ought to mention the term White City; if people know the 1908 Exhibition at all, they almost certainly know it under that name;
  • Any chance of slipping in a mention of the movable platform at Wood Lane? It's a genuine curiosity, and would liven up a necessarily dull section on the extension to Ealing;
    • The moveable platform was not an original feature; it was added when the Gate stock was replaced with sliding door stock in the 1920s because the new side doors in the last car were beyond the end of the original platform. I've put a bit in the Improvements section where it fits chronologically. --DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 1912, the CLR announced plans for an extension from Shepherd's Bush on a new route, tunnelled south-westwards under Goldhawk Road, Stamford Brook Road and Bath Road to Chiswick Common where a turn to the south would take the tunnels under Turnham Green Terrace for a short distance before heading west again to continue under Chiswick High Road before coming to the surface east of the London and South Western Railway's (L&SWR's) Gunnersbury station." is a horribly long sentence; any chance of breaking it up?
  • Saying the GN&PBR had a "parallel route to Hammersmith" is a bit misleading as they're only parallel for a short stretch west of South Kensington; how about "rival route"?
  • Very minor point, but in 1933 LPTB switched to calling it "Central London Line" and no longer CLR; thanks to a Mr Beck's bright idea that year, it's possible to date the change in branding fairly precisely. Beck diagram #1 of 1933 still uses "Rly" but diagram #2 of later that year uses "Line". I appreciate Verifiability Not Truth and that the Times reference definitely says 1937, but the term was demonstrably already in official use four years earlier. – iridescent 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The change I was trying to highlight was the dropping of "London" from the name of the line. I've clarified this. --DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. --DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1a.

  • Prose is quite good. Image sizes: Rolling stock double, both rather too small. Can they not be centred and enlarged, or arranged vertically and enlarged? 1902 map too small for the text size. Some closing elements for year ranges are two digits; can they all be?
    • I've moved the trains to a vertical alignment and made them larger.
    • The 1902 map has been a bit of a trial. There are just too many station names to be able to make the text bigger, but I think it's important to have it at the same scale as all of the others, so I don't really want to make it larger than it is. As the station sites are listed in the text, I think that it's the shape of the loop that is most important in this image rather than the station names themselves.--DavidCane (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lobbied the government for regulation of transport services in the London area"—generally, when there's an "of" to the right put a "the" (or "a" or plural with article-blank) to the left. But this one is OK: "On this date, ownership of the assets of the CLR". Tony (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is well wrote, impeccably referenced, and meets all the other FA criteria. My sole comment is stylistic. Right now you have your notes mixed with your citations. Generally when you have a significant number of notes, many editors will split them off into a separate section, like is done on War of the Bavarian Succession, for example. Battle of Corydon and Thomas R. Marshall also employ that type of system. You may consider implementing a similar method here. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:10, 27 April 2010 [12].

War of the Bavarian Succession edit

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A war without battles, but with thousands of casualties. Read on! Another wikigap. I've also combined notes and citations in one section. The first time a source is cited, I've included the full citation; subsequently, I've used a shortened version. If the same source and page are cited sequentially, I've used the named templates. As always, I look forward to your comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dabs, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: (all v. minor)
  • Caption for "Charles II August, Duke of Zweibrücken": "Prussi", missing an "a" on the end.
    • Thanks. fixed.
  • "Nauendorf captured its officers, 110 men, 476 horses, 240 wagons of flour, and 13 transport wagons, which were subsequently burned" - unclear whether the wagons of flour and the transport wagons were burned, or just the latter. I'd assumed the latter, but the next bit made me think I might be wrong. (I'm really hoping that the officers and men weren't!)
    • Probably if it included the officers and men, the text would have said "who were burned but I've removed the bit a bout the wagons and flour, because I'm not sure from the source if the wagons were burned or the flour and the wagons. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gaston Bodart, in his analysis of Austrian casualties, is more specific: Five Austrian generals..." Is it right to follow the colon with a capital letter? (NB: I'm unsure, but it looked odd.)
    • As I understand the rule, if the bit after the colon is a full sentence, it's capitalized. In the next usage, the bit after the colon is a list, and not capitalized.
      • I've never seen that rule. Full sentences are usually preceded by a semicolon, without an opening capital letter. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Habsburg lands could be carved off the empire by a Catherine's diplomatic knife" The "a" is probably a typo.
  • As you say, a really interesting war!

Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy with the changes made, and although not a specialist on the sources, I'd say that the balance of old and new, combined with the further reading, looks respectable. I'd support on that basis.

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning Oppose I really like the article. My problem here is with the sources, many of which are seriously out of date. Citing figures like Henderson and Carlyle (!) when there is much more modern scholarship on the topic seems out of place. Can the article not include more standard reference material? Eusebeus (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your problems with the old sources. Gaston Bodart is also "elderly" but it is still a standard of the literature on 18th century military losses. The point of including Henderson and Carlyle with Berenger and Blanning is to point out that the topic has been of interest (albeit minor) for a long time. Carlyle's discussion is quite colorful, far moreso than anyone else's, and an advantage of the old sources is they include lots of family/genealogical details that the newer sources omit. I've added some new sources to replace some of the old ones. It makes the citations and bibliography more complicated, but... Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Very well done. Now go work on your dissertation! Eusebeus (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, changed to Neutral (see below). The prose needs going over; at the moment it veers alarmingly in places between nob-squad pomposity ("A second concern revolved around the Imperial dignities") and modern slang ("Two key hold-outs", "rookie"). Germanic? word order etc evident in places - "the Bavaria" etc. "a generation of peace and relative prosperity that began with his ascension and ended with his death.[7]" - try "accession". There's a spelling mistake in the first para "maneuvered", and plenty more later. Punctuation:"This kind of action characterized the entire war; there were no major battles, but instead, the war consisted of a series...." etc. In general I felt the prose did not read well. The elderly sources may contribute to the problem. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go over the prose again, but I've got to point out that "rookie" is not a new word at all...If you read Maria Theresa's note, which is in the footnote, you'll see that is the word she used. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She was writing in American English? You'd better tell the OED; they think the word is first recorded in 1892. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. ;) "On dit que vous avez été si content de Nauendorf, d’un recrue Carlstätter ou hongrois qui a tué sept hommes, que vous lui avez donné douze ducats;..." recrue=Neuling . It's been in the German language for, oh, since the Grimm brothers wrote their dictionary. Goethe used it, Lessing, etc., and it predates them, according to the Grimm. I've asked a French speaker for a second opinion. Perhaps you would prefer the word neophyte? or novitius? homo novus rookie was the best word I could come up with in English. I'm happy to use something more nob-squaddish, if you'd prefer. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a chart on the talk page that describes the sources, and content. See if you think it is still unbalanced to the old sources? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denobbing and sources. I've "denobbed" the text. Long sentences are broken up. I disagree on the use of ascend, but I've taken it out because I'm not falling on the sword over it. Also, see the talk page re balance of old and new sources, and also a list of additional sources. Most of the discussion of this war occurred in the 1780s. By the early 1800s, the big discussions had petered out in the face of the Napoleonic Wars, which seemed to preoccupy people's imagination more. There continued to be some literature in the 19th century, but very little until Oscar Criste's work in early 1900. After that, a hiatus until the 1970s–1980s. There is a thesis on Charles Theodore and the war, but it had a very small press run (Edwin Mellen Press), and is hard to find. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article uses US spelling, and "maneuvered" is correct. I am not offended by "rookie" in this context: 1892 is not yesterday, and we are quoting from a private letter. "Recruit" does not work, because Nauendorf was an officer in his thirties by then. I suppose we could use "tyro", which is an older word for rookie. It has been around since 1611. It's a lot rarer than "rookie" though today. (By the way, "ascension" was fine.) --JN466 06:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps its a US/UK thing, but you will see the same search with "accession" produces over 4 times as many, and the "ascension"s seem mostly from the ancient world or East Asia. You could use "recruit" in inverted commas perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the ascension/accession thing entirely (reworded the sentence) so it is no longer an issue. The translation seems fine. If I use the word novice, it's too conventual, if tyro, it's too obscure. Recruit is the wrong word, in the context, and recrue does mean "rookie". Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to neutral on this as the prose is still too jumpy and convoluted to support - look at the first two paragraphs of the "background" section for example. This is not well explained. If the war was really the last old-style 18th century war, as it says at the end, isn't this worth mentioning in the lead? Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I had not noticed it, and I added a bit to the lead to address this issue. Thanks for bringing that up. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the question of sources, raised above: I can make no comment on reliability, but speaking from an outside (non Milhist) perspective, it does not seem to me that the use of ancient sources has necessarily been excessive. About three-quarters of 80 citations to English-language sources are to modern (post-1970) sources. Unless essential modern texts have been omitted, or the information cited to the older sources is proven to be outdated or discredited, this seems defensible. I have frequently mixed old and new sources in my own articles, and of course the newer sources are often themselves dependent on the older. On a very trivial point, ref [58] requires a page number. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. For the sake of disclosure, I asked Brian if he would take a look, as non military history person, and see what he thought of the sources. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll do a copy-edit.

  • "Joseph, who co-ruled with his mother Empress Maria Theresa, considered the Bavarian territory as a plum that would enhance the wealth, prestige and power of the family." I wouldn't use "plum" here, as this makes it appear as though Bavaria had been the eponymous plum in the "plum fuss". This is not so; the sources I have seen attribute the name "plum fuss" to the fact that the soldiers had to live off the land – plums formed a significant part of their diet. --JN466 06:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JN. I've fixed this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • his wife, Maria Amalia, was the sister of Charles VI's and Joseph I, Holy Roman Emperor, and daughter of Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor. Could you double-check this? According to Maria_Amalia_of_Austria, she was Joseph's daughter. --JN466 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Max Joseph's mother was Maria Amalia of Austria, but not the Maria Amalia that Charles August wanted to marry. MJ's sister married the elector of Saxony, and MJ married the elector of Saxony's sister. Charles II August married the daughter of Max Joseph's sister (who had married the elector of Saxony), and the sister of the current elector, who was MJ's nephew. His brother in law had died after only a few months' reign and ... well that's too complicated. Max Joseph's sister was Charles August's mother in law. Try looking here, at D4. I don't think the wikiarticle is correct. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've finally finished that proofread and copyedit. One sentence we might still want to fix: According to the 3 January agreement between Joseph and Charles Theodore, 15,000 Austrian troops occupied Mindelheim, ultimately more territory than the convention had granted. We are talking about a "convention" and an "agreement"; if they are the same, that could be made clearer. Otherwise – a comprehensive and well-written article bringing European history of 200+ years ago to life. --JN466 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that. Thanks very much for your efforts, JN. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, last night and this a.m. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two have since responded with supports. I'm waiting on Johnbod. He hasn't listed other issues, so I don't know if he's satisfied, or has more. JN is still planning to do a copy edit if he gets to it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see one support-- what am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Made a few tweaks, but I'm curious about the lack of capitalization of French noble titles, i.e. duc, etc. When I see these used in English-language works they're always capitalized, perhaps by parallel treatment with English noble titles. But how are they rendered in French-language works?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the same capitalization and wording as the source on the titles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support article has improved recently. Ucucha 01:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • "By the terms of the 1650 Peace of Westphalia"—not 1648?
  • It looks odd to refer to France as "she" and Prussia as "it".
  • "was instead a mésalliance"—a what?

Ucucha 22:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it was a bunch of treaties, but I did change the date to 1648. Changed France from she to it. Misalliance. Or Mismarriage. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should explain that to the unsuspecting reader.
  • "According to the 3 January agreement"—this agreement has not been introduced.
  • I added a citation-needed tag to a paragraph at the end of the article.
  • I think the article should make more clear that Charles Thedore eventually did keep Bavaria.
  • I can certainly see Johnbod's concern about the prose. I think I improved it a bit, but another pair of eyes wouldn't hurt.
  • "Jens-Florian Ebert. "Nauendorf, Friedrich August Graf." Die Österreichischen Generäle 1792–1815. Accessed 15 October 2009"—should this have an external link?
  • Sources all seem reliable. Images:

Ucucha 23:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no artists on those portraits. JN will be back tomorrow re prose. At this point, I have it memorized. Added citation where it was needed, and added a link. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. The way the referencing/citations are done looks really strange; each published source ends up being listed twice, once in Citations and then again in Bibliography, but why? Also, author names are given firstname lastname in Citations, but lastname firstname in Bibliography. I don't like that at all. I'll take a closer look at the article later today or tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is consistent throughout the article. the first time the source is mentioned, I use the full citation, first name, last name, etc. After that I abbreviate the ref. The full citation appears in the bibliography, in bibliographic format. See here. the only thing I do differently from this is periods instead of commas because reviewers go postal if I don't. So, you may not like it, but this is what I do. See also Citations and reliability. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it's consistent, I'm just saying I don't like it and I can't see the point of it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely happy with some of the prose, for instance "Simultaneous to Charles' coronation in Frankfurt, though, his Bavarian capital city of Munich capitulated to the Austrians to avoid being plundered by Maria Theresa's troops". Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither am I convinced by some of the captions (I'll say nothing of the alt text). For instance, File:Kurfürst Karl Theodor (Bayern).jpg has as its caption "Charles IV Theodore, the legal heir, needed unencumbered territory that he could bequeath to his illegitimate children", but is that actually a painting of Charles IV Theodore, or of someone else? The general story of Charles' intentions ought to be included in the article, not put into a caption. The caption should be telling me something about the image. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The general story of CT's intentions is in the article. I disagree on the images: I see them as a another way of telling the story, otherwise, why include them? So I use captions to reinforce the text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm afraid that I'm likely to end up opposing this article's promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, your right to do, although an editor's chosen citation/bibliographic style is not actionable. As for captions, I've done them in this way since Unification of Germany last June (July?), and you've not said anything yet. Is this a recent antipathy you've developed on captions? Or have you just not noticed? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall looking at any of your other nominations, but let me encourage you to try and keep personal animosity out of this discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well that explains why it hasn't come up before. I wasn't aware that animosity had crept into my tone of voice, and I certainly apologize for that. I suspect that most people will tell you I'm a mellow person and often a voice of reason in contentious discussions. As for captions, I don't see the point of including lots of pictures of dead white men just for the sake of including lots of pictures of dead white men. Much better to include pictures that enhance/tell the story. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you like me to list the prose problems here, or on the talk page? For instance, would you not agree that at best "In the course of his career, Charles Theodore had acquired a celebrated secretary with the Florentine noble, Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806), who had been Voltaire's secretary" is ambiguous? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
article talk page? Sure and I'd be grateful for your help on the prose. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by MisterBee1966
  • I think the article would benefit from a brief opening statement telling the reader what this was all about. I therefore had a look at the German version and translated its lead (sorry for my English) "Was caused by the Austrian entitlement (claim?) on Lower Bavaria and Upper Palatinate after the Bavarian line of the House of Wittelsbach deceased in 1777. The consequence was that the Duchy of Bavaria should have transferred to the palatinate line. It is the last of the Kabinettskriege of the Early modern period." MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added bits here and there in the lead. See if that works for you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes better
THANKS! done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • section "Change in warfare". I like how in the previous section you motivated the cost Prussia had with 33 million florins and Austria with 65 million florins by comparison to the annual revenue of 50 million florins. In the section "Change in warfare" I am a bit lost. First you introduced the Reichsthaler without telling me what the conversion rate is. Second, the sentence "After the Seven Years War, the Habsburg military also shrank, from 201,311 in 1761 to 163,613 in 1775. In preparing for a second summer's campaign, Joseph's army grew from the 195,108 effectives of the summer 1778 to 308,555 in Spring 1779." The numbers mentioned here are those expenditures or men in arms? It is unclear to me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified it. Men in arms. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • support very nice article. A lot of work went into this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rechecked citations for consistency. These seem okay to me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence: "The war had no battles and only a few minor skirmishes, but several thousand casualties from disease and starvation." The final clause links with which bit? "had ..."? It's a bit of a jolt, and to "have" casualties is odd. Needs another verb here.
  • Opposite issue: "Charles IV Theodore, a scion of a senior branch of the House of Wittelsbach, held the closest claim of kinship, but he also had no legitimate children, only illegitimate ones." Remove "he also?
  • "Other states became involved to maintain the balance of power, a goal similar to that of the earlier War of the Austrian Succession in the 1740s and the Seven Years War that followed it." Can a war have a single goal? Isn't a war fought by opposing sides?
  • Instead of the not-well-known word "suzerainty" (which has to be linked for us), is there a plainer, more common word?
  • "and could block, or at least impede, Francis's election"—either? The "at least" is vague for me. So you mean they could block, but could just impede if they wished? Unclear distinction between ultimate power and possible behaviour. "and could impede or even block"?
  • "became moot: He left"—h?
  • "to succeed him and several ambitious men prepared to carve his patrimony into pieces, as they had tried to do in 1741 to Maria Theresa's."—comma after "him"? Did Therasa have patrimony? Or is it her pieces that back-refers to?

Do audit the whole thing for long sentences where the last clause doesn't flow properly from the foregoing part of the sentence. This is a repeated pattern thus far. Tony (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have gone through the whole thing again and tried to make sentences shorter, and less complicated see if this works. `Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The long snaking sentences make this a tedious read. These three for example:
  1. Some historians maintain the active negotiator was Max Joseph's widow, Maria Anna Sophia of Saxony, others assert it was not Max Joseph's widow but Max Joseph's sister, who was also Charles August's mother-in-law, Maria Antonia, the widow of the previous Elector Saxony, and mother of the reigning Elector.
  2. Although Charles August, sometimes called duc de Deux-Ponts (a French translation of Zweibrücken, or two bridges), was a French client, he had especially good relations with the Saxon Electors: Charles August's mother- and brother-in-law wanted to ensure that Maria Amalia's husband received his rightful inheritance.
  3. When it became clear that other monarchs of Europe were not going to acquiesce to a de facto partition of Bavaria, Joseph and his foreign minister, Anton, Count von Kaunitz, scoured the Habsburg realm for troops and concentrated 600 guns and an 180,000–190,000-man Austrian army in Bohemia, Moravia, and Austrian Silesia: this army amounted to most of Austria's 200,000 effectives, leaving much of the border regions with the Ottoman Empire under-guarded.

This is not engaging prose IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened a lot more sentences this afternoon. JN and I have both scoured this article for my usual prose problems in the past week. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder if we should drop the sentence "During the visit, he had enticed Voltaire's secretary, the Florentine noble, Cosimo Alessandro Collini (1727–1806), into his own employment.", given that the reference to Collini has now gone from the Carlyle quote and Collini doesn't turn up anywhere else in the article. --JN466 09:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a phrase giving it more context. It was a coup for the duke to get this man as his secretary. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

This is a very interesting article. I read it a couple weeks ago when it was first listed here and almost reviewed it then. I am well read on this topic and am pleased to inform you it is very comprehensive! I do a have a few comments though:

  • Internal link for "gout"?
  • done
  • Citations needed (these should be easy to find, if not let me know, I can dig them out of my library)
    • "As the Duke of Bavaria, Max Joseph was the prince of one of the largest states in the German-speaking portion of the Holy Roman Empire."
  • that was pretty well cited already, but I added more. Same below
    • "As a Prince-elector, he stood in the highest social category of the Empire, with broad legal, economic, and juridical rights."
    • "The House of Habsburg-Lorraine needed a wider sphere of influence in the German-speaking parts of the Holy Roman Empire."
    • ditto, but I added more
    • "The diplomatic realignment in 1756 had tied French foreign policy in Central Europe to Vienna; despite this restructuring, there existed at Versailles, and in France generally, a strong anti-Austrian sentiment."
  • that is cited to Berenger. I can add more but I don't think it's necessary. Blanning, Okey, Simms, etc.
    • "When his small force encountered Wunsch's, which was more than triple its size, Nauendorf greeted the Prussians as friends;"
    • that was cited at the end of the next sentence. I duplicated the ref, but that seems ridiculous, since now they are the same ref at the end of two sentences. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References are excellent
  • Prose if engaging
  • Images check out
  • Alt text present

Bravo! If you can get those citations I'd be glad to support. Great job on this article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another fine article for the encyclopedia. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:10, 27 April 2010 [16].

2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final edit

Nominator(s): SkotyWATC 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Do you enjoy association football (soccer)? Want to learn about how Seattle Sounders FC, a successful Major League Soccer expansion team, managed to win the U.S. Open Cup in its inaugural season? Then click the link and start reviewing! SkotyWATC 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't, thank you. Nevertheless, I looked and found that the article has no links to dab pages or dead external links. Ucucha 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as an FYI to reviewers, a few days ago, all of the external links to mslnet.com went dead. I've already gone through and updated them with their equivalent on mlssoccer.com (the new league site) or removed them when there was no equivalent. In the cases where I removed the link, I provided an alternate source when necessary. The article's level of verifiability should still be as high as it was when Ucucha went through it. --SkotyWATC 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up: Support. Looks great. Comments by Cptnono
LOL. Ucucha just isn't a sports fan as I found out during another FAC. Overall I really do like this article. I went through and made some minor MoS related changes and it looks good on that side of things. A couple things did jump out but are easily addressed.Disclaimer: Sounders FC taskforce with the nominator so there might be some unintended bias.
  • Reaction and Rewards: I notice the other FAs related to cup finals have a "Post match" section. By merging them, a short section would be eliminated which would look better and be inline with the other articles.
Done. Joined them into one section called "Post match". Good suggestion. --SkotyWATC 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "First half" subsection seems a little light. I think it would benefit from a couple more lines. It discusses the attacking well but maybe something mentioning some of the other stats seen in the game reports would fill it out. The sources used in that and the following subsections might look better distributed throughout the section but I'm not sure if this is mandatory if they all discuss the same thing.
This will take me a few days to address. I'll have to go back through the references and find which ones contain the facts in the paragraph. I will have this taken care of by Sunday evening (Seattle time). --SkotyWATC 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got some time today to address this. In doing so, I made a few other improvements to the prose. The references are now all inline, and I added a few more appropriate sentences to both the "First half" section and the "Second half" secion. Let me know if you think there's more to be done here. --SkotyWATC 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen this contradicted across Wikipeida so maybe this is a good place to ask, are websites supposed to be put in italics or not? All other referencing looks perfect.Cptnono (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a little unsure on this as well. Basically I think the "publisher" of the reference should always appear in italics. In the case of news articles, its the name of the newspaper. In the case of websites, it's the name of the organization producing the web site, or the web site name itself when the first is ambiguous. --SkotyWATC 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – Don't have time for much, unfortunately, but I noticed this sentence without an apparent citation: "Both the travel distance and the mid-week scheduling made it difficult for Seattle fans to attend." It's probably covered by one of the nearby references, but it would probably just be safer to add a cite for it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I searched for and found a pretty good source for this. It's been added now. Thanks. --SkotyWATC 07:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images No valid FU rationale for File:LHUSOpenCupLogo.png Fasach Nua (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the fair-use rationale for the image. Please review my update to make sure this is satisfactory. Thanks for pointing this out. --SkotyWATC 00:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
illustration fails wp:nfcc, I would imagine it is unlikely that this image could ever meet wp standards for inclusion in this article Fasach Nua (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to follow up with Fasach Nua offline to get clarification on which of the non-free images she's talking about and which criteria it fails. So far no response. I've updated the FUR for the competition logo as requested and I think that's in compliance now. The only other non-free image is File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg. Looking at WP:NFCI, I believe that this is an example of acceptable use of a non-free image for "historical importance as a subject of commentary". The picture shows a historical event which is indeed the subject of the commentary presented in the article. Furthermore, I have carefully written the FUR for the image based on the advice found at the end of this dispatch. --SkotyWATC 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand your reasoning in response to the nominator? I wasn't sure about the logo myself but the do not use a year specific one so there may be reasoning. Skoty has provided reasoning so it would be appreciated if you could do the same. Also, which image and any suggestions on replacement(s)?Cptnono (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've again tried to invite Fasach Nua to elaborate on the criteria she believes are not being met. --SkotyWATC 02:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment on this.[17] Personally, I empathize with Fasach Nua's stance. Although logos are permitted as lead images for identification purposes, the use of a series image for a specific event is a bit too broad in my view. I would have much preferred a notable image of the event as the lead. In this case, the US Soccer site has used Brad Smith's image as representative of the Final (link). File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg could fulfill the role, but there is neither url sourcing (telling where the image was obtained) nor copyright attribution. My recommendation: remove File:LHUSOpenCupLogo.png from this article, make File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg the lead image and clearly state its source and copyright holder on its page; if those information are unavailable, then use Brad Smith's photo with clear attribution. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding! I've followed your advice and removed the series logo. To my knowledge there was no specific logo for the event (the US Open Cup marketing just isn't that great, sadly). I've updated the source parameter in both of the FURs for File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg with the URL and copyright info. As I was digging up this URL I noticed that the image is actually a "User Uploaded Photo" (I must have missed this when I first grabbed the image). I just sent an email to the club to get clarification on what this means for the copyright. I'm suspicious that this may mean there is no copyright and we are free to use it. Another posibility is that Sounders FC holds the copyright. If they don't reply within the next 24 hours, I will remove the image and switch to the Brad Smith image which has more explicit copyright state (as you suggest). I'm hesitant to move the image into the infobox (lead) however. It seems that the infobox is better left blank if it does not contain a logo. I don't think illustrations make sense there. I'd rather leave it nested in the prose as it is now. Thoughts? --SkotyWATC 04:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is okay for a Featured Article not to have a lead image (note that the criterion for images in FAs asks for compliance with policies, not for their inclusion). What you plan for File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg is okay for the most part. I suspect the details of who holds the copyright would be detailed in the terms and conditions of the upload screen (if you are a member, I suspect you can try an upload and locate them). Unless the terms and conditions clearly state a surrender of rights, the image is still copyrighted to its photographer (or the club if the terms state so). In any case, the image page should be updated to reflect the status of the copyright holder. Jappalang (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far no word back from the club on the copyright details of that image. Here's a link to the terms that apply when you upload an image. It appears that the image uploader retains copyright ownership. Instead of delaying the review longer, I've taken your suggestion and switched out the image for the Brad Smith image you suggested above (it's a better picture anyway). I've also reconsidered the suggestion to move it into the lead section. I think that's a good idea and have moved it there (into the infobox). I think all is in order now as far as the images go. Please reply if you agree or if there is still something outstanding here. Thanks again for the second opinion and helpful advice. If in the future the club gets back to me and they desire to contribute the previous image under GPL and/or CC licenses, I'll come back and update it again. Otherwise, I think we're good-to-go with this one. Thanks again! --SkotyWATC 06:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • just for my info, why is it "Seattle Sounders FC", when AE usually sticks full stops after abbreviations?
  • Road to the final. Without any knowledge of US leagues, it wasn't obvious to me that there were non-MSL teams involved too. Perhaps a sentence or two to avoid having to read another article
I'm kind of at a loss on what to add. Do you have any suggestions? The first sentence of the section I thought conveyed this point: The U.S. Open Cup is an annual competition open to all amateur and professional soccer teams affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation.--SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about open to all amateur and professional soccer teams in the five professional leagues affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That feels a bit awkward because after saying "amateur teams" it says "professoinal leagues". I think I found a better solution though after getting some inspiration from the first sentence of Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. I've changed it to this: The U.S. Open Cup is an annual American soccer competition open to all United States Soccer Federation affiliated teams, from amateur adult club teams to the professional clubs of Major League Soccer (MLS). I think this is probably what you are looking for here. Glad you brought this up and didn't give up on it. This is a good improvement. Thanks! --SkotyWATC 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sellout crowd but sold out crowd (personally, I'd hyphenate both)
Good catch. I've updated all of them to be consistent with "sold-out". --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • bid included a plan to host the match at RFK Stadium... Sounders FC's bid planned Don't bids propose rather than plan?
Excellent suggestion. I've updated both to use a derivative of the verb propose instead. --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • mix of reserve players and starting players does starting players mean first-choice?
Yes. In America that's what they're called as part of the "starting lineup". I think this may be confusion due to WP:ENGVAR. I'm happy to change it if needed though. --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps starting (first choice) players Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --SkotyWATC 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freddie Ljungberg - played for rubbish team, unlike Kasey Keller (: (this may not be actionable)
I assume you're not talking about the Sweedish national team and the US National team. :) --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - and we beat them 2-1 on Wednesday to keep us in with a chance of Champions League football next season
Excellent feedback. I've addressed two of them, commented on one, and have a question out the WP:SSFC on the first one. Thanks! --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy to support this especially with the extra pre-match bit. The FC was really just idle curiosity, it's standard here. I've left two suggestions above really just to help non-Americans understand a little more easily, but no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken action on your last two suggestions. I think they both represented good improvements to the article. --SkotyWATC 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to make a complaint about the lack of a pre-match analysis in the article. Normally in a final you expect the media and pundits to discuss the strengths and weaknesses and predict how the teams wil/should try to exploit this, but this isn't in the article. It should be, as not all teams play in some generic way. As well, match-ups between midfielders and forwards v defenders are also usually in there. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I've added an "Analysis" sub-section and broken it out with "Venue Selection" under a separate "Pre-match" heading. Let me know if this is what you had in mind. --SkotyWATC 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Pity about the lack of punditry as the coaches, the likes of Jose Mourinho aside tend to make rather humdrum comments that don't really add anything apart from teh usual "It's going to be tough" "we're looking forward to it" etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I conducted the GA review on this article and while I didn't think it was up to Featured standard then, with the extra bits that have been added and the improvements that have been made, this is one of the best football match articles on Wikipedia. BigDom 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per discussions and resolutions above and the fact that this is a quality article. – ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Now that I have more time and can more fully read the article, I can say that it does look pretty good. Found a few random little things scattered around:

  • Comma appears to be missing from the middle of this: "The match was won by Seattle Sounders F.C. who defeated D.C. United 2–1."
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Road to the final: "and defeated the Harrisburg City Islanders of USL Second Division 2–1." Feels like "the" is missing, especially considering a couple similar sentence elsewhere have it.
Added. --SkotyWATC 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-match: Is the Quest Field link really needed here? We just had one a couple sections up.
  • Analysis: What's citing the quote at the end of the second paragraph?
    • Fixed. It was at the end of another quote. All quotes need cites directly after, right?Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First half: A couple sentences feel like they need more punctuation. This is one of them: "In the 18th minute, Seattle midfielder Sebastian Le Toux played a ball in to teammate Freddie Ljungberg whose shot on goal was barely saved by Wicks who kicked a foot out to block the shot." Without another comma or two in there, it verges on being a run-on sentence. The next sentence after this has a similar tendency.
Added commas to both. --SkotyWATC 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am by no means an image expert, so I leave judgement of the non-free images to others. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions Giants2008. I was hoping that you would be back to give more feedback on the prose. Your copyediting kung fu is far superior to my own. :) --SkotyWATC 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. I just pinged User:Jappalang. I had pinged User:Awadewit yesterday as well. One of them will likely respond this weekend. Thanks for your patience SandyGeorgia on this last issue. --SkotyWATC 19:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

  • Citations probably needed
    • "Likewise, D.C. United did not finish among the top six 2008 MLS teams, and therefore had to play through qualification rounds before entering the official tournament."
      • #12 (now #13) might have worked but added a new from The Washington Times since the source was good.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The match, hosted by United at Maryland SoccerPlex in Boyds, Maryland, ended with D.C. on top 2–0. "
      • Done. Added a line and a second reference for this.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This time they defeated the Rochester Rhinos of the USL First Division 2–1."
      • Another from The Washington Times added just to be on the safe side.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is pretty good
  • References check out
    • You may consider splitting the reflist into two columns. I personally find it a bit hard to read in a single column. Thats up to you though. :)
      • Reflist2 now. Appears to be enough for it.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent use of sub articles!
  • Images
    • File:Starfire Sports Complex - stadium field 01 .jpg is on the left under a level two header there used to be a guideline discouraging that, but can't find it in WP:IMAGES. It should probably move the the right, or drop down a paragraph.
      • That has been bugging me on a few articles. What happened to that recommendation? I have right aligned it (feel free to move back if you hate it Skotywa).Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg is non-free. I feel somewhat of iffy on the fair use rationale - there are already other images in the article that illustrate it. I will not oppose over it though. If you can get rid of it, I would encourage you to.
Thanks. I think it's important to have a historical image of the event itself in the article (this is the only such image). Above you will see more detailed discussion on the copyright and FUR details of the image. --SkotyWATC 06:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Interesting article! Good job. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and thanks to Cptnono for following up on them. --SkotyWATC 06:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:15, 25 April 2010 [18].

Eurasian Crag Martin edit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A drab swallow, but I have a soft spot for it because I've seen one in Leicestershire, so here goes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • thanks, the link was fine last time I checked, but it's timing out interminently today. Removed for now, I'll restore if it becomes stable again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, perhaps you can use some kind of archiving service. Ucucha 14:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Crag Martin's is slow"; dos not make sense to me. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rephrased as The Crag Martin's flight appears relatively slow for a swallow. Rapid...
  • The flight speed is in the description section, but it is nothing to do with description.Snowman (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How the bird appears in flight is part of the description (as in other bird FAs), and details of the speed seem to complement that. It seems more natural to put the speed with the rest of the flight description than put it in another section (which?) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Disclosure: I was the GA reviewer of the article
    • Checked images. All images are fine in terms of license and caption. Added 1 more img.
    • I checked few Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds FAs to check the general layout of these articles. Two sections "Relationship with humans (Cultural depictions)" and an explicit "Evolution" section missing. If Taxonomy covers the known info about evolution, then I suggest a rename: "Taxonomy and evolution". As this bird dwells in man-made structures, they may have an interaction with humans and thus the "Relationship with humans (Cultural depictions)" may be needed. I am not expert in this field, so it is quite possible that RS do not cover these aspects or the section like "Relationship with humans" may not be applicable. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for comments and the great image, which I must have overlooked (unlike its close relatives, at least there is a choice for the Eurasian bird!) There is really nothing on the evolution other than what can be deduced from the taxonomy; the only fossils are of this species, not of an ancestral form, and given the close relationship with other swallows, it would be difficult to indentify an proto-crag martin if one were found. With small birds like these, the fossil record is bound to be a bit thin. In other words, the only guide to evolution is the DNA-derived taxonomy, so I'd rather leave the heading as it is, unless you feel the change is justified anyway. There is really nothing I can find on culture. Although the Crag Martin does breed on buildings, this is still much less common than using its natural habitat in the high mountains. The only European swallows with any significant cultural content are Barn Swallow and to a lesser extent House Martin, both, as their names suggest, much more closely attached to human habitation. Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partial (not complete) SUPPORT on all criteria except 1b (comprehensiveness) and 1c (partly, "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"). I am not the right person to judge those, though I should remark that this article is the best article about the subject on the net, I could find. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... Do you have doubts that the article might fail on criteria 1b and 1c? Snowman (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched everything I can access, I'm not sure how this is actionable, but thanks for partial support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Support: I believe that Ucucha (who has written similar articles) has explained the information and also added a little more information. I also observe that Snowman's comments and edits have improved the article. I will take Jimfbleak's word that this article can not have the missing sections I pointed as they are irrelevant here. Good work. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks, it's unusual to get so much input from reviewers, but good. I've move your comment to left edge as recommended Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When feeding young, adults mainly forage in the best hunting areas in the immediate vicinity of the nest, since there is a negative correlation between foraging distance and feeding rate." - this would be logical if the adults make frequent visits to the nest with food for chicks, so could something be added about the frequency of feeding young. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the feeding rate (every 2–5 minutes) under "Breeding", so I'd prefer not to repeat it here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is difficult to read, so I have amended it and put the two related lines in the same section. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the general aggressiveness of the martin, ..." - if they were generally aggressive then they would not be able to live together in a colony. Presumably the aggressiveness is selective and territory based to defend their (nesting) colonies against hostile species. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like House Martins, where the nests are often touching, the colonies are quite loose. The text says that the nests are typically 30 m apart, so if the defended territory is 200–300 m2 as I've stated, this would suggest a distance of 14–17 m (square root of the area) around the nest. This is consistent with the spacing of the nests, so that any interaction with other pairs is likely to be only at the edge of a territory. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could not work out if they were defending their owns nests or the entire colony - so I have made a minor amendment. The word "conspecifics" is jargon and so I have amended it to read "other Craig Martins". The zone in which they fly in is a volume (m 3), but the article used an area (m 2), so this is illogical. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rather assumed it meant that area of the cliff face, but the source doesn't spell that out. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
m2 is a area, which does not seem to me to be appropriate to describe a birds flying zone, which is a volume - m3. Snowman (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "against other Crag Martins and other species." - What are the other species here? Does it include Common House Martins, which the article says (in a different section) are tolerated? Snowman (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended to most other species. Basically, they will repel almost any bird coming close to the nest, although obviously genuine potential predators like hawks are treated to more prolonged attack Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... so I have changed it to "most other bird species" - is that what is meant? Snowman (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increasingly used houses and other man-made sites to nest." - What part of the house do they use to nest? For the Commons House Martin in the UK there are less nesting sites on houses, because modern houses do not have eves or gaps. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They nest on walls under an overhang, but not necessarily touching it unlike the House Martin which has a closed nest and uses the overhang or eaves as a roof. Unlike the House Martin, most Crag Martins still nest on cliffs, and this behaviour is only slowly changing. It is likely that the supply of bridges and older building such as forts, farmhouses and temples will provide more than enough sites for Crag Martins for the foreseeable future, particularly in the upland rural areas that form the core of their range. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds interesting about nest differences. Is it worth mentioning that somewhere? - perhaps in this article or in the genus page. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed nest briefly under taxonomy, I'd rather leave it to the genus article
  • "It is constructed under an overhang or in a crevice on a cliff or man-made structure" - this does not actually say about the nest being fixed to rock - this needs to be added." I think a bit more needs to go in to describe the location of the nest. Is the overhang just for shelter from weather? Snowman (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was self-evident that a nest on a cliff face would be attached to rock, but added anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?
Fixed now. As it was, it could have been in a rocky crevice or hole in the cliff. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it eat aerial spiders? - like swifts. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, added to list
I can't find anything on this, it's usually very hard to find for birds that don't breed in the UK (where the BTO usually has a figure. I'd assume three or four years like other swallows, but that's just a guess
  • Some of the range areas in the map look like they have been drawn with a bit of a shaky pen. I would not like to see it go out in an FT book like this. It is best to draw a map viewed at high magnification in the draw software pack. Can the irregularities be straightened out? Snowman (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no artist, but these ranges are very approximate anyway, especially outside Europe, so smoothing is really just an illusion of accuracy. If you can improve the appearance, that's fine, but maps aren't an FA criterion, so if it's an issue it can always be removed.
I have uploaded a modified version of the map with some of the irregularities painted over. What is the dark blue area in Africa opposite to Gibraltar? Snowman (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed that, legacy from a previous colour I expect, re-uploaded with correction, thanks for your improvements Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know what colour to paint that small area. I see that you have painted it green. Snowman (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both parents feed the chicks, bringing food every two to five minutes, and continue to feed the young for 14–21 days after fledging." - I presume that this feeding rate applies to chicks in the nest and that feeding is less and less often when the chicks are on the wing and practising catching food for themselves. I would rewrite it, but I have not got the references and I do not want to risk adding an error or oversimplification. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could well be right, but the sources just say feeding continues, not how often. This bird isn't well studied, but wait till we get to the other members of the genus where the info is even more limited and it's often assumed that incubation times etc are probably similar to [Eurasian] Crag Martin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the comma in the line, which changes the meaning to say that feeding continues but without implying that it is at the same rate as before. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably corvids would eat eggs and chicks, but would they be able to catch an adult Crag Martin? Snowman (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although crows and ravens will readily eggs and chicks, the nests of these martins would be difficult to raid. The source says on migration, so it would be adults that were taken. I can only speculate that the corvids target tired birds that are less well equipped to fight back. I've seen large gulls and crows attack thrushes (and owls) flying in from the sea in autumn. The owls are too well armed, but exhausted blackbirds and the like often succumb to aerial attack by these opportunist omnivores Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have scanned a few of the other language wiki, which generally do not have many in-line references, so this comment is more about ideas than omissions or facts, all of which will need checking. Language wiki indicated by brackets: weight of the bird (fi)(it); saliva added to mud for nest building (de); time taken to build a nest (fi); female feeds young after fledging (this en article says male and female)(fi); a comment in introduction about the large size for a martin (nl); nests in caves (sv). Snowman (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weight added, I don't know why I omitted that. Time to build nest added. Caves added, I'd assumed crevices covered that, but made explicit. Saliva in nest is probably confusion with swifts, I can find nothing suggesting that any swallow deliberately adds saliva, whereas some swiftlets use only saliva (Edible-nest swiftlet). Size is subjective, this isn't large even compared to other European hirundines, and is dwarfed by some tropical martins; I've already said the other two members of the genus are smaller. Turner says "parents" feed young after fledging and gives three sources for that. The Finnish comment is referenced to an RS source, but I don't have access. It's often the case that even where parents share duties like incubation and feeding the female does most of the work. I can't resolve this, so changed to and the young are fed without specifying whether female or both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the article should confirm that the bird catches insects in its beak. It could mention some anatomical details of the beak and mouth. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was obvious, but added anyway. I'm not optimistic about anatomy, but if I find anything I'll add it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key fact is now included. Snowman (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression: I edit bird articles, and some might think my comments are a conflict of interest. I think that the article covers all the relevant facets of the topic from the reasonably accessible sources written in English. It is quite possible that other reviewers will point out a number of further improvements, and I hope that the article will achieve FA status soon. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reviewing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support comprehensive and well-written, issues addressed. Ucucha 17:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Comments. Great overall, a few things:[reply]

  • "Crag Martin pairs nest alone or in small colonies, usually containing fewer than ten nests,[1] spaced on average 30 m (100 ft) apart and each pair aggressively defend the zone around their own nest against other Crag Martins and most other bird species."—please split sentence, it is unclear whether the spacing refers to the nests or the colonies.
  • split and rephrased to avoid too many "nests" ...usually containing fewer than ten nests. Nests are on average 30 m (100 ft) apart and each pair aggressively defends its breeding territory against other Crag Martins.. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the references given in the hidden comment (FieldMusNatHistZoolSer18:343. Forktail16:147.) of any use?
Not those I can access Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first is here at BHL, the second here. Don't seem to add much, though. Ucucha 11:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images and sources all look OK
  • 172 hits in Web of Knowledge, few of which look very relevant. Have you checked those?

Ucucha 02:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access, but my extensive searches of books and other material suggest that there's very little relevant that isn't covered by Turner. Looking at my sources, there are a handful of journal articles specifically about the crag martin that expand significantly on Turner, the rest (predators, parasites) are gleaned from articles about other species, or are more general reports on, for instance, hirundine taxonomy. Thanks for reviewing. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll look over the Zoological Record to see whether there's anything that does seem interesting. Ucucha 11:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new species of the Ornithomya biloba-group (Dipt., Hippoboscidae) from crag martin (Ptyonoprogne rupestris) (Aves, Hirundinidae).

    Author(s):Hutson, A.M.

    Source:Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft Volume: 54 Issue:1-2 Pages:157-162 Published:1981

  • A new species of Ceratophyllus from Chinghai Province, China.

    Author(s): Tsai, L.-y.; Pan, F-c.; Liu Chuan

    Source: Acta Entomologica Sinica Volume:23 Issue: 1 Pages: 79-81 Published:1980

  • First record of crag martin Hirundo rupestris in Sweden.

    Foreign Title: Klippsvala observerad vid Kullen.

    Author(s): Peterz, Mats

    Source:Anser Volume:35 Issue: 4 Pages: 279-280 Published: 1996.

Ucucha 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time, I should really have found the Swedish record myself, but bugs are a nightmare to track down. all are incorporated now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I made some corrections. If you want, there are also papers with the first records for the Netherlands, Saarland, and the Czech Republic, but I don't think those are necessary. Ucucha 17:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden's furthest north, so most out of range, so I think that's enough, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. So far, the article looks excellent. I do, however, have some reservations and comments from a layman's perspective.
  • The WP:LEAD is only two paragraphs long (twelve sentences); it could almost certainly be expanded.
  • "The groups are the "core martins" including burrowing species like the Sand Martin, the "nest-adopters", which are birds like the Tree Swallow that utilise natural cavities, and the "mud nest builders". The Ptyonoprogne species construct an open mud nest and therefore belong to the latter group;"
"Latter" is used for the second of two items; "last" is used for the third of three items.
  • "Where the range overlaps with that of another Ptyonoprogne species, the Rock Martin is 15% smaller, paler and greyer than its Eurasian relative,[6][10] and the Dusky Crag Martin is also small and has darker plumage, particularly on its underparts.[11]"
This part is constructed sort of oddly. The subject of the article is the Eurasian Crag Martin, but the text seems to veer off to discuss the Rock Martin, and how it is different from other species. Just seems odd from a reader's perspective.
Rewritten with ECM as subject Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The voice include"
Unless this is a birding thing, this seems grammatically incorrect.
Now The vocalisations include short... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose in Distribution and habitat closely matches the range map. Good sign.
Good! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both parents feed the chicks bringing food every two to five minutes"
Is this correct? It sounds as if the chicks would explode after a few hours of this treatment.
I've no reason to doubt the source, chicks have voracious appetites Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The insects taken depend on what is locally available, but may include flies, Hymenoptera, aerial spiders and beetles."
It seems strange to use the scientific name, Hymenoptera, for one order of insects, but common names for other orders. The sentence immediately following also uses common names.
I've changed to ants - although bees and wasps are also Hymenoptera, they are well armed and only hunted by specialists like bee-eaters Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Common Kestrels, Eurasian Sparrowhawks, Eurasian Jays and Common Ravens are also treated as predators and attacked by repeated dives if they approach nesting cliffs."
Presumably, this means the ECM treats these species as predators, but if it does, this implies these species do feed on the ECM. Just seems vague here.
That's how the source phrases it, and I've been unable to confirm whether these birds actually hunt crag martin. The first two are very likely to, but with the jays and ravens, it's more a case of objecting to large corvids rather than their being a serious threat Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing, sorry about delay in responding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can't find anything else to nitpick. The article's prose seems smooth, the range map checks out, the sources look good, the article is accessible to the average reader, and my concerns above have been addressed. Another well-constructed article from Jim. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for helpful comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:15, 25 April 2010 [19].

Lester Brain edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Slight change of pace for me with someone more notable for his achievements in civil as opposed to military aviation (Chief Pilot at Qantas, first General Manager of Trans Australia Airlines), but also a member of the RAAF reserve for more than 20 years, and a recipient of the King's Commendation for bravery under fire in WWII. Also another famous airman (think Charles Eaton and Les Holden) involved in the 1929 search for Charles Kingsford Smith and Charles Ulm and, ultimately, too other searchers who themselves became tragically lost. Currently GA, and A-Class in the MilHist and Aviation projects, this is also a WikiCup entry for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 11:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I supported this article for A class and see no reason why it doesn't meet the FA criteria. Good work, IMO. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I supported for A-class not too long ago, and it looks good enough for FA quality. No concerns here. Airplaneman ✈ 04:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I approve of this article, the level of detail and especially the quality of the images featuring appeals to me. The biography evenly covers his life, something which I've noted with some historical aviators tend to sink towards their 'big event' and leave the fringes less developed, that isn't the case here. I would put the London Gazette quote in a formatting that shows off the quote marks, this is personal preference and nothing more. Aside from the A380, are there other aircraft or institutions/awards ect ect named after him? Another question aside from the issue though, this looks fine for the level of Featured Article to me. Kyteto (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many tks all. Kyteto, I quite like the big quote marks too but I believe the preferred standard is as it appears now (unless a MOS expert would like to correct me)! I always like to try and find evidence of things named for article subjects but in this case, the A380 is all I can confirm... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a few minor points (none critical):
  • "[Qantas's] first aviator without a war record" appears to be uncited;
  • "The following year, he completed a refresher course at Central Flying School, Point Cook. On a rain-soaked McKinlay airfield near Cloncurry on 27 February 1927, he flipped Qantas' first de Havilland DH.50 on to its back while attempting take-off, though he managed to escape without injury." is a bit confusing to me. Is McKinlay airfield a part of Central Flying School and he flipped the plane over while on the refresher course, or did he complete the refresher course, return to duty, and flip the aircraft while on duty?
  • The first paragraph of Later life and legacy seems a bit awkwardly worded—I had to re-read it to understand what it was saying.
All relatively minor, certainly nothing to prevent supporting. – iridescent 15:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, please locate an image reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:15, 25 April 2010 [20].

Brougham Castle edit

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Brougham Castle is a little known site in North West England but had an important role in the Scottish Wars and was used as a fortification into the 17th century (sort of). The article is comprehensive, dealing with the history, which is set in the context of what was going on in the region, and the castle's architecture. It relies heavily on Summerson, Trueman & Harrison's 1998 volume as it is the most comprehensive source on the subject, although some details are fleshed out with other books. The history is patchy in places – for instance the article says little on the castle's capture in 1388 – but this reflects the sporadic nature of the sources, which are not always detailed. Hopefully the article is an interesting read, and thanks in advance to anyone who takes time to read the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I won't follow everything here because I'm relatively new to castles and fortifications and MILHIST and I'm not great with British English articles, so forgive me if I ask some stupid questions. I'll start with: what's a "historic building"? A building that's been around for a while? Or is it an official designation? - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a technical designation as such. I suppose the meaning is that it's an old building, except trying not to say something as simplistic as that. I've changed it to "medieval building" which should be less ambiguous. Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More specific, and also more in line with other FA castle articles, I like it. I'll be gone for a few hours btw. How would you feel about moving the "scheduled monument" info up a bit, say into the introduction? - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good suggestion, and I've also moved the short sentence on the castle being open to the public to the first paragraph of the lead. The main details of what a Scheduled Monument is is still in the main body of the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a "timber bank" something like a berm made of timber and probably earth, sod or rocks? - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it says "earthen bank" below, so I'm confused. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should have been "earthen bank" rather than timber, so I've corrected it. Nev1 (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The importance of Brougham and Roger Clifford was such that in 1300 he hosted Edward I at the castle.": does the source give any additional information on what the king thought of Clifford or the castle? - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately not, there's little information on the visit. Nev1 (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for all the fiddling with the introduction ... reviewers are looking for a certain "tightness" there. It's less important to say things a certain way in the rest of the text. So far, it's a charming article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The changes look good. Nev1 (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I hope that's a good start, I'll come back to this later. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup: ship reviews are taking all the time I have, I don't think I'll have a chance to get back to this one. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 01:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, your edits helped polish the article a bit. Nev1 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an interesting article, but there are still a lot of issues. Who is Rovert? You had the estate remaining with a ward, but you mean in wardship, or with a warden (the ward would be the child). When was the end of Roman rule in Cumbria? I've done some minor tweaks, but became so confused that I stopped. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rovert was a typo (meant to be Robert). I've clarified the bit about the end of Roman rule; it was brief because it was only sketching the background. Could you be a bit more specific with what confused you? I know that the changing of hands through minorities sometimes confused me, and this may have come through in the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robert died in 1228 (or 1227, according to the article on him). His son John was a minor. John died in 1246, before he reached his majority, but he had a son... Robert...who was also a minor...came of age in 1257. He rebelled in 1264, and lost the estate, which was restored to his daughters, only one of which married (Isabelle married a Clifford.) If Robert died in 1228, John must have reached his majority by 1246, in order to have produced a son who was of legal age by 1257.  ? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article didn't state when Roger died, which was a mistake as it implied it was 1246. He was dead by 1241, so maybe he would have been old enough by 1246, although his date of birth does not appear to be known. Hopefully that bit is a little clearer now [21]. Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't follow the descent of the castle from Roger to Robert etc., but I suppose it doesn't matter. The onset of the Civil War meant... is misleading. The Civil War didn't mean the castle would be garrisoned. The onset of the CW and the garrisoning happened more or less concurrently, but the first did not necessarily cause the second. As you've said many times, the castle was not strategic by then. Perhaps With the onset of the Civil War, Brougham was garrisoned....
I did some minor ce, feel free to revert if I changed meanings. In many cases it was saying something simple with a lot of words. One thing I did not change: is treachery an executable offense? Or do you mean treason? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treason is the better phrasing, so I've changed it. I reverted your edit regarding the Civil War as "At the onset of the English Civil War, Brougham Castle was garrisoned" implies that the castle was immediately taken over by the military. But you raise a good point, so as a compromise (and because it's not certain when the castle was garrisoned) I've changed the phrasing to "The English Civil War broke out in 1641. Brougham was one of several castles in the generally Royalist Cumberland and Westmorland that were garrisoned by Cavalier forces". I'll try to reduce the info on the inheritance from Robert to Roger (the amount of detail may be part of the problem). Nev1 (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the priors were surplus to requirement, so I've removed them. It's simpler just to generalise the different carers as "wardens". Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitting on the fence Support. No reason to oppose, but lots of minor niggles:
  • A trivial but obvious one; how big is it? There are dimensions for the moat, but not for the castle itself, only a height;
  • "When Anglians arrived in the area in the 7th century they named it…"; how reliable is the source for that, and was it actually colonised or are we just talking about trading parties? It's certainly an Anglo-Saxon name, but Cumbria was a part of (Brythonic speaking) Strathclyde and Rheded, not Anglic Northumbria in this period; did it actually have an Anglo-Saxon name that early on?
  • In my experience, every damn hill in Cumbria has a dubious Ye Olde Historice Legende; given the proximity to Pendragon Castle, does this one have any? If so, they probably ought to be mentioned even if only to refute them;
  • Aside from the earthworks, do any parts of the Roman building survive?
  • "[Scots] raiding the west, reaching as far as Brough" will mean nothing to most readers, whom it's safe to assume won't know if Brough is the first town over the border or halfway to the Isle of Wight; I think it needs a "foo miles" or "bar days' ride" there;
  • Is "was accused of forcing coins in the castle" a typo for "forging", or does "forcing" mean something specific? If the latter it needs to be explained as I've no clue;
  • "When the north of England rose up in the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536, Henry was one of those targeted by the rebels. He confronted the rebel leaders at Kirkby Stephen in February 1537, and after his defeat he retreated to Brougham Castle." seems problematic to me. AFAIK the Pilgrimage of Grace was confined to Yorkshire (or sometimes Lincolnshire, depending on how it's defined) and never reached the other side of the Pennines; the rebellion early 1537 in Cumbria and Westmorland was Bigod's Rebellion;
  • You say the Cliffords were a recusant family during the Rising of the North; were they still recusant in the 1600s? If so, that definitely warrants a mention, especially given that James stayed with them;
  • Not a deal-breaker, but given its proximity—and historical significance—Ninekirks probably ought at least to be mentioned, even if it's just a "See also".
  • Nothing major, all just little niggles. – iridescent 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some dimensions for the exterior of the castle.
  • What Summerson actually says is "[Brougham] probably remained [a Christian community] as the Anglians of Northumberland occupied Westmorland - given an enduring name by the incomers, for who it was the land of the people west of the moors during the seventh century. These new arrivals, impressed by its Roman remains, also gave its present name to Brougham, meaning the village by the fort". It's a bit ambiguous, so I've removed the bit about the 7th century.
  • I think a legend or ghost story spices up this kind of article a bit, but sadly nothing of the sort has turned up for Brougham.
  • The only remains of the fort are below ground, and it was probably robbed out to help build the castle. There's been a survey of the earthworks, but it seems that not much is known about the buildings.
  • Good point about Brough, I've clarified how far away it is.
  • Typo fixed.
  • It seems that the North East was worse, but Summerson (who wrote the history section of the book on the castle) does call the rising in 1536 the Pilgrimage of Grace. Bigod is not mentioned at all. The leaders were seeking refuge in Kirkby Stephen probably after their defeat in Yorkshire, although Summerson doesn't say that explicitly.
  • Part of the reason for the Clifford's support of the Tudors despite being Catholic was their earlier; Summerson is silent on the issue of the family's later loyalties regarding the issue of Catholicism, but it was probably complicated by the contested ownership of the family estates between the dowager countesses and the Earl of Cumberland.
  • Good point, I've added Ninekirks to the see also section. Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment - beginning a look-over now. Please revert if I accidentally change meaning. Queries below. Prose needed less tweaking than previous. nice read and well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The castle briefly recovered in the early 17th century - sounds like it was sick...might there be a better way to phrase this? Nothing jumps to mind I confess...
Anglians arrived in the area they named the place "Brougham" - waht should 'Anglians' be linked to? Also, as a word not a sentence Brougham should be italicized not quoted. Was the original form spelt the same way?
In the Under the Vieuxponts section, how do we know what it was like (in the first four sentences or so), archaeological evidence or written records or...?
Okay, good points below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
, Brougham Castle played no part, - + in the defence?
link Catholic magnates
I've seen both storeys and stories in the article - choose one to stick to.
finally, anything about where the ruins are - in countryside, woods, motorways, national park etc.

Overall, looking good and nearly there. just minor fixes above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The castle's form in its earliest phase is tricky and some guess work is involved (there are no records of how it was and little direct archaeological information). The stone defences weren't built until around 1300, so Summerson deduces that they would have been preceded by a bank and palisade (this was typical of castle construction first being in timber and then stone). Summerson doesn't give the spelling used by the Anglians, probably because it's not certain (there are many variation of "Brougham" even in the 16th and 17th centuries). It's not much, but the background section gives some details on the castle's location. The area's just grassy countryside really with the occasional farm. As for roads, the A66 runs nearby, but I'm not convinced it's particularly important, and it's already mentioned that three Roman roads run through the area. There's a link to the English Heritage site at the end of the article with tourist information such as nearby roads. Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, please locate an image reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:15, 25 April 2010 [22].

Cleomenean War edit

Nominator(s): Kyriakos (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets Featured article standards. I created the article in 2007 and it passed a GAC and currently holds A-Class status and failed a FAC here in December 2009. Since then however, I believe that all the major issue brought up in the unsuccessful attempt have been fixed. Kyriakos (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. It certainly has some great maps now. I fixed a few bad links. The external link to [23] doesn't seem to go where it should go. Ucucha 12:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I've fixed the link so that it redirects to the right page. Kyriakos (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -- Impressed by the prose; although I've made a few mods here and there, I think it reads extremely well. The maps and illustrations are also useful, and I can see that all have alt text. No dabs either, according to the checker. A few things:
    • Presentation-wise, the article might benefit from alternating the positions of the maps and pictures, left then right.
  • Done. Where possible, I've altered the position of the images. Kyriakos (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Walbank describes this raid as being 'an impressive demonstration, but it had no effect other than to make it even more clear that Cleomenes had to be defeated in a pitched battle -- Firstly, a direct quote should be in double inverted commas; secondly, where does the quote end?
  • Done. I fixed the quotation marks. Kyriakos (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't gone deeply into the sourcing, but will try to do so in next few days. All up though so far, very well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Returned to check over citations. The style looks odd to me in places, and it's certainly inconsistent:
      • The odd part for me is the bullet-pointing of multiple citations, e.g. #13. Multiple citations are usually treated identically, each with their own ref tags.
    • Reply. I find this method more effective than having multiple citations on the page for the same fact.
      • You seem to end most citations with a full stop (period) but not all (e.g. #1 vs. #2) - should be consistent.
    • Done.
      • Sometimes you use "p." for page number, sometimes not - again pls be consistent (I would say use "p.").
    • Done.
      • Sometimes when you use "p." you have a space before the actual number, somethimes not - be consistent.
    • Done.
      • Sometimes you have a comma between author and title, sometimes a full stop (e.g. #13) - should be commas consistently.
  1. Done. Kyriakos (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can merge identical citations, e.g. Hammond p.342 in #5 and #7, or the William Smith ones. I'm happy to show you how if you're not sure.
    • Reply. With these ones, I think that the article is fine as they I prefer them these citations to be together appear in the order they are in, in the article rather than in a mass. Kyriakos (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are still other little things but if you can look after these and go through all with a fine tooth comb to be consistent, it'll be a big improvement. I'm just about ready to support but these niggly little things need to be tidied for the article to qualify among WP's best work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - there seem to be places where it isn't exactly clear who is being referred to, Antigonus III Doson of Macedon usually involved. For example: "He wanted the Macedonian king to come to the Peloponnese and defeat Cleomenes, in return for control of Acrocorinth.[20] This was not a sacrifice that the League was willing to make, however." He presumably refers to Aratus, even though Antigonus is closer in proximity to the pronoun? The next line also doesn't make much sense. Did the League ultimately agree or not? Clarification is desirable. Lambanog (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I've clarified the sentences. Kyriakos (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Is it Yonch or Yonah? Plus I didn't see Warry in the notes... oh, and which of the four works cited to Plutarch is the parent of these: Plutarch, 21 & Plutarch, 24.?
    • Is Niehbur German or Danish? • Ling.Nut 02:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. I've fixed the Plutarch links and removed Warry, he must have remained from an earlier version of the piece. Niehbur was Danish born but of German descent. Kyriakos (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for an engaging and comprehensive article. Ucucha 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These defeats took such a toll on Antigonus that he considered advancing his attack of the palisade and moving his army to Sicyon."—don't you mean here that he considered abandoning the attack?

No other issues; will support once this is clarified. Ucucha 15:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A nicely done article. I made a few minor tweaks. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no real sticking points, although I'm not clear what Ptolemy III had against remote Macedon. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations are strange. Please do not leave raw links in citations; these should be expanded to incorporate the links:
  • Smith, William, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, "[1]".

Support, great article. Very engaging and a pleasure to read. I do have just a few comments though, but none that would prevent me from supporting this fine article.

  • "Taking advantage of a rumor that he had been killed during the fighting, Aratus attacked and seized Mantinea" - who is "he", Cleomenes?
    • Unfortunately in this context not much as works for example: "Taking advantage of a rumor that Aratus had been killed during the fighting, Aratus/(he) attacked and seized Mantinea". Kyriakos (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cleomenes recalled his uncle Archidamus V from his exile in Messene to ascend the Eurypontid throne..." This confuses me just a bite. You have not indicated that the Eurypontid kingship was vacant so why would he ascend the throne? Was that king also killed, and not just his son, or was the previous heir about to ascend?
    • This question is answered earlier in the paragraph. Kyriakos (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Employing the men he considered most likely to oppose him, he captured Heraea and Asea." - was he hoping they would get killed, or just bribing them? This is not clear.
  • I noticed Laconia is linked multiple times throughout the article; you should only link the first occurrence.
  • "He also armed 2,000 of the ex-helots in Macedonian style to counter the White Shields" - what is Macedonian style? a type of military formation and armament? Perhaps there is an article you could link to?
  • "The capture of Megalopolis shook the Achaean League" - "The destruction of Megalopolis shook the Achaean League" might be more accurate
  • "The Spartans, overwhelmed by the deeper Macedonian phalanx, were routed, but Cleomenes managed to escape with a small group of men." - maybe say "deeper ranks", someone unfamiliar with Greek battles may not understand what is meant by just "deeper"
  • "...most of their army was routed." - but the following sentence says it was mostly destroyed, not routed. A reword might be in order.
  • "With Cleomenes' defeat, Sparta's power collapsed and it fell into the hands of tyrants" - do you mean a "group of tyrants" all at once, or "successive tyrants"?
  • Plutarch as a source for a lot of the article is a little worrying. Obviously he would be the source used by most other in their works about this war though. However, using secondary sources interpreting Plutarch would add a layer of scrutiny to Plutarch's possible biases. I am not concerned enough to oppose over this, but it would be better to rely less on such an antiquarian source. WP:PRIMARY comes into play a bit here.

Overall, again, very great article! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 
Map of ancient Greece's southern regions, from Achaea (ancient region) article
  • Comment The maps need some refinement. From a comment above, i take it the maps are new, so they must be a great improvement already. But, the top map in the article shows "Arcadia" and "Achaean League" labelled but not "Achaea", and the 2nd map shows "Achaea" and "Achaean League" labelled but not "Arcadia". You need to have both "Achaea" and "Arcadia" on the same map, so that they can convey something, that Arcadia is the mountainous central portion and that Achaea is the northernmost, coastal part, and to dispell possibility that they are just labels moved around within the big red region to fit wherever they can fit. Also, the peninsula labelled just "Boetia" includes Attica and in particular Athens, which could usefully be labelled (they are names used at that time, right?). Thumb map at right here shows locations. I for one tend to forget whether Athens was in Arcadia, Achaea, or Attica, and wondered where it was on the map here. Putting a label for Athens onto the map would avoid my discomfort, and perhaps other readers'. Hope this helps! --doncram (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • ephors are referred to as "who" and "which".... should be consistent.
  • they (ephors) were sworn to uphold the rule of Sparta's kings...shouldn't it be had sworn?
  • In 226 BC, the citizens of Mantinea appealed to Cleomenes to expel the Achaean garrison from the city. One night, he and his troops crept into the city and removed the Achaean garrison before marching off to Tegea..... This could be either more detailed, or more succinct. In 226 BC, responding to a request from the citizens of Mantinea, Cleomenes and his troops crept into the city and removed the Achaean garrison (how did they do that?). Before marching off to Tegea? Is that relevant to Mantinea? This whole thing is a tad confusing.
    • Unfortunately many of the smaller details of the campaign are scimmed over and we do not have sufficient evidence as to what happened. This is the case witht he capture of Mantinea. I add that the city of Tegea is close by. Kyriakos (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • why does coughing up blood force a return to Sparta?
  • general prose comment. Sentences like this: Antigonus proceeded to capture Mantinea... Why not Antigonus captured Mantinea... ? This is a question throughout. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose looks OK. Greek Phalanx image: if it's not a photograph, it would be nice to know that it's a ?painting, or a graphic representation, or something. Looks like a still from a TV animation. I suppose we don't know who did it ... Tony (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:23, 24 April 2010 [24].

Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden) edit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short article about a small c 1460 Netherlandish painting. Helpful peer review here, and thanks to Steve for a thorough copyedit. Ceoil (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 11:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: Use {7{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} to indicate PD-100 copyright: applicable almost to all images.
  • It is unclear if "Detail showing the woman's tightly crossed fingers and red belt" is the "Portrait of a Woman" crop or not. State explicitly
  • Image has been replaced. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FU rational added. Its one FU image, and discussed, so I am comfortable. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the fair use is valid. Without this image too, the article is as encyclopaedic as it is now. Just move the radiograph info to prose and remove the image. I suppose "Infra-red reflectography reveals..." talks about findings similar to the 1937 radiograph. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged an img description in gallery. How is the particular influenced by the Portrait of a Woman or Van der Weyden needs a ref.
  • Use {{Infobox Painting}}.
  • If Memling was also influenced by the Portrait of a Woman, it needs to be also noted in the prose (not only in a caption). --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the detailed look t the images, though I'm not sure your last point is necessary. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crossed out some. Added comments about fair use image. Two more things:
  • Was Memling specifically influenced by the article subject? If so, it needs to in the prose too.
  • Memling was a pupil of van der Weyden, now mentioned in the text. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any more scientific examinations besides the 1937 radiograph? --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that section comes from the holding gallery. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As usual, excellent product from the workshop of Ceoil (so there's no confusion about my sudden appearance here, I frequently contribute to visual arts topics, per recent DYK postings at my talk page [25]). Just a couple of thoughts on the description:
  • From the lede, Its vivid contrasts of light and shade enhance the almost unnatural beauty and Gothic elegance of the model is at odds with the subsequent and accurate description The woman's head is evenly lit, leaving no strong tonal contrasts on her skin. It's not contrasts of light and shade, but contrasts of light and dark shapes.
  • Reworded as vivid contrasts of darkness and light. Ceoil (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also from lede, The composition is built from a series of geometric shapes created by angles of light pouring from the top right of the picture--does this derive from a source?, because it appears that the diffused light is coming strongly from neither left nor right, but rather from the front and slightly above. If the light source was clearly from the upper right, modeling of forms would be more obvious, the left side of her face (her anatomical right) would not be so fully illuminated (per [26] or [27]), and her headdress on that side would receive some cast shadow. (since writing the preceding, I've referred to a larger reproduction, and can more easily see that the forehead appears to be lit--subtly--from the right. There's not much angle though, and there are discrepancies, including the hands, which appear to be lit from the left. Well, that's quite enough about that, eh.) JNW (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder, too, about the source of The woman's left ear is set unnaturally high and far back, parallel to her eyes rather than to her nose; the position of her ear is consistent with other portraits on the page, and indicates the perspective of the head, tipped down slightly.
  • This is what the source says, though within a discussion of how Rogier sometimes empolyed painterly distortions. Perhalps it was a device also used by Campin (his tutor) and Memling (his pupil)? Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's what the source says, it stays in. JNW (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have attributed specifically to Schneider. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I'd also suggest nominating both Ceoil's and Riggr Mortis' talk pages for FA review. Wonderful reading and profoundly instructive. JNW (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JNW for you usual insightful comments. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: This is a beautiful article. I haven't finished reading it yet, but wondered whether in this sentence: ( instead, like Van Eyck, here he uses the dark plain to concentrate the woman's face and quiet self-possession.) plain is a misspelling of plane? If not the sentence is a bit awkward. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<cough>, yes your first guess is right. Thanks for the other edits Truthkeeper. Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And one more question: does the source mention whether the woman plucked or shaved her hairline as was common during that period? Otherwise, wonderfully done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption seems to be, from the source, that they are plucked; I suppose given the lack of stubble that shaving might entail. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious. Always wondered how those women achieved that look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the sources - and indirect personal experience - plucked. Also through the high pinned forehead (raises the eyebrows). Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Surprisingly informative and interesting for such a focused article. My one question concerns the red ink - on the Christus portrait - Portrait of a Female Donor, why highlight it and link it now? Otherwise well done...Modernist (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red link removed for your pleasure. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer - She looks like one of my old teachers...but I didn't hold that against my VA project cohort Ceoil when I said support...Modernist (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I enjoyed reviewing this at peer review, since when it has further attention which has made it even better. One thing that drew me in was that the "lady" in question bears a strong resemblance to a former girlfriend of mine—though that does not influence my decision to support, I hasten to say. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was recruited to give this a bit of a copy-edit last month; though I'm no expert, at that point it didn't seem quite finished, content-wise. I've watched the changes since then, and it's a lot more rounded now, with an added layer of detail and better image choices adding to the more professional aspect. This is nice work. Steve T • C 07:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:23, 24 April 2010 [28].

Coprinellus micaceus edit

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Coprinellus micaceus is a very common edible mushroom worldwide, and depicted in most field guides. I created the stub a year ago tomorrow, and thought I'd celebrate its birthday with an FAC. I've been working on the article for some time, and believe it now meets the required standards. I look forward to hearing suggestions for further improvement. (This is a Wikicup nomination for me) Sasata (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I Would Return The Favor
  • "The caps are marked with fine radial grooves that extend nearly to the center, and in young specimens especially, the surface is covered with glistening particles that are the inspiration for both the mushroom's species name as well as the common names mica cap, shiny cap, and glistening inky cap."--This sentence is a little wordy, perhaps it could be split up (or at least a colon can be placed after "common names").
    • I've reworded this a bit and split it up into two sentences. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you already know this, but a "botanist" studies plants. I feel it would be best to include a disclamer in the "History and Taxonomy" section that explains this.
    • Fungi were thought to be plants until about a century or so ago, and "mycologists" of the "old days" were called botanists. I think it's ok as it stands, but will wait and see if anyone else comments about it. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[...] finally it flattens somewhat, becoming convex. When finally expanded [...]."--repetive (I know it's minor, but I really couldn't find much else wrong!).
  • Corynebacterium xerosis, Coprinus radians, and Coprinus quadrifidus are dead links.
    • Actually, they're redlinks, which are ok. But I don't much like redlinks either, so they'll be gone soon. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the picture under the "Microscopic characteristics" subsection of the same species (or subspecies)?
    • It's probably the same species, or a very closely related species that matches the spore description. In the original description at Mushroom Observer, the uploader wasn't completely sure they were C. micaceus due to what he believed were inconsistencies in the physical attributes of his specimen and descriptions of the species he found from his sources. In any case, the spores are a match to C. micaceus. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the whole thing, but I intend to. Hope this helps!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every little bit helps make the article better. Thanks for your comments so far. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Happy Wikibirthday C. micaceus. You have no dab links and no dead external links. Ucucha 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, your reasonings are sound. I feel comfortable with the red links, spore picture, and use of "botanist" as long as it is in reference to an older belief (i.e. I wouldn't refer to a current mycologist as a botanist).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several More Concerns

  • The phrase "they appear more almond- or spindle-shaped" in the Microscopic characteristics seems to contain one or more dash malfunctions.
  • This is actually a case of a hanging hyphen, used when two compound adjectives are separated (see here for gory details of hyphen usage). But reading this guideline again, it seems that the Wikipedia MOS prefers the repetitive double use, so I've changed it to "... more almond-shaped or spindle-shaped". Sasata (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way to link to the Micrometre page, for the metrically-challenged among us (I feel a grasp of the measurement is critical to understanding the Microscopic characteristics subsection).
  • Good catch. I usually link this at first usage, but missed it here. Sasata (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Similar Species) "[...] almost indistinguishable from C. micaceus in the field; microscopy is need to tell the difference [...]"--needed?
  • (Ecology, habitat and distribution) "[...] have been introduced relatively recently and have not yet had much time to develop genetic variation. [...]"--have not had enough time to?
Beyond this, I loved the article, well written, well researched, and plenty of images. I foresee no problems for this article in achieving FA.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I hope that's "no problems" rather than "two problems" :) (p.s. I took the liberty of converting your level 2 heading into bold; heading usage is discouraged at FAC) Sasata (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, right...You're very welcome.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Issues addressed. Ucucha 04:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Informative and complete as usual. Ucucha 14:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Some points:[reply]

  • Is there a translation of Clusius's title? I would translate it as "History of rare plants. Brief history of fungi observed in Pannonia [Hungary].", but if a source gives a translation that would be better.
  • I hunted around for an English translation, but came up short-handed. I have inserted your translation. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each thecae contained four series of spores"—wouldn't the singular be theca?
  • Latin is not my strong point. Changed. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Buller thought that were formed in plates"—what were formed?
  • "after a dewy knight."—nice touch. I think nights are more usually dewy than knights are.
  • Add South Africa to places where it's been collected.
  • Category Fungi of Chile; article does not mention this.
  • Don't you want one for South America in general, though? Ucucha 17:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images look good.
  • What makes Kees Ulje's site a reliable source?
  • He was well-known as an authority on coprinoid fungi. There's an endorsement here, and I think I can find a similar statement from the academic literature if you prefer. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would generally be preferable, though I think your link is good enough to consider Ulje reliable. Ucucha 17:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • His obituary article in the journal Persoonia (2003) 18:151-52 also gives testament to his knowledge of and contributions to our knowledge of coprinoid fungi. Although the Kees Uljé Coprinus site is equivalent to a self-published site, he seems to meet the exception described in WP:V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Sasata (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something seems to be wrong with the Web of Knowledge site, will come back to check later.
Title: Diversity and significance of fungal endophytes from living stems of naturalized trees from Argentina
Author(s): de Errasti, A; Carmaran, CC; Novas, MV
Source: FUNGAL DIVERSITY Volume: 41 Issue: 1 Pages: 29-40 Published: 2010
  • First record as an endophyte.
  • An endophyte lifestyle is a new ecological paradigm for coprinoid fungi, so its worth a mention, but I'll leave out details until others report similar results. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Comparative study of lectin activity of higher Basidiomycetes
Author(s): Mikiashvili, Nona; Elisashvili, Vladimir; Wasser, Solomon P., et al.
Source: International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms Volume: 8 Issue: 1 Pages: 31-38 Published: 2006
  • I thought about it, but couldn't imagine lectin activity being inhibited by lactose to be of general interest. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Investigation of the antioxidant activity of some basidial macromycetes.
Author(s): Badalyan, S. M.; Gasparyan, A. V.; Garibyan, N. G.
Source: Mikologiya i Fitopatologiya Volume: 37 Issue: 5 Pages: 63-68 Published: 2003
  • Antioxidant activity was tested, but was not particularly notable for this species, so I left it out. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Variable pressure scanning electron microscopy (VPSEM) investigations in mycology: Gill surfaces micromorphology
Author(s): Quaroni, S.; Saracchi, M.
Source: Micologia Italiana Volume: 30 Issue: 2 Pages: 23-35 Published: August 2001
  • It's a cool-sounding technique, but I can't read Italian, and the abstract doesn't give much. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Notes on the lesser dung flies emerged from fungi in Japan (Diptera, Sphaeroceridae)
Author(s): Hayashi, Toshihiko; Tuno, Nobuko
Source: Medical Entomology and Zoology Volume: 49 Issue: 4 Pages: 357-359 Published: Dec., 1998
  • I can't access this paper, but I think I've already got the "fungi as fly food" aspect covered sufficiently with other sources. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 00:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - An interesting, well-written and informative article. Serves as a guide for both laymen like myself and experts interested in the more technical details. Only two comments:
  • One source notes it to be ideal for omelettes, another recommends it as a flavor for sauces, while another describes it as "a very delicate species easily spoiled by overcooking". - Is there another way to word this to avoid the "one source"-WP:WEASEL-type phrases?
Sure, reworded. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2003 study failed to find any antibacterial activity in this species. - This could imply that the species does possess such activity, but the study simply failed to find it (even though I know it doesn't). Would you be okay with changing it to "did not find any"? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's better, changed. Thanks for reading (& the support) Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Absolutely well-written and, as far as I am concerned, error-free. I struggled to find the few small things that I was able to find.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Jim, I fixed the edibility in the mycobox. In the mushroom world, if it doesn't make you sick and approximates the taste of food, it's "edible". If some people think it tastes good, it's "choice"! Sasata (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fruit bodies of the saprobic fungus typically grow in clusters on or near rotting hardwood tree stumps or underground tree roots. - having 'fungus' again in 2nd sentence jars a little after first sentence, but not sure how it can be removed.
Changed saprobic fungus to saprobe. Sasata (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A similar sentiment has been raised about North American species - hmm, I tend to associate sentiment with an emotional state - maybe observation or hypothesis or some other emotionally neutral word is better.
Changed it to "inference". Sasata (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:48, 22 April 2010 [29].

Blackbeard edit

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Everyone has heard of the archetypal pirate Blackbeard. How many of you have heard that he was killed on the orders of the Governor of Virginia, who was acting unlawfully? And how many of you knew that Blackbeard (as far as we know) never injured or killed any of those he held captive? There's probably a little more to be said of the modern image of the man, but hopefully you'll find this article entertaining and informative enough. Parrot of Doom 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Fixed two dab links; no dead externals. There's no alt text, but WP:ALT is no longer an FA requirement or a guideline (for now at least), so... --an odd name 20:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and Comments from Esuzu - Looks interesting, yarr! I'll try to find as many problems (if there are any) as I can during the next days. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC) A great article which I think live up to all of the FA criteria. For me there is no reason this article shouldn't become a FA! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "After successfully ransoming the port's inhabitants, he ran his ship aground and with a small crew accepted a royal pardon." this sentence in the lead looks wrong to me.
    Removed "with a small crew". Parrot of Doom 22:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "and thus born in about 1680" also sound a bit weird. Perhaps change to "and thus born in c. 1680" or something similar? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the wording as it is. Circa is ok for abbreviations, but its a synonym for "about" anyway. Parrot of Doom 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "The two captains spent several nights on the southern tip of Ocracoke Island, accompanied by such celebrities as Israel Hands, Robert Deal, and Calico Jack." although not wrong, celebrities could perhaps be rephrased? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I'd agree, however, the word "celebrity" is the same word used by the source, and I think it therefore appropriate to use. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, then it does make it more appropriate. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images comments I refuse to believe parts of this article that make pirates less cool in my mind. Anyhow, some minor issues:
  • Comments Support - This is a nice article and not too far from featured standard. I have left a list of problems below that need to be addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work so far, although a few comments still outstanding.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I am now ready to support this fine article in its FAC. Great work, well done!--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other historians have suggested that his surname was Drummond, but the lack of any supporting documentation makes this unlikely." - who and why?
  • Unknown, the sources don't speculate beyond "early claim". I've changed to "One early claim was that..." Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 17th-century rise of England's American colonies" - in what way did they "rise"?
Establishment, expansion, etc. I used that word to avoid repetition with "expansion" in the following "slave trade" phrase.
I think it could be more clearly expressed, but it is no longer a condition of my support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He may therefore have been born into a respectable, wealthy family.[5] He may have arrived in the Caribbean in the last years of the 17th century, on a merchant vessel (possibly a slave ship)." - who posits these theories?
The sources provided, but they only summarise, they don't go into detail. Most of this is speculation and guesswork on the part of all authors. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be clearer if you named the sources as you do further down the article, given that this seems to be little more than speculation by the authors.
Ok, how about this? I'm reasonably sure that Lee is now dead, as I found a 1996 magazine entry about Blackbeard which mentioned that at the time he was in his 80s and in failing health. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better (and don't worry about the tense, even if he is alive the speculation was still in the past).--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The West Indies was the setting for a great many maritime incidents during the 17th and 18th centuries" - this is very vague. Since the rest of the section discusses pirates, then perhaps relate this sentance to that topic more directly.
  • I'm not sure that this would be entirely appropriate. There is, as the article says, a great deal of history. There's far too much piratical activity to expand upon, and I think a general "piracy in the west indies" article would be more suited to this. There isn't just piracy either; shipwrecks, war, etc. Really the sentence just sets up for the reader the idea that the shipping in the West Indies was a pretty busy at that time, and that it wasn't some "newly-discovered backwater".
I understand the point now that you have explained it, but I didn't from the article and I still think it is vague. Perhaps "The West Indies was an important maritime centre during . . ." or similar?
I've added this line. Note - this addition isn't given an explicit reference, but certainly the piratical aspect is covered in the same paragraph, as is the busy shipping lanes in the area. I don't think its objectionable that the area had a history of colonialism. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No dispute from me, that reads much better--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The island then was not the popular tourist destination it is now" - "it is now" dates the text, perhaps use "it later became" instead.
  • "may at this time have been struggling to control their crews, as on 29 September near Cape Charles all they took from the Betty of Virginia was her cargo of Madeira wine, before they scuttled her with the remaining nonpotable cargo" - "Crews" should probably be singular. There is also a logical link missing here - why does this indicate that the crew eere out of control (maybe they just didn't have room for the less valuable cargo)?
  • Each ship had its own captain, regardless of who had overall command, so crews is more suitable. Again what exactly was happening is vague, but it seems as though Hornigold had by then left, and Teach was left with two ships. The implication with the Betty is that the crews took only the wine, to get drunk, and ignored everything else that couldn't be poured down their gullets. Would a footnote suffice? Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote would probably help here as I don't think the article is clear on this point at the moment. I hadn't realised that the quartermaster was on a different ship - did I miss something explaining this earlier?--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll have to be vague here. Nobody really knows exactly when Hornigold parted company. Its all guesswork and speculation, which is why I gave him his own paragraph to leave in. He may have been present, he may not - William Howard may have been commander, or he may not. I've therefore added a note, but haven't cited it - Konstam is the more detailed source on these matters, but again he's speculating (whereas Lee tends to follow Charles Johnson's account a little too closely sometimes). An explicit citation would probably need a while for me to conjure up. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote helps a bit, but I'm still not sure where the logical link lies between the crew being out of control and the cargo being burnt. Is there anything you can do to make this clearer?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The implication here is that they just wanted to get pissed, and sod everything and everyone else :) This is in the source. Parrot of Doom 21:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The boat was quickly stopped" - Its too big to be a boat, "vessel" would be a better term here.
  • "The offer was open to all pirates who surrendered on or before" - what offer? This is the first time it is mentioned in this section and needs to be explained.
  • Offer of a royal pardon - sorted this out, thanks. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Konstam (2007) proposes a similar idea" - No need for the date, and give Konstam's full name a a brief introduction (i.e. "Historian Angus Konstam says")
  • This is just a style thing for me, Konstam has written several books about piracy and I think its easier for the reader to know the year his claims were made. For example, Johnson's claims were made in 1724 - that's a big disparity. Konstam is, however, already mentioned in full on the first instance. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I leave it up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accompanied by such celebrities as" - better phrased as "accompanied by such celebrated pirates as"
  • Celebrity/celebrities is the word used in the source, and I think its appropriate to stick with it. Normally I'd agree with you though. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As before, I leave this to you and it won't affect my support, but maybe you can incorporate it in a quote instead - it looks odd to me as it is.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "notorious figures". Parrot of Doom 21:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found in Tobias Knight's barn, for £2,238." - Can you use the converter to give this figure in 2010 values as well?
  • I did think about this but I've used the calculator on a few FACs in the past, and its always raised objections. There are several methods of calculating value over time and I'm not expert enough to know which is best. The differences can be significant. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything there that dissuades me against it, but its not vital for my support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "came from the king" - When a specific king is referred to (in this case George I), then the word king is a proper noun and should be capitalised.
  • "Lee (1974) concludes" - As before, no need for the date and give the full name - this appears again further down the page.
  • "was finally replaced once" - by whom?
  • Are "tutelary saints" in anyway related to "Tutelary deity"? If so, then link them.
  • I'm not convinced that the Tutelary deity article is sufficient enough to give the reader any understanding of the phrase, at the moment if a reader clicked on that, they might presume that some thought that pirates were Gods. Tutelary saints are more akin to patrons than Gods. I wonder if Patron saint would be better? Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, because I'm not certain in exactly what sense the article is using it - I'd not heard the term before and thought a link might make it clearer. If you think patron saints is better then go for it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, think of the way that the undertaker from The Godfather might have thought of Vito Corleone. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get it now (nice analogy), I just think a link here would explain it more immediately.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to patron. Its a bit less colourful and probably more to the point. Parrot of Doom 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an estimated five times what Teach did" - not very encyclopedic, try "an estimated five times the amount that Teach did"
  • Done, although slightly differently to your suggestion. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Various stories of Teach's ghost exist, spread by the credulous" - I don't believe in ghosts either, but there is no need to be condescending, can you rephrase this?
  • There was a fair bit of piss-taking in the 18th century regarding the credulous (mostly the Methodists). I think given the time frame here, the word is appropriate. After all, we're not talking so much of people who think that ghosts exist, more of people who think that a headless corpse was capable of doing a few laps of a boat, looking for its head. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(editconflict) Perhaps this can be incorporated into a quote and slightly expanded? Some of the information you mention in your reply does not appear in the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did think about adding the swimming around the boat bit, but it isn't that important a part of the story (although I'd not object to including it). There are other legends, his skull becoming a chalice, his supposed house, buried treasure, hauntings, ghostly lights, etc. I thought the important aspect of the story was his exploits, and his effect on the local area - he was a very big pain in the backside for many governors in British America. I'm happy with "credulous" as a description of folk who believe in such things. Have a look at some of William Hogarth's artistic commentaries on credulity, such as Cock Lane ghost or Mary Toft. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with this as an unexplained term: it would appear much better as part of a quote - who said the word originally?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lee, p174. Its already cited. Check out the OED entry for credulity - "Belief, faith, credence; the quality of being a believer; readiness to believe. Obs.", "Over-readiness to believe; disposition to believe on weak or insufficient grounds." I think its entirely correct to separate fact from fiction, and credulity is the perfect word, especially given popular beliefs at that time. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for a citation, but for a quote so that you can include the word without it looking unencyclopedic. Although I am not particularly happy with this remaining as it is, I think on balance I won't let it get in the way of my support at this time if you feel so strongly about it. I would recommend you think about alternatives however.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about this? Parrot of Doom 21:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an improvement. Good job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Jackyd101 here. If it can be rephrased it should. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What an excellent article. I read this is dribs and drabs over the weekend, then fully again today. Interesting, surprising and clearly-written. What more could we ask for? (Apart from a separate cultural influence sec ... sorry, I don't know what came over me.) I tweaked some stuff, but nothing major. I suppose I should complain about something, so ... you've made some interesting comma choices, but I guess that's your preference. Maybe have a look through so at least they're consistent (e.g. sometimes you use it after "In/On [date]," sometimes you don't). There are a few redundant phrases, and howevers and thoughs that don't seem strictly necessary. But screw it, none of that takes away from the nice work here. All the best, Steve T • C 13:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I almost exploded in a puff of feathers when I read the "Cultural influences" bit... :) I'm happy with your edits, they make sense to me. As for commas I tend not to follow any particular rules, I read things to myself and see how they sound. Sometimes a breath or two is needed after a long section, I think. Parrot of Doom 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read this article last night, its very fascinating. I do have just a couple comments though.

  • "Maynard later examined Teach's body, and noted that he had been shot no fewer than five times, and had about twenty severe cuts on his body." - this should probably have a citation after it. (No doubt the one at the end of the paragraph)
  • The same citation covers the entire paragraph, it'd just be two citations that link to the same place, a bit scruffy I think. Parrot of Doom 15:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Incensed, Holloway had no option but to stand down, and was replaced by the Attorney General of Virginia, John Clayton, who Spotswood described as "an honester man [than Holloway]". " - quote without a citation
  • "Privateers who became pirates were generally considered by the English government to be reserve forces..." Perhaps to be more clear say "Privateers who became pirates were generally considered by the English government to be reserve naval forces".
  • Ref #34 & 115 needs an accessdate

Great job on this article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nice article with nice images. I think the caption for the image of the head hanging from the bowsprit needs punctuation (a full stop?). If not, please disregard. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing punctuation is required only when the caption us a full sentence ("Teach's flag depicted a skeleton spearing a heart, while toasting the devil. Flying such a flag was designed to intimidate one's enemies.") No period if it isn't ("Capture of the Pirate, Blackbeard, 1718, Jean Leon Gerome Ferris"). The caption for the severed head is one of the latter, IMO. Steve T • C 07:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:48, 22 April 2010 [30].

On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away edit

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Take two: Better copy edited and more comprehensive than at its last review, I believe this article definitely meets the FAC criteria. A popular 19th century song that marked a watershed moment in musical history, this article presents some interesting information! It failed to pass the last review primarily due to lack of reviews. If you would be so kind as to review the article, I'd be glad to return the favor and review an article for you. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No dab links. No broken links. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Am disappointed when articles on pieces of music make no mention of key, time signature, chord progressions, etc. Is it in a major key? Presumably, but there is no indication. Is there a repeated chord progression or two that the piece is built around, and which you could offer to the reader as "C–F–G" or "I–IV–V" etc? Far from being trivia, it helps the reader imagine what this music might sound like. Thanks, Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do have this information in my source, and can add it to the article. I also have the sheet music, but am unsure how best to add that. I couldn't find an example in any of the current featured articles, probably because sheet music out on most of our songs is a copyright violation. Old Dan Tucker seemed the best example I could find, as it also nineteenth century and public domain. I hoped having the recordings of this song would help. Personally, I think it is difficult at best to convey musical sound in prose, sheet music being the best option short of a recording of the music. I will scan a copy of the sheet music to add. I will also add a line concerning the key and chord progession as well. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that. I don't think the article should depend on audio since in principle Wikipedia is consumed in a variety of formats. (Might you consider uploading all the sheet music since it's PD, and using a commons template to link to it?) Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • One other comment. I don't follow "Although the melody connecting the verses together is unique within the piece, it provides continuous unity with the verses". The melody is "unique within the piece", relative to what? Each verse uses a slightly different melody but the melody provides continuity among the verses? Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments: I don't know much about music, but this article appears to be in very good shape. I do, however, have some concerns:
"Dresser joined with other prominent composers to seek a change in copyright laws to protect the reproduction of their work through recording and submitting a petition to the United States Congress in 1902"
Somewhat awkward phrasing, or the wrong tense on one word. Readers could be led to believe that the composers "recorded and submitted" their petition on a wax cylinder. I assume they didn't do this. This is probably a problem with tense: "Dresser joined"... "and submitted".
"Dresser officially dedicated the song to fourteen-year-old Mary South, a native of Terre Haute and likely inspiration for the Mary mentioned in the song."
I suggest "likely the inspiration"
"By the end of 1898, nearly one million copies of sheet music had been sold, taking Dresser to a high level of fame."
Seems somewhat awkward; I suggest "making Dresser famous."
The article states that Dresser made $100,000 on compositions, much of it based on this song. This is likely the equivalent of $1,000,000 or more today. But the article also states that Dresser died penniless. Although a thorough discussion of how that happened belongs on Dresser's article, the curious reader (or one of them, at least) wonders how he became penniless like that.
More later. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed each of these. He spent very liberally at brothels and saloons, but even more taxing on his wealth, he gave away large sums of money to friends and family. The whole house of cards fell in on him when Howley Haviland and Co went bankrupt in 1905. He gave up on living, pretty much, and died a couple months later. (There are details regarding this on his article, which I also authored. Its still a work in progress.) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SEEALSO, "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section". Wabash River and List of U.S. state songs are both already linked in the main text. Their use in the See also section is superfluous.
In Sources, "Henderson, Clayton W' should have a period after the initial. Easily remedied.
Images appear to check out:
File:On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away, sheet music cover with Bessie Davis, Paul Dresser, 1897.jpg is in the public domain.
File:Paul Dresser, 1897.jpg is in the public domain (nice work on the sharpening, BTW)
File:Wabash River Fairbanks Park downstream.JPG is attribution required.
File:On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away, chorus sheet music.jpg is in the public domain.
File:Theodore Dreiser.jpg is in the public domain (and not cropped, per the previous copyright holder's request).
More later. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected those items too. Thanks! At one point the cite templates stopped putting periods automatically, I forgot about that. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed; I can find nothing else to nitpick. The article is well-written, the images are correctly licensed, and the sources and citation format look good. Charles has written compellingly. Importantly (for me) the subject of the article is encyclopedia-worthy. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "The now more widely known 1917 song Back Home Again in Indiana...". There is a strong time-sensitive element in here with "now"; any time something like this is included in an article, there's always a risk it could become outdated. Would it harm the meaning if it was removed?
    • I've rephrased this. It is noteworthy that the song has almost completely supplanted Dresser's song in public use. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for two links to Chicago in the Composition and popularity section.
    • Fixed
  • The link to Tommy White goes to a soccer player who isn't the intended target.
    • Fixed
  • The end of Controversies has reference 1 used twice in a single string. I would think that only the first would be needed.
    • Fixed
  • State song: "On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away was adopted as the official state song by the Indiana General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Winfield T. Durbin". Was the song itself signed into law, or was it a bill of some sorts?
    • A bill which contained the lyrics of the song, clarified
  • "One of the leading causes of state song's fall into obscurity...". Missing a "the" in there.
    • Fixed
  • Adaptations: "The lyrics consisted of a verse lamenting the the dead...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T Hanks, I think I've fixed each of these. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportLeaning to support: Lovely article; but can you look at this one sentence: "Dresser later began traveling as part of performing acts and composing his own music." Doesn't seem properly phrased. What were these "performing acts"? Was he a member of a troupe, and was composing his music part of the acts? Needs some rephrasing for clarity. Apart from a few minor fixes which I can do myself, I see no reason to withhold support once this troublesome sentence is sorted out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have clarified. Thanks. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, now, so full support. The 1902 recording is a gem. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! It was quite a find. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very interesting read, on a song I've heard but never really thought about. Nice work. Comments. Leaning support; I have a few nitpicks and questions, but nothing that causes me to want to oppose its promotion. EDIT: Consider all nits picked. Steve T • C 14:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Linking could be better. I don't think there's any need to link to United States; a better option would be to link the entire phrase United States copyright law, perhaps with an anchor to an appropriate section of that article (if there is such a section). I'd also question the need to link common terms such as plagiarism and ballad.
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ... life near Dresser's childhood home by the Wabash River in Indiana. It remained popular for decades and the Indiana General Assembly adopted it as the official state song of Indiana on March 14, 1913."—the repetition of "Indiana" three times so close together jars a little. Perhaps you could lose that final "of Indiana"? By that point, it should be implicit.
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1928 film"—should be 1923; perhaps a link would also be appropriate.
Your right, I typoed the date; it was correct in the body. Good catch. Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was among the earliest pieces of popular music to be recorded, and Dresser's inability to control the distribution of phonograph cylinders led him and other music companies to petition the United States Congress to expand federal copyright protections over the new technology."—this seems a little long. Is there an appropriate place to split? A semi-colon or period before "Dresser's" might be a good choice. Also, Dresser wasn't a company, so saying "Dresser and other music companies" sounds dead weird.
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Composition and popularity
  • "spring ... summer"—think of the children! Sorry, I mean the Australians (and other southern hemisphere readers). Can this be made clearer?
I had thought of that before actually, but couldn't think of another way to say it concisely. The exact months are not said in the sources, just the seasons, which is why I had worded it like I did. The only thing for certain is that he published it in October. Take a look and see what you think now. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MoS, ellipsis points are spaced either side, with a non-breaking space, e.g. "France, Germany&nbsp;... and Belgium but not the USSR."
Fixed (I think) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrics and analysis
  • "While the narrative of the verses are connected"—narratives? I'm not sure of the solution, but the original definitely doesn't work.
See what you think now —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anything more known about real-life inspiration for the "lost love", Mary? Did she actually die, or was she a "lost love" in the more traditional sense? It's a little ambiguous.
Yes there is a bit more on her. Her and Dresser actually never met before the song was composed (he was a friend of her father), but she and he were pen pals, of a sort. She had sent him her photo which he kept on his desk. There was no true romance between them, he just used her name. Dresser's only known long-term relationship was with a Evansville Indiana (not sure of the polite term) prostitute. But they had a falling out about a decade before this song was wrote. Perhaps I should change it to say, the "inspiration for the name", as opposed than the way it reads now implying she is the inspiration for the character. I have changed that. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really! Mandolin I figured was somewhat obscure and deserved a link, and then felt obliged to link the others as well. I've removed the rest now. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)
Controversies
  • I dislike "controversy" and similar as a section title; it's a little sensationalist, and too vague an identifier for the section's content. Perhaps something more descriptive, such as "Disputed authorship and copyright"? Actually, that's a rubbish suggestion, but you get the idea.
I had thought of this as well, but could never think of a good title. See what you think now. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice. Steve T • C
  • "His music copyrights were poorly managed after the bankruptcy of Haviland & Dresser Co."—perhaps "after Haviland & Dresser Co. went bankrupt"? The way it's worded makes it sound like the bankruptcy is something that's already been introduced.
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptations
  • "Spanish-American War"—should use an en dash.
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also
  • List of Indiana state symbols is already used as a link in "State song", so per the see also guideline isn't really needed here. I don't know what removing the section will do to the two portal links, but even now one of them encroaches on the notes section.
I've removed the see also section; not sure were else to put the portals, so removed them too.
I tried them in the external links section with the other navigation templates; they seem to fit OK, but see what you think. Steve T • C
Other
  • I see you've used Gitelman, but is there anything helpful in the sources you haven’t used from Awadewit's list? Some of them seemed promising (see previous FAC).
  • The rest of the prose seems largely fine, apart from the above nitpicks and a little redundancy here and there; it might be worth your giving it one more pass with that in mind. Otherwise, nice work. Steve T • C 09:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gitelman was mostly concerning Wabash's impact on the overall issue of being unable to control phonograph recordings under copyright law. That is noted in the article. The others on the list talk about the song more in passing, and I find the other sources used talk about the same things, but go in more depth, so I stuck with them in the article.
All points struck. Supported way up at the top. Steve T • C 14:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I addressed the concerns above, and will give the article a re-read and try to clear out any redundancy. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:34, 21 April 2010 [31].

Eremoryzomys edit

Nominator(s): Ucucha 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Like Mindomys, this is a poorly known but genetically isolated rice rat, from Peru this time. In fact, we know even less about this species (if it is one species) than about Mindomys; taken together, only five pages or so have ever been written about it, and as far as I know, only one picture (of a detail of the skull) has ever been published of it. This article summarizes what little information there is and I hope it does it in a clear and accessible way. Ucucha 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There is only one species (Eremoryzomys polius) right? If that isn't the case the sentence "A large, long-tailed rice rat, Eremoryzomys polius has gray fur and short ears." in the lead feels awkward to me.
    Yes, only one. Why is that awkward? I don't see it.
    Oh, missed a part in the sentence there should have been "If that is the isn't case the sentence "A large, long-tailed rice rat, Eremoryzomys polius has gray fur and short ears." in the lead feels awkward to me." Thus it is no problem. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikilink IUCN perhaps? Or just use the whole name.
    Linked. I prefer to use the abbreviation, because it's far more prevalent in the sources.
    Yes, you're more likely to hear or see the abbreviation so it probably better to use that one as you say.
  3. There is a lot of red links, especially in the skull section. For me personally that does not look good. Is all of them future articles or could some be delinked? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I believe all merit articles. I don't think the reader's understanding of the article is affected by the red links, but I am working slowly on making them blue (there are five or so other links in that section for which I wrote the article over the last few months). Thanks for your comments! Ucucha 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Me neither but I believe many just add red links without thinking if they will one day become an article. You obviously do that and thus it will not be a problem. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is the "<" and ">" supposed to be there in <www.iucnredlist.org> in the Pacheco et al book? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's intentional. It's the way the IUCN wants us to cite them. Ucucha 21:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Esuzu - This article fulfils all of the FA criteria. I believe it is as extensive as possible during the circumstances. It's a shame there isn't a image of the rat but unfortunately we'll have to survive without it. Good job! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ucucha 11:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I might have omitted the technical term "rostrum" in the lead, but that's just my preference Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did that because "front part", the non-technical term I use to translate "rostrum", is vague, whereas "rostrum" is well-defined, so this makes the wording more precise. Ucucha 11:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - why is there no picture of the subject? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my nomination statement. No free images are available. Ucucha 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who published it? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weksler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 296:fig. 20D. That image is of a small part of the skull only, though, and it wouldn't be of much use even in the unlikely case that the AMNH would release it. Ucucha 21:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that all seems in order FAC3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I couldn't find much to nitpick about. Here are a few comments: Sasata (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…in the dry upper valley of the Río Marañón" since we're speaking English, shouldn't it be the Marañón River (like the Wiki article is titled?) Why not tell the reader it's in Peru?
    • Thanks for the review. Weksler et al. and Musser and Carleton used the "Río" form, but I agree that "River" is marginally better. Good point about Peru; forgot to mention that in the lead.
  • "but may yet contain more than one species." is the word "yet" necessary?
    • It emphasizes that even though its distribution is so small, there may still be more than one species.
  • link Habitat destruction in lead?
    • Yes.
  • "… he was unable to find any species <that was> closely related to O. polius …" better?
    • Yes.
  • "The fur is grayish above and lighter below; there, the hairs are gray at the bases but white at the tips." Not clear to what the "there" refers: is is the hair above or below?
    • Clarified.
  • "A strong jugal bone is present" in what way is it "strong"?
    • The source says "jugal present and large". This means that the bones that make up the front (maxillary) and back (squamosal) parts of the zygomatic arch don't overlap when seen from the side, as they do in most oryzomyines. Interestingly, I now notice that Weksler (2006) scored Eremoryzomys as having a small jugal, with overlapping maxillary and squamosal bones. I am inclined to favor Weksler et al.'s (2006) later and more detailed information, but will put the discrepancy in a footnote. Ucucha 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. So far, the prose is quite good, but I have found a few issues: The WP:LEAD of this article is only eight sentence long, one of which is only four words long. Please add to the lead.

Extended.
Thanks for extending the lead.

"Clade D was supported by two shared derived (synapomorphic) molecular characters and by seven morphological synapomorphies—the tail has a different color above and below; the parietal bone extends to the side of the skull; the incisive foramina (openings in the palate) extend back between the first molars; the posterolateral palatal pits (perforations of the palate near the third molars) are complex; the sphenopalatine vacuities (openings in the mesopterygoid fossa, the gap behind the end of the palate) are large; the pattern of the arterial circulation in the head is derived; and the posteroloph (a crest at the back) is present on the third upper molar."

This 105-word sentence is far too long for the average reader to parse. The sentence which directly follows it:
Rather than just counting the number of words between two periods, please consider the sentence structure in these cases, which I think is such that the length is not problematic. Ucucha 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started counting because, as a reader, I began to wonder when the sentence would end. I understand that the first part of the sentence briefly discusses shared characteristics, and that the second part of the sentence is a list of the seven morphological synapomorphies, but do not agree that both subjects need to be welded together in a mega-sentence. These are called "snakes", and should be cut up when possible. It is possible here. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would the alternative? I could replace the dashes and semicolons with periods, but that would lose the relation between the phrases and I think obfuscate rather than clarify the passage. Ucucha 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Two other molecular synapomorphies supported the clade of all members of clade D except O. polius, coupled with three morphological traits—in these species, but not in O. polius, the first upper molar has an additional small root at the outer (labial) side; the first lower molar has additional small roots; and the second upper molar has the mesoflexus (one of the valleys between the cusps and crests) divided in two."

...is 72 words long. These sentences are far too long for most readers to comfortably follow, particularly when you're using technical terms. The average reader will end up skimming this material, which is bad this early on in the article.

"In Osgood's original two specimens, an old and an adult female, tail length..."

The second one was an adult female; it's not clear what the first one was, except old?
The construction is naturally a shortening of "an old female and an adult female"; is that really unclear? Ucucha 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T'was to me. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.

More later. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The skull section is quite technical, and could use an illustration showing the cranial anatomy, so that readers who do not understand the technical terms can figure it out. Most readers won't be med students, and although you have helpfully linked many technical terms (which helps!), you may lose some readers without some kind of illustration. See FA Massospondylus#Cranial_anatomy for an example of what I mean.

There are no images of the skull of Eremoryzomys, and images of other rice rats' skulls wouldn't be too helpful. I think I may create an article on the oryzomyine skull to do this, using some of our better skull images, like those of Mindomys, for diagrams. Ucucha 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The narrowest part of the interorbital region (located between the eyes), is to the front and the region's margins exhibit strong beading."

The comma here is superfluous.
Removed.

The article only cites five sources, one from 1913 and the rest from 2005 or later. I understand that the genus was only established in 2006, but there is almost a hundred year gap between your sources. Was the (then-)species so neglected during those 92 years that literally nothing on it was published? The curious reader is left wondering what happened during those 92 years. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there are no other sources that do anything other than list it or reiterate information present in other sources. Amazing, isn't it? No one had a clue what it was related to, and it seems no one tried. Ucucha 15:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and one very minor prose issue: ...so that each of the three upper molars has two roots on the outer side and one on the inner side and each of the lower molars has one root... should be: so each of the....or and. I read only for the prose and comprehensibility. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Not sure what you're getting at there—exactly what part do you want replaced? Ucucha 22:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:59, 20 April 2010 [32].

Telopea speciosissima edit

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC) and Melburnian (talk · contribs)[reply]


What's not to like? The state emblem and a darn fine flower at that....and it's been attracting birds and looking nice and red for over 60 million years..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psh, sixty million years is nothing... got a lot of these in your backyard? Anyhow, File:Australia Sydney AlfredHandel WaratahWindow.JPG needs a different license without an author/death date. I'm not really sure File:NSWWaratahsLogo.jpg has a strong enough rationale (it's also causing strange whitespace gaps on my browser.) Also, what makes [33] and [34] reliable? I'm assuming you feel it meets WP:SPS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Powerhouse Museum is a pretty high-profile Sydney museum with major exhibitions/tourism/archives etc. So I have no problem with that one. The other is a specialist native nursery and knowledgeable, but I might see if I can find a better ref. I'll see what I can do about the window. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: bah - mountainnursery ref unneeded - just about every ref on cultivation (incl. one at end of sentence) says they best with sun ++. Also his son's obituary indicates that Alfred Handel died in 1946. Will see if I can date the window. dated to 1932.[35] Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided more details for the logo rationale and removed the white space. Melburnian (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are issues with File:NSWWaratahsLogo.jpg's template—I hate the boilerplate FUR templates, so I'm not sure how to fix it, but to me the images and sourcing look satisfactory. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved all the information into a simpler template. Melburnian (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the "Growing waratahs" reference. Melburnian (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the non-functional first link. Melburnian (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Overall a good work.
    • Comment—I do have a few concerns:
    • Is it "New South Wales Waratah" or "New South Wales waratah"? Please be consistent.
      d'oh - should be small 'w' - fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article appears to assume familiarity with certain jargon. Please wikilink the first use of alternate (Phyllotaxis), lignotuber, bract, whorl, floret, stigma, anther, anthesis, anther, ovary, nectary, Embothriinae, gondwana, understorey, eucalyptus, habitat fragmentation, outcrossing, Aboriginal, Horticulturalist, oblanceolate and tryptich. Also the term "fire interval" is not explained. I can guess, but some clarification may be helpful.
      okay, linked all, will explain fire interval shortly just added (time between bushfires) there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "moderately high rainfall" a standard climate rating? Is this indicating a range of mm/yr? Or perhaps a seasonal pattern in days/yr?
      added rainfall of 1200 mm a year Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there supposed to be a single quote before: " 'Wirrimbirra White"?
      yes. not sure hat happened there Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes? Then shouldn't it be Telopea ''Wirrimbirra White'?
      • okay, now I'm confused - I had to magnify the screen as the quote marks blur into the capital W. It should be one quote on either end, like it is now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, it looks like somebody must have fixed it since.
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment A well written article, although as a Brit "March in autumn" made me double-take!. A couple of niggles

of course march is in autumn...everyone knows that! Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Federation is lower case in its own article, capped here
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • receiving on average around 1200 mm a year. conversion needed for the poor old yanks
Americans still do rainfall in inches?? done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dappled shade from eucalyptus trees reduces sunlight to around 70% of full sun — reduced sunlight by 30% would be more succinct
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of the slowest resprouting woody plant species in south-eastern Australia to produce seedlings after fire — It is one of the slowest woody plant species in south-eastern Australia to resprout after fire
Aha, this is tricky - resprouters are ones which generally resprout from the lignotuber (hence not talking about seedling), but in this case it is noted that the seedlings grow pretty darn slowly - defferent to below which is talking about resprouting of parent plants. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted a reword and consolidation, avoiding the confusing "resprouting". As I understand it, the fire burns the plant, it grows new shoots from its lignotuber, eventually produces new flowers, these produce seeds which fall to the ground, seedlings appear. This takes about two years which is pretty slow in these parts. Melburnian (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I have incorporated "resprouter" in the rewording to be more accurate. I have linked the word in anticipation of making a stub to explain it. Melburnian (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • but are later overtaken by the slower-growing banksias and wattles. seems to contradict above
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issues resolved, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha.

  • You should be consistent in capitalizing (Pygmy Possum) or not capitalizing (waratah) common names.
I have decapped pygmy possum now - however I can't do it with bird species which are capitalised by convention. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIRD#Bird names and article titles appears to disagree there; you can use sentence case for consistency within an article. Ucucha 21:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wow I did not now that...okay I agree it looks less jarring now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • speciosissima is a superlative, so the name means "very beautiful"; don't the sources say that? Also, I'm more familiar with speciosus meaning "many-formed".
fixed to source. I went and checked my Cassell's Latin Dictionary, which I have just found again unpacking, and it gives 'beautiful/handsome' as translations for speciosus - not sure where you get many-formed from (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure either. I am familiar with "speciose" meaning "species-rich" ("a speciose genus"), but even the OED doesn't list that word. Thanks for the addition. Ucucha 01:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, that is a different derivation speciose is derived from species, -ei 5th declension noun in Latin, speciosus derives from the verb specio "to see or catch sight of Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are indigenous names both under "Taxonomy" and under "Symbolic and artistic references"
fixed so indigenous names all together now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
crap. my bad, I thought it was the date of the artwork (which is over 75 years). Okay, will look at a fair use rationale or an older image. We do have a few waratah motifs to choose from. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might still be PD, the tag just doesn't work. I'm not familiar with Aus copyright, but I recall that old stuff enters PD fairly easily. Ucucha 01:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I amended the licence tag at Commons. Melburnian (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Ucucha 02:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the case for use of the non-free File:NSWWaratahsLogo.jpg is dubious; it doesn't really advance our understanding of the topic when we see that image.
  • Needs some 2c editing (little things like periods after initials of authors). Also, are those the highest-quality reliable sources?
Re sources, as far as I know, yes. both books contain ample discussion from botanists and researchers such as Peter Weston and Cathy Offord as well, and complement official Flora of Australia treatments well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring rather to the websites. I think I'll do a more detailed review of those later, to see whether there are any real issues. Ucucha 01:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the references, I found a few accessdates to reformat to conform, but can't see any stray periods (or lack thereof) remaining..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 18:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref. 2 needs the url
added --Melburnian (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 01:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The article has my support, the only significant issue I had with the article was the lack of a distribution map as per standard of every Australian plant FA that has since rectified. Gnangarra 14:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Sasata (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead: how about linking endemic, subspecies
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some flowerheads may be more globular" globular -> spherical?
The works use globular - and knowing the plant well I can guarantee they aren't spherical! My take on it is that idea conveyed by 'globular' is something that is more rounded but not necessarily a sphere as such, hence I felt globular indeed was a better fit Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I mistakenly assumed globular was equivalent to globose. Sasata (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: how about linking sessile, gynophore
done --Melburnian (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy
  • any possibility of a link to the protologue?
I'll see what I can do - if not a link then a quote parameter in the citation Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is on wikisource here, but I am not sure how to link to it. maybe best as an infobox at the bottom? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did not notice the wikisource template at the bottom. That should suffice, I think. Sasata (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link specific epithet, Waterfall, West Head, common name
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what the names waratah, Mooloone and Mewah mean in their native languages? And why is only the first of these capitalized?
sloppiness. fixed. Original meanings other than that for waratah not given. Not surprising as these languages are mostly extinct (first area colonised by europeans etc. and local population heavily assimilated and decimated etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ecology
  • link banksia, wattles
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "Fully mature flowerhead with all florets opened, Royal National Park. At this time the flowerhead attracts many animals." how about "Fully mature flowerheads with opened florets attract many animals, like this specimen from the Royal National Park."
better. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, a field study conducted at Barren Grounds showed New Holland Honeyeaters to be carrying relatively little pollen." to be carrying -> to carry
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomy section already told us that Cathy Offord was at the Royal Botanic Gardens at Mount Annan
removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultivation: link Springwell
I suspect that Springwell is actually the name of some estate or gardens/house rather than the village (which is near Newcastle in the north of England), so I didn't link. Would be worth looking into. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…awarded it an Award of Merit in 1914, and a First Class Certificate in 1922." Maybe add a few words to explain the significance of these awards
  • "Following on from the Parrys were Howard Gay and Arch Dennis, who pioneered growing waratahs at Monbulk in the Dandenong Ranges in the 1940s, Sid Cadwell and Frank Stone." The last two names kind of sit awkwardly at the end of that sentence. Maybe add a connector ("as well as"?) or a few words to describe what they did.
added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link prevailing winds
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most common pathogen is Phytophthora cinnamon," ->"is the soil-borne water mold …"
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link dieback, damping off, root rot
  • "The larvae of the Macadamia leafminer (Acocercops chionosema), amoth burrow along" amoth?
a moth Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Telopea 'Cardinal' is a form found on the property of Lucille Pope in Werombi." Does anyone who grows a cultivar in their back yard warrant a mention in this article?
It was initially found there but from then it was commercially propagated, licenced and marketed. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • several metric measurements in the cultivars list aren't given conversions
done --Melburnian (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cultivar is thought to be tetraploid." link for tetraploid or ploidy
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Telopea 'Parry's Dream' was a chance seedling in the early 1970s." What's a chance seedling?
essientally a funny-looking plant which comes up in someone's garden or nursery with good horticultural properties, the owner says "Gee, what a nice flower" and propagates away....I thought it was a succinct way of saying this and have seen the term used often in horticulture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"chance seedling" now linked --Melburnian (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Selected in 1981, it has red flowerheads…" Does this mean "selected for breeding"?
yes. I clarifiied that in the first instance, do you want me to do it for all? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I just missed the first clarification. Sasata (talk)
  • "…which grew on water catchment property." do not know what this is
Much of Sydney's water supply comes from a large area of bushland to which there is no public access - unless one gets special permission - as it drains into our biggest dam, Warragamba Dam. Will look what I can link it to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
update - there is nothing specific on wiki, but here is a map. Sydney Catchment Authority needs to be buffed but at least it mentions it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…and vulnerable to borers." what's a borer?
Woodboring beetle Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link temperate, subtropical
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice article. Want to mention that the state avenues end in a state-flower park in the national capital, and so there is Telopea Park in Canberra, in the coverage of all things state-flower-related? Iridia (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, tempted, but the genus article could do with more expanding so that may be the best destination really...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Goodness knows Griffin probably wasn't going to the species-level; there's also Manuka to illustrate his level of accuracy... Though I suppose it does raise the point: shouldn't at least half of that last section then be duplicated up into the genus article? Iridia (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I restricted it to cultural references which clearly relate to the species and the species alone (as recognised often by its iconic flowerhead). There is another bunch of material which can go in the genus page FWIW. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010 [36].

Adrian Boult edit

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because, following an extensive peer review recently completed, I believe it meets the FAC criteria. The subject was the least publicity-conscious of people, but his life and work are nevertheless well documented. Boult played an important part in British musical life through the majority of the last century. I believe the article covers all the important aspects of his life and work. It is stable, the images are accounted for, and the article is, I hope it will be found, well-referenced and easy to read. Tim riley (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - No dab links but some external links where a subscription is required. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those links are marked as such and should not be problematic. Ucucha 13:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I helped in a very thorough peer review of this article, and think it is now in excellent shape. It gives an involving account of the life of an uncharismatic but historically important conductor, and off-hand I can see no bar to its promotion. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I'll have a read through and correct any obvious grammatical problems, but I'll also raise a few questions as I go.
  • The last two sentences in the lead don't really sum up his life. I don't think the fact that his music has been released on CD is that notable, certainly not enough for a lead section. While on the lead, it speaks only of his career - I'd like to see a little more, even just a passing mention, of his family and background. Right now I don't think the lead accurately sums up the article. My rule of thumb is to mention at least one fact from each section of an article, but that's only a guide I use. It just seems a little bit lacking right now. More to come. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point: I've expanded as suggested, and the lead is definitely more rounded now.
  • When did Boult go to Oxford? I know its hinted at in the previous quotation from his biographer, but I'd like to know in the article body.
    • Dates added.
  • The chronology of the second paragraph is slightly muddled. We start by mentioning he went to Oxford, then he met someone before he went to Oxford (why is this important?), then we say "By the time he went to Oxford..."
    • Moved earlier meeting with Elgar to the chronologicalally relevant point in the article.
  • What is the Oriana Society?
    • Explanation added
  • "He was president of the University Musical Club in 1910" - when did he become president, and when did this presidency end?
    • Date clarified.

Parrot of Doom 19:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points. Shall attend to them and report back to this page soonest. Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Later: now all addressed. Tim riley (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boult graduated with a pass degree in 1912" - I wasn't clear on what this meant, so I moved some text out of the note into the prose. I hope this is ok. By the way, you might consider formatting text in the notes section by using {{#tag:ref|This is a note|group="nb"}} in the body, and in the notes section, {{reflist|group="nb"}} (see [[Gunpowder Plot]] for an example). It won't affect my opinion on the article's promotion though.
  • I am attracted by this. I have lately been (most peripherally) involved with a major revamp of the article on Gustav Mahler which splits the notes, à la Gunpowder Plot, into citations and amplifications. I can see that there is a distinct difference between "click here to see more interesting stuff on this point" and just "click here to see why this statement is justified." Shall ponder further on this. Your rewrite of the degree info here is fine, I think. Tim riley (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Hans Sitt? If he's a musician, just add "musician" before his name.
  • Done
  • I made this change - ""I went to all his [Nikisch's] rehearsals and concerts in the Gewandhaus. …" - is it Nikisch being talked about? I wasn't sure.
    • It was - the brackets are fine.
  • "This style accorded with Boult's opinion that" - I don't think accorded works here, as a verb, as it may imply causation. I could be wrong, however.
    • I don't think I agree with you here, but would gladly look at an alternative phrasing...
      • I changed to "in accord", "accorded" can be taken to mean something else entirely. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boult made his professional conducting debut on 27 February 1914" - I'm uncertain of the terminology of conducting, but would "made his début as a professional conductor" not be more suitable?
  • Yes
  • "He was recruited by the War Office as a translator (he spoke good French, German and Italian)" - when was this - before/during/after 1916? Also, is "fluent" a more descriptive word than "good", or would that be over-egging it a bit?
  • "some of which were subsidised by his father, with the aims of giving work to orchestral players and bringing music to a wider audience" - was this his father's aim, or Boult's aim?
  • "In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, which included important recent British works" - the concerts included important works, not the London Symphony Orchestra.
  • "Just before the Armistice, Gustav Holst burst into my office:" - this quote might benefit from being not in the prose, but in a quote box - check out Template:Quote box3. You can see how it works in, for example, Dick Turpin. Your choice though, just a suggestion. Right now it isn't obvious who gave the quote.
  • "Boult ran the classes from 1919 to 1930. In 1921 he received a Doctorate of Music" - are these two facts connected?
More to come, but the more I read the more I like. The corrections to the prose are minor, and its well-written. For a layman like myself I'm not at all struggling with the terminology. Parrot of Doom 19:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is full of food for thought - thank you very much. I'll work my way through in the next day or so. At first glance I think all your points may help me tighten the prose up. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom indicates the corrections needed are minor: please continue working with PoD post-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Tim riley could you address the points above on the article's talk page? I can continue there, if you like. I was leaning towards supporting. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed (the below items have been addressed, according to Hekerui)

The other images look fine. Hekerui (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how to take the image questions forward, and have asked Hekerui for a steer on this. Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will re-do collages if need be after above points are resolved. For the time being is is acceptable to leave them as they are? I uploaded the Beecham original, to which I'll add bibliographical detail. I didn't realise that Commons files were dubious, but I agree that the Weingartner and Strauss files are plainly from their youth and so can be fairly taken to be out of copyright in this century. The Elgar is, I have no doubt at all, pre WWI. Taken at about the turn of the century in his early forties to judge by his hair colour. - Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I looked at the images. As is often the case with older Commons images, some of the ones used for the compound images have incomplete and lacking descriptions that make verification difficult.

  • File:Gustav Holst.jpg: There is no further information on the image. Assumption: the image was taken in the UK (since he lived there), then the image is safely public domain in the UK per http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/private.pdf if the author is unknown. However, there's no evidence that anyone has done "reasonable enquiry" into whether the author is actually unknown or just wasn't mentioned on the blog. If he were known he would have to be dead 70 years for the image to be public domain in the UK. To be hosted on Commons the image has to be free in the US as well, but there's no evidence it was published pre-1923 and no evidence it was already public domain in the UK on the URAA date, which would make it free as well.
It was written on my talk page that the image was published at least 1921, which means it is definitely a keep for the Wikipedia project. The question whether it fits in Commons can then be ascertained separately and is of no relevance for this nomination. The image needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia for that withTemplate:PD-US. Hekerui (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The National Portrait Gallery says the photographer died 1936, not 1944, clearing that up. Hekerui (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Beecham emu 1910.jpg: the image lacks a source (for verification of date and country of origin), but that one could be given by the original uploader.
    • I uploaded the original scan into en.Wikipedia. I don't seem to be able to edit the bibliographical information, but the source was the dust jacket of Lucas, John Thomas Beecham: An Obsession with Music, London, Boydell, 2008, ISBN 9781843834021. - Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added this information to the file. The edit tab is on the upper right corner in commons, Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the images are all fine now, no further issues for me. Hekerui (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - A good, informative read. I think the Bibliography entries should be consistently formatted (last one has city, publisher, and is missing ISBN/OCLC#), possibly using {{cite book}} since you use that for the references, and maybe give some indication of whether they are in print. The older works used as references should have OCLC numbers. Magic♪piano 02:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this. OCLC refs added. The list of Boult's books originally had the {{cite book}} layout, but somehow the simpler form felt more suitable for a para in the middle of the article. But will change back if that is thought preferable. I'm a little bit wary of saying which are in print and which not, as such info tends to get out of date. I could say "in/out of print at April 2010, perhaps." A good idea? - Tim riley (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Later: Changed entries to cite book format as discussed. The books are all out of print at present: worth saying so? Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's worth saying so. The books are in the library. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change to Support. I've included "in print as of xxxx" in other bibliographies, that would be fine. When using cite book for this purpose, I also just omit the author. Magic♪piano 23:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Full disclosure: I also participated in the peer review of this article, which was fairly exhaustive. Like its companion article on John Barbirolli, this one is thorough, well written and engaging. Boult may not have been the most charismatic figure in British classical music but was a central figure in a tremendous amount of music history durng his long life and deserves a first-rate article of his own. It's heartening to say that he finally has one. Jonyungk (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did some proofreading of this article. The article is comprehensive, well-referenced, readable and well-balanced. It covers Boult's life, career, reputation and style. I don't see how it could be improved in an encyclopedic format. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article says he died on 22 February 1983 in London, but the Allmusic biography says he died "just two weeks shy of his 94th birthday" on 24 March 1983 in Farnham, England. Does the book source state the full date? The Allmusic description seems awfully specific. Hekerui (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary of National Biography and all other source I have checked agree that it was 22 Feb. in London. His The Times and New York Times obituaries were both published on 24 February 1983, so if he had not died yet, the reports of his death would have been "greatly exaggerated". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense :) What's up with AMG? Hekerui (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this has come up. The above is not the only article that gives the wrong details about Boult's date/place of death. I am adding a short note on the article talk page to prevent future confusion on this point. - Tim riley (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments First of all, thanks for working on the article. Some questions/suggestions, some are minor language things, some about understanding:

Lead

  • "Forced to retire from the BBC in 1950" by whom or why? can be shortly mentioned so the summary doesn't become a teaser
    Tim, I think you changed this based on a comment at PR, but FWIW, I preferred the old language about the "rival". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is so. My original wording was "Manoeuvred out of the BBC by a rival in 1949," but at peer review we agreed that the more neutral wording was less of a teaser. In fact 60 was the BBC's official retirement age, but Boult had been promised by Reith that it would not apply to him – but Reith had gone by then and Wilson was able to apply the rule to his enemy. - Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be simply stated that he was forced to retire due to age? That's true in any case, no? Hekerui (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • done
  • "orchestra set standards" of what? should be plainly stated
    • done
  • "founder-conductor" is that an often used title or just a more complicated way of saying "first conductor"?
    • not the same – he was not merely its first conductor but also its founder. - Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that being a founder is already stated in the sentence with "he established", no? Hekerui (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • done
  • "Indian Summer" it's not made clear here or later why that name is chosen, what does the source say?
    • The phrase is used in many articles about Boult – there is not just one source. It is a common English expression indicating a late burst of warmth in the autumn, and applied to people indicates achievement later in life. Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey! Stop stealing American expressions and calling them "common English expressions". Well, I guess it's fair, since we stole some English words and use them to this day.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just checked the Oxford English Dictionary and am obliged to acknowledge that it is indeed U.S. not UK in origin: "A period of unusually calm dry warm weather, often accompanied by a hazy atmosphere, occurring in late autumn in the northern United States and Canada; a similar period of unseasonably warm autumnal weather elsewhere. … fig. A late period in the life of a person or in the existence of a nation, culture, etc., characterized by calm, happiness, or achievement."
          • Actually, here in NY State, where we had many Native American tribes, it specifically means "warm weather after the first frost".  :-p -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • where is Chester? The country is northwest England, perhaps that could be mentioned for people unfamilar with English cities
    • added
  • "The family moved to Blundellsands ..." when?
    • done
  • it should be mentioned what Hugh Allen was, so the article doesn't rely on clicking through to another page for knowing why he was Boult's mentor
    • done
  • "effect of music made utterly without effort" not clear what that means, at least to me
    • Difficult to rephrase: what Boult wrote was "…the work must sound easy" – in other words that audiences must not be distracted by the apparent effort of the performer(s) to play the notes accurately.
      • How about, "without apparent effort"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good. Done.
  • what was Ralph Vaughan Williams when he met Boult, another student, a teacher? I think the sentence should explain that, so people don't have to read Williams' Wiki page first/alongside this one - the sentence also has a weird style with the "he made friends with Williams, a life-long friend"
    • VW was neither a student nor a member of the faculty. He was someone whom Boult met at Oxford. I don't think the construction of the sentence "weird". Perhaps you might like to suggest another form of words. - Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "keen rower" is vague - was he cunning or an achiever or just enthusiastic?
    I like most of H's comments, but I disagree with this one. Even for us Americans, I think "keen" is very clear that he was enthusiastic. I don't think it indicates cunning or achievement in this context. I think there should be some room in Wikipedia for a little regional flavor in the writing, or else everything will just be cardboard. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's not clear that the "Leander Club" is also about rowing, since the sentence generally talks about "interests no wholly confined to music"
    • One could change this to "the rowing club the Leander Club", but that's an ungainly repetition, I think. Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence already mentions rowing, and the club's name is linked, so I think it's OK as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • music education: did he learn an instrument or singing (which later mentioned) or already conducting from 1908 to 1912? - this is not clear in the text, it only mentions his switch to music, and I think important to understanding his education
    • Oxford musical education in those days was geared towards composition and theory. There were no instrumental classes. The choral tradition of the university meant that membership of a choir was open to musical undergraduates. Boult played the piano, but did not study it as part of his Oxford course. Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... should be clad in an invisible Tarnhelm which ..." - Tarnhelm needs delinking per MOS:QUOTE
    MOS experts: Is this right? MOS:QUOTE says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation...." I don't think this link clutters, and Tarnhelm is an unfamiliar term to most readers and is important to understand the quote, so I think it helps to link it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First conducting work

  • I'm neither here nor there with regard to the forced image sizes.
  • "Salonika" should be noted to be Thessaloniki, perhaps with brackets in the quotation (I suspect many people have never heard this version)
    I agree that Zeppelin doesn't need linking, but I think Balfour Gardiner does. And if MOS wants to avoid clutter in quotes, it would be much better to wikilink Thessaloniki than to use brackets. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had thought about the "principle of leaving quotations unchanged" of the MOS, but it's a suggestion only. (this reply is by Hekerui)
  • "rather spoilt by a Zeppelin raid" and "... Salonika quite soon and Balfour Gardiner, bless his heart ..." delinking per MOS:QUOTE
  • "Ansermet gave Boult all the help he could" with what, learning them?
    • Partly learning the music per se, – more learning how to pace ballet music to make it danceable. I've added "with his preparation…".
  • "had jointly gone some way to doing so" - vague, better to just describe what they did

BBC Symphony Orchestra

  • "During this period, Boult accepted some ..." - the period of being at the BBC Symphony Orchestra or the period mentioned in the preceding sentence?
    • Both - not mutually exclusive. "During this period" could come out if a majority of reviewers find it intrusive. The dates suffice to make the period clear. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1930 being considered outstanding" by whom? if the source mentions no one then it's probably according to the source itself
    • This was originally in quotes (from the earlier of the two ODNB articles cited) but the quotes were removed, following discussion at peer review. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later came to be Boult's undoing at the BBC" - sounds like like a narration and as if he was chased out of there, because it is not stated how and leaves the reader wondering
    • I disagree with you, but if other reviewers are of your opinion I am happy to redraw. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pre-war glory" - peacock-ish, or not? what about "reputation"?
    • As above. The other reviewers to date have not had a problem with this. I'm happy to go with the majority. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Boult's BBC days were numbered." - unencyclopedic formulation imo
    Must our prose be unrelentingly bland? "Pre-war glory" is crystal clear here, since it comes at the end of the section that describes exactly what it means. And "days were numbered" may be a little fanciful, but you will see similar formulations in Brittanica and other encyclopedias. Tim's prose has a little bit of old-fashioned academic flavor to it, and I think this is a good thing for this encyclopedia. Let's focus on clarity rather than replacing anything refreshing with edit-by-committee words. Again, just my 2 cents. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Philharmonic

  • "... with the mezzo Blanche Thebom ..." - just "mezzo" is jargon
    • I thought I had written mezzo-soprano. Mea culpa. Now fixed. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the Elgar, The Gramophone wrote ..." - the Elgar? is the Falstaff meant?
  • "A less happy aspect of 1952 ..." - POV?
    • As above - happy to go with a majority view on this. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... but when matters came to a head ..." - unencylopedic, vague imo
    • As above - happy to go with a majority view. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... at the Festival Hall and the Albert Hall ..." I think should use the "Royal" for both because even if the Royal Festival Hall is mentioned before it left me wondering whether it was the same thing and the Royal Albert Hall is the name familiar for uninitiated like me ;) there is another instance of this further down
    • As above - happy to go with a majority view. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added Royal before Albert the first time, and then the subsequent times can use the short form. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later years

  • "... as a fallow period when Boult thought himself relegated to the second eleven." - should perhaps be rewritten for readers like me not familar with colloquialisms (?) like "second eleven" or "fallow period" (I thought "fallow time" had to do with agriculture and "second eleven" I don't get)
    • Both these phrases were originally in quotes, but following discussion at peer review the quotation marks were removed. Fallow period is self-explanatory, I think. Second eleven is a term from cricket and football, referring to the lesser of two teams fielded by a club. I would be very happy to restore the quotation marks there if a majority of reviewers think it would help. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "fallow period" is a common metaphor. But "second eleven" should be replace by something that readers from everywhere will understand. Tim, I can assure you that it (and all cricket terms) is utterly meaningless to those of us unfortunate enough to be from this side of the pond. Can you replace it with "second tier" or something? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blitzed the sentence. The meaning remains plain without it. Tim riley (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His repertory in general was much wider than his discography might suggest." - that is really vague
    • Clarified in footnote. The footnote was originally part of this para, but was turned into a note following agreement at peer review. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musicianship

  • "This could have been written of him at any point in his career." - is this original research?
    • Not in my opinion: the quotations illustrate the point. But happy to go with a majority of reviewers on this one. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it is sourced in a RS that is a pretty broad (original) analysis - it's better to let the quotes speak for themselves. Hekerui (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

  • "He recorded all eight then-existing symphonies by Vaughan Williams for Decca Records in the 1950s ..." - "then-existing" sounds kind of unencylopedic, like "Tony Blair, then-Prime Minister of the UK, decided X", or not?
    • I inherited this phrase from an earlier contributor, but could not find a better way of expressing it. When Sir Adrian made his cycle of VW symphonies for Decca, there were only eight. VW wrote another later. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... received great critical praise." and "The conspicuous breadth of Boult's repertoire ..." are peacock-ish
    • The first seems factual enough to me, but happy to go with majority opinion. The second slightly troubled me, but I felt it was not enough to say "breadth" tout court. There is breadth to anyone's repertoire - some more than others. Boult's repertoire, as demonstrated in the article, was exceptionally broad. I'd be grateful to know what others think on this point. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exceptional breadth? Unusual breadth? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exceptional is spot-on. Done.

General stuff

  • the article mixes "repertoire" and "repertory", I think this should be made consistent
    • I demur. Both perfectly good words. Otherwise one must not mix any synonyms like "start" and "begin". Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I made some changes to use repertory only when referring to a group's repertory, and repertoire to refer to Boult's repertoire. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:HONORIFIC says the inline use of honorifics is discouraged unless the usage is pervasive in the coverage - are the people named "Sir" in the text, Henry Wood, Hubert Parry, Thomas Beecham, John Reith, William Haley, John Barbirolli, really described in the sources as "Sir" by default? the Wiki article on John Reith shows no Sir designation at all (is that included in the Baron title?)
    • Yes to your first question. In British usage it would be a solecism to omit the title. No to the second, but he was Sir John before he was made Lord Reith, and should be so referred to in mention of events at the relevant period. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the effort to obtain a free image of him? (I'm just interested, I realize it can be very tricky, but there is a Hall named after him so someone might have connections to get a free image or release an image.)
    • Online enquiry and at public libraries of two boroughs and one university library. - Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, you tried and finding something like that from a person dead for so long is difficult, so it'll be hard for anyone to question the FUR of the image. Hekerui (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hekerui (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think other input from a majority is forthcoming so I made some changes, I think for the better. I also removed "avowed" from "avowed member of the party X" as it's just a fill word as in "avowed atheist", "avowed xyz". Hekerui (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support So, I want to add that the article looks well researched and reads well. The sources appear to be high quality, and it covers him in so much detail that it appears comprehensive as well (as much as I can tell without access to sources). The images are all fine now and the rest of the FA criteria are met too in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read this engaging article last weekend. The prose is of a professional standard and IMHO this contribution satisfies all the featured article criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010 [37].

Harry Chauvel edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...

Harry was a senior officer of the Australian Imperial Force who fought at Gallipoli and in the Middle Eastern theatre during the First World War. He was the first Australian to attain the rank of lieutenant general and later general, and the first to lead a corps. As commander of the Desert Mounted Corps, he was responsible for one of the most decisive victories and fastest pursuits in military history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments -- Dabs, external links and alt text all look good. Back for a proper review in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand renaming the article to Harry Chauvel, however I think it's generally accepted to include the birth name and the common name in the first line and at the top of the infobox, something along the lines of "Sir Henry George (Harry) Chauvel". Related point: I don't think "Harry" is really necessary as a Nickname in the infobox -- all Henrys get Harry, it was nothing specific to Chauvel -- besides, if we adopt my change above, Harry is there anyway.
      • But here's the problem I've been grappling with: Harry got himself knighted as Sir Harry. Hence the first line and the inscription on the painting. Perhaps we could say "Sir Harry (Henry George) Chauvel"?
        • Heh, okay, not that fussed, leave as is -- you've taken care of everything else so I'm happy -- well done! Cheers,
          • In the London Gazette entries on all three of Chauvel's knighthoods he is listed as "Henry George", not "Harry". Given that the former was also his given name at birth I think the lead should be "Sir Henry George (Harry) Chauvel". Just my two cents. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Added the following to the article: At his special request, when he was conferred with vestments and accoutrements of the Order of St Michael and St George by King George V, the King dubbed him "Sir Harry" rather than "Sir Henry". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree somewhat with Ruth that the lead contains more info than necessary, however I'm a bit loath to tamper with it. The main thing I think is too detailed is Convinced that the accommodation for Australian troops on Salisbury Plain would not be ready before winter, Chauvel arranged for the Australian Imperial Force to be diverted to Egypt. There he joined his new command, the 1st Light Horse Brigade, in December. -- suggest it be shortened to In December, he joined his new command, the 1st Light Horse Brigade, in Egypt.
      • The point here is that Harry inadvertently set in train a series of events that led to Australian participation in the Gallipoli campaign. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also in the lead, I'd prefer to alter He attempted to maintain an increasingly hollow structure to He was forced to maintain an increasingly hollow structure if that's not too strong -- "attempted" sounds to me like he was not against the idea of a hollow structure.
      • Done. I deleted "short-sighted" to make it sound less strong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway, apart from these fairly minor points, the thing looks top notch: well written, comprehensively cited and nicely illustrated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • The second and third paragraphs of the lead contain too much information IMO.
  • This sentence is confusing: Near Oakwood, Chauvel's troops were confronted by a crowd of around two hundred mounted sheep shearers who became agitated when the inspector in charge of the police detachment arrested four of the shearers who were wanted by the police..
  • Chauvel was given the mission of escorting 10,000 head of cattle to Belfast, Mpumalanga to supply the troops in the eastern Transvaal but his force was diverted by local commanders to burning Boer homesteads sheltering Boer commandos and attacking Boer units.. awkward. Initially, Chauvel was to escort 10,000 head of cattle to Belfast, Mpumalanga, to supply the troops in the eastern Transvaal. The local commanders reassigned his force to burn homesteads sheltering Boer commandos and skirmishing with Boer units.
  • Chauvel returned to find himself an officer in the newly formed Australian Army. Awkward Upon his return, Chauvel became an officer in the newly-formed...
    • No that's not right. Re-worded to "When Chauvel returned to Australia he found that while he was away he had become an officer in the newly formed Australian Army." Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is a substantive lt. colonel?
    • As opposed to a temporary, local or brevet one. Put in a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • he developed protocols, he developed training guidelines, whatever. He didn't develop views to do something.
  • Mentioned in Dispatches probably needs an explanation for general readers. It might not be capitalized also.
    • It has a link. (Used lower case now.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone said I'm missing an MID. Added it in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Magdhaba. If he ordered a withdrawal, and the order was refused, and the battle won anyway, how is this a credit to him?
    • It was his plan of battle. added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All for now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC) :Oh, and btw, I fixed a couple of verb conjugations and an incomplete sentence. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Made a few corrections, but otherwise excellent biography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle Support - Similar comments to Sturmvogel 66. There are a few loose ends, and I have a left some questions at User talk:Hawkeye7, but in my mind there is no doubt that the quality of this article is WAY above "average". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I see nothing holding this article back. Good work IMO. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Is there any reason given for why he switched from SGS to TGS. It seems as though he must have boarded in any case so family location doesn't seem to be the reason but it seems odd why he would transfer to a lesser school unless his parents ran out of money?? Spotted a stray hyphen :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sydney was a day school so Harry and his brothers Arthur and James Allan boarded with a Mrs Armstrong. Harry was pulled out of school in April 1876 but readmitted in July, for reasons unknown. The brothers stayed until the end of the 1880 school year. The boys rode their horses the 150 miles to TGS and kept them there during the term instead of taking the boat to Sydney. His brother Arthur went to TGS in June 1880. No idea why though. However, having done so, it would have been cheaper to send both boys to the same school. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- another fine article. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: I found a lot fo WP:OVERLINKing-- please review throughout. Also, please see WP:MOS#Captions-- sentence fragments should not have final punctuation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a pass over it, as has another editor. Also found two spelling errors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010 [38].

Ashford v Thornton edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... it's ready. This is the notorious "trial by battle" case. I've known about this case probably since I was a teenager, but my research into it showed up quite a few things I didn't know about it. Possible nominee for April Fool's TFA if it makes it through this, er, trial by ordeal. It's not a long article (20K readable prose), enjoy it.Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't that much written on Ashford these days, and frankly what there is comes out of the same old sources. And quite a few sources get stuff wrong. Do you want me to do anything about the German source? I'll do research on the others. None of the old books have ISBN's.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gerichtskampf mair.jpg needs author death date for its tag, just saw that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about the file from 1544?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have the author info, then it needs a different tag. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dates of death added. Fortunately they have Wikipedia articles. Thank you for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped the tags. I have not found anything yet on Ellenborough's pic, so I've swapped that one out for a shot of Westminster Hall. I've also found and added an interesting 2001 source.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment " The learned judge concluded by reminding the" - bit high-fallutin'. Should we really be bandying words like that around? Certainly not without an inline citation. Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've deprived the judge of his learning. It does say it in the source, but it's not worth an inline cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A fascinating story, but numerous prose glitches:-

  • Lead: "Such appeals..." We need to be reminded that this is Ashford's appeal. Suggest: "Appeals such as Ashford's..."
  • Legal
    • "another serious offence" is slightly ambiguous ("another" can mean "one more")> Suggest "or other serious offences"
    • "...within a year and a day of the death" doesn't cover other serious offences in which death of the victim didn't occur.
      • I've rewritten it; it is "treason, murder, or felony" but the source doesn't make clear who would bring the case if the case wasn't murder. It took a little skull sweat, but I think that paragraph is greatly improved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some curious language appears in this paragraph. "An appeal of murder" - is this an appeal against an acquittal on a murder charge? And "the wager of battle" is new terminology.
    • Explained.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume that the misplaced mdashes in the quote are as per the original?
      • Yes, the source is online if you want to doublecheck.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any information on why the proposals to abolish trial by battle were unsuccessful? Were the proposals defeated in Parliament, and what was the force of argument that won the day?
      • Really, the sound bites I've put in the article are about all the source has to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death of Mary Ashford
    • "...of about 20 years of age" would be more in keeping with the idiom
    • "...but not yet a bank holiday, as it was for many years" I'm not sure I follow this phrasing. I think it means "but not yet a bank holiday, nor would be for many years)", but it may be simpler to omit the words "as it was for many years".
      • I've stricken the whole thing about the bank holiday, which is in the source but is probably of doubtful relevance. She worked that day, she was supposed to work the next, that is all the reader really needs to know.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but planned" → "and planned" (no "but" about it)
    • "Thornton was about 24..." I would add "years old"
    • Suggest replace the "and" which follows "heavyset" with a semicolon
    • "Thornton stated that he had been intimate with her sister three times" To whom did he state this? To Mary Ashford, or to other individuals, or to the general company? Would it be better phrased as "Thornton was heard to state that..."?
      • He said it to the guy he asked who Ashford was, supposedly. It inflamed the public, but when the guy testified about it at trial, it went over like a lead balloon, mainly because there was never any real question that Ashford and Thornton had had sex.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Two wire drawers from a nearby factory..." It is not immediately obvious that "wire drawers" refers to factory workers and this wording is likely to cause some puzzled frowns. Can't they just be workers from a nearby factory?
    • "...a man and a woman traveled together" - needs to be "had traveled together"
    • "...she went to Tyburn the previous evening." → "she had been to Tyburn the previous evening." Also, shouldn't this be "Tyburn House" rather than "Tyburn"?
      • The Tyburn House was at Tyburn, an area which is still called that. By phrasing it that way, I can link to the proper Tyburn and give readers some geographical hints. Is "had gone" OK? Seems more natural to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be made clearer that Dales was a police officer, or the equivalent thereof.
  • Trial
    • "The inquest" → "An inquest..."
    • Inconsistent methods of recording times: you have "half past four" and "4.50"
    • "Mr. Justice Holroyd urged the jury..." As you have given him his full style and title in the previous sentence, here he should be simple "The judge..."
    • For tense consistency it needs to be: "and still have made it to the Holden farm..."
  • Appeal
    • I wonder why William Ashford's appearance is worth describing?
      • Because as Bedford's letter makes clear, Ashford was not much physically and in trial by battle, all sources agree, Thornton would have won. Some sources say "a stripling" "little more than a boy". Basically, he was a wimp, and the general idea was it would have taken divine intervention on a Biblical scale for him to have beaten Thornton. See also Clarke's attempts to plead his youth and lack of bodily strength.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At that time, that counsel, for Ashford, was heard..." Very awkwardly put (three commas and two thats in seven words).
  • Aftermath
    • The less legal-minded may wonder what "brought in a bill" means, and may not understand the process whereby a bill becomes an act. Thus I suggest: "The bill became law in great haste, with all three required readings of the bill passing through Parliament on a single night."
    • I think the second and third paragraphs should be reversed, to maintain the chronology.
      • I thought about it a lot before doing it that way. I've now reversed it, doing it your way, but I kind of like ending the article with the forever unresolved (absent the Last Trump) death of this young lady, the human tragedy at the heart of this story. Thoughts welcome.

I don't see any problem in supporting when these issues have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I've made the changes, except where I indicated something else in comments above.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've read through the article a couple of times and made a few very pedantic changes; but have insufficient time right now to bottom out a couple of issues of concern: 1) whether certain terms (e.g. affidavit) should be linked 2) I'm insufficiently familiar with FA criteria to be able to give informed support. However it has my full uninformed support as it is. One further suggestion for improvement might be to link Thornbury, Walter (1879), Old Stories Re-Told (new ed.), Chatto and Windus to the Internet Archive [39] on the basis that the google version of the book is available as a snippet view only (in the UK, at least ... google offers different views to different geographic territories). The same might sensibly be done to The justice of the peace, and parish officer, Volume 1 [40] albeit google is kind enough to offer the PDF. (I guess the same applies to the book linked from the infobox, too. In short, IA has every PD book on google, and does not have Google's restrictions on viewing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, those sound good, I just got home and I am going to sleep but I will make those changes later on. Thanks for the info on Internet Archive. If you check out WP:WIAFA and feel it meets the criteria, feel free to support, but in any event thanks for your praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article reads well and certainly seems to be comprehensive. I have a few comments to make, but they are incidental and do not affect my support. NW (Talk) 18:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The judge is referred to as "Mr. Justice George Holroyd". I would think that the appropriate address would just be "Justice George Holroyd"; why is the "Mr." pre-pended?
      • The usual English forms would be either "Mr Justice Holroyd" or simply "Judge Holroyd", but never "Justice Holroyd". The "George" would probably be left out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Justice certainly seems to be acting more like a defense attorney than a judge. Do any of your sources go into an analysis of his actions?
    • Who suggested to Thornton that he had the option of trial by combat? Was it William Reader, his attorney, or did he come up with it by himself?


On Mr. Justice Holroyd, I have rephrased to avoid the issue. The source says Mr. Justice Holroyd, I inserted the first name in case he ever gets an article and for completeness. It is, or at least was, not unusual for a English judge, in his summing up, to make clear his views on the evidence. It is very different than an American judge would do, having done about ten jury trials in my career, an American judge sticks to jury instructions that have been either agreed on or argued over out of the presence of the jury. And Holroyd was right, the alibi was so solid that absent very strong evidence, it was going to win the day. That is why, when gathering evidence for the appeal, they concentrated on the alibi. I am mildly staggered that Holroyd was part of the panel As for the idea of trial by battle, this was such an obscure legal point that it had to come from counsel, either Reader or another of Thornton's legal team (on the appeal, some of the leading lights of the Bar were in on the action. No source covers the financing of this case beyond the little mentioned that Ashford sought contributions, but a fair amount of money must have been spent by both sides on legal fees. I did read someplace that Reader stated that they were not wagering battle for its own sake, but because with the prejudice, they didn't trust in getting a fair jury, I will find that and insert it. This was very much a cause celebre in its time and I have no doubt would be wall to wall coverage had it occurred today. Many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great, insightful and comprehensive article. Ucucha 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • "that great pillar of the Consitution"—either correct or add sic
  • "the haste was due to a wager of battle being proferred in another case"—is "proferred" current English? According to the OED, it is obsolete, and does not fit this context.
  • Could this piece (hope the links works, it's called 'Ivanhoe,' Chivalry, and the Murder of Mary Ashford) be used as a source?

Ucucha 02:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those things have been done, with words replaced, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the two fixes. It seems you only added Dyer to the list of sources; couldn't information from it be included? It seems that he is arguing that Ashford v Thornton influenced Ivanhoe, which seems relevant enough to include. Ucucha 02:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that one of the existing sources is also about the connection between Ashford v Thornton and Ivanhoe. I guess a sentence or two could be put in the aftermath section.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that now. Hope that if your concerns have been answered, you'll be willing to support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the support. Well, three supports, no opposes, technical and image checks done. I even have alt text, though I'm not certain of the state of the alt text requirement at present. I see nothing in the way of promotion. Many thanks to the commentators.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:19, 16 April 2010 [41].

Myles Standish edit

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've recently given this article an overhaul, adding narrative and images. It was peer reviewed here. I think it now meets FA criteria. Would appreciate any thoughts and comments. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is not currently part of the FA criterion, but it's probably a bit on the long side in this article; you could probably trim it a bit. Ucucha 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Good point. I've found a published source that does the trick and switched it out. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

  • General
    • Your lead has five paragraphs; WP:Lead suggests a maximum of four. You should try to integrate one of those paragraphs into the others, or remove it.
    • In reading the lead, one thing strikes me as missing. What was his religion? Did he hold the same beliefs as the other pilgrims, or was he more of a hired gun?
    • ..."he had married his second wife, Barbara..." Any idea what her maiden name was?
    • A link to the Massachusetts portal may be appropriate in the see also section.
    • Perhaps a link of the first mention of Merchant Adventurers to Company of Merchant Adventurers to New Lands?
  • Images
    • The images are all on the right. Stagger a few to the left, perhaps the image of the mayflower, the lithograph, and the lighthouse? See WP:IMAGE for guidance
    • Image size is also being forced. This too is discouraged by WP:IMAGE, unless there is a good reason to do so.
    • File:Beleg.Oostende11.jpg has no source listed
  • Citations needed
    • Need a ref here: "When he embarked with them in the summer of 1620, he brought with him his wife Rose."
    • "The Mayflower first made landfall at the tip of Cape Cod, now the site of Provincetown, Massachusetts."
    • "As captain of the militia, Standish regularly drilled his men in the use of pikes and muskets."
    • "Having defended Plymouth from Native Americans and other Englishmen, Standish's last significant expedition was against the French. "
    • "Standish built a house and settled there around 1628."
    • "He was buried in Duxbury's Old Burying Ground, now known as the Myles Standish Cemetery."
    • "The first of these monuments was also the largest."
    • "A second, smaller monument was placed over the alleged site of Myles Standish's grave in 1893. "
    • "Bradford found the latter particularly disturbing and, in 1628, ordered Standish to lead an expedition to arrest Morton."
  • Prose
    • "Standish's true-life role in defending Plymouth Colony (and the sometimes brutal tactics he employed) were largely over-written by the fictionalized character created by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in his book The Courtship of Miles Standish." - "over-written" may not be the right word here. Maybe "ignored" or "covered up" or "left out"?
  • Prose looks good
  • All other images check out
  • Sources look good
  • Alt text present

Very nice article! Its a great read. My items here are pretty minor. If you address them I'd be glad to support. Good job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks very much for your critique of the article. I think I've covered your suggestions.
  • General:
  • I've taken out one of the paragraphs from the lead and incorporated that text down below in the "Establishment of Plymouth Colony" section.
  • I added some text regarding Standish's religion (it's unknown, but at least I've explained that up front now).
  • Barbara's maiden name in unknown too. But I've added mention of that.
  • Added a link to the Massachusetts portal
  • I came across that page on the Merchant Adventurers and was intrigued, but honestly, I'm not sure if it was the same group. "Adventurers" was a common term for investors. I'm not sure the Pilgrims' group was the same as this company. So, when in doubt, I decided not to include the link.
  • Images:
  • Good point on the images being all on the right. I moved the ones to the left that you suggested.
  • Three of the images were forced. One was by accident, so I fixed that. The Nemasket expedition lithograph I enlarged a bit because it's a very detailed image and could hardly be seen at the default size. The Standish portrait size is forced to maintain the infobox at a reasonable size.
  • Sadly, there's an entire category of photos on the Commons regarding the Siege of Ostend and none of them have source info. Drat! So, I used an image of the English commanding general instead. I just thought there should be some image related to Standish's military service in Holland.
  • Citations: I've added citations in every instance you suggested.
  • Prose: I think the word I was looking for was "obscured." I've changed it.
I think that about covers it. Any further suggestions, let me know. And thanks for your help! Historical Perspective (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks great! Keep up the good work. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my concerns were addressed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Comments this is a fascinating article. I enjoyed reading it, and I'll be happy to support when prose issues are dealt with. I hate to be a spoil-sport on this, really I do, there are simply several areas of rough prose or awkwardness that you could fix easily to improve the readability. What is interesting to me about this problem is that it occurs only in a few sections of the article.[reply]

weak verb constructions in lead and first section
On February 17, 1621, he was officially voted the first commander of the Plymouth Colony militia and was continually re-elected to that position for the remainder of his life. On February 17, 1621, the Plymouth Colony militia elected him as its first commander, and continued to re-elect him to that position for the remainder of his life.
repetition
in the first second, second sentence. This could be two sentences, which would reduce the occurrence of the word "and", making it more readable.
Condensing multiple sentences into one:
The passengers of the Mayflower established a colony usually referred to at the time as "New Plymouth" (although the name and spelling often varied). The site of their first settlement is now Plymouth, Massachusetts. The first settlers of Plymouth Colony are commonly known in the United States as "Pilgrims."
In what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts, the passengers of the Mayflower—later known in the United States as Pilgrims—established a colony contemporaneously referred to as "New Plymouth" (although the name and spelling varied).
exception -- A 12-year truce was declared between Spain and the Dutch Republic in 1609 which (if Standish was still serving with the English army by that time) would have put an end to Standish's active service. // The 12-year truce between Spain and the Dutch Republic, declared in 1609, would have put an end to Standish's service, although scholars are uncertain if Standish was still in active service. OR The length of Standish's service has yet to be determined, but a 12-year truce between Spain and the Dutch Republic, declared in 1609, would have ended it.
Is it certain he was no longer inmilitary service in 1609? a Just because there was a truce doesn't mean he did nt go off and sell his sword to someone else.
How does one appear firmly? Do you mean certainly?
Should not these paras Standish first appears firmly in the written record in 1620 when, living in Leiden, Holland, he was hired by the Pilgrims to act as their advisor on military matters.[19] At that time he already was using the title of "Captain." When considering candidates for this important position, the Pilgrims had at first hoped to engage Captain John Smith. Smith had been one of the founders of the English colony at Jamestown, Virginia, had explored and mapped the North American coast and welcomed the opportunity, when approached by the Pilgrims, to return to the New World.[20] His experience made him an attractive candidate. However, the Pilgrims ultimately passed on Smith partly because his price was too high but also because they feared that his fame and bold character might lead him to become a dictator.[20]
Standish, having lived in Leiden for some time, was apparently already known to the Pilgrims.[15] When he embarked with them in the summer of 1620, he brought with him his wife Rose.[21]
Seeking a military advisor, the Pilgrims had at first hoped to engage Captain....the Pilgrims initially had hoped to engage //or// the Pilgrims at first had hoped to engage.... Smith had helped to found the English colony... and had explored and mapped.... When the Pilgrims approached him to return to the New World, Smith expressed an interest. His experience made him an attractive candidate, but the Pilgrims ultimate decided against his candidacy: his price was too high and his fame and bold character might lead him to become a dictator. Standish, who first appears clearly in the written record in 1620 was living in Leiden (Holland), with his wife Rose. The Pilgrims hired him to act as their military adviser. When he embarked with them in the summer of 1620, he brought with him his wife.
50 would survive the first winter. .... Only 50 survived the first winter.
Standish tended to Bradford during this time and it was the beginning of a bond and decades-long friendship...// Standish tended to Bradford during his illness and this was the beginning of a decades-long friendship.
  • Do you see my points here? These are problems throughout. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yes, I see your points. I think, by and large, the problem is using the passive voice. I have often fallen into that trap. (Or should I say...I fall into that trap often!) So, I've used your wording suggestions in just about all of the suggestions you made above. A few comments:
  • "On February 17, 1621..." replaced with your wording. Much better. Thanks.
  • "The passengers of the Mayflower established..." Replaced this paragraph with your wording. Again, much better.
  • "A 12-year truce was declared..." These sentences were really clunky, I agree. I was never really happy with them. Your re-wording is a vast improvement. I've inserted it.
  • To answer your question on his service after 1609...there are no records to indicate what he was doing, so I haven't ventured a guess here. All we know is that, according to some of the chroniclers of Plymouth Colony, he served in the Dutch War in the first decade of the 17th century. How long is anyone's guess.
  • Took out "firmly." I realize an adverb wasn't even necessary here.
  • I used most of your re-wording of the paragraph about Standish being hired and Captain Smith being an alternate. I did not switch around the order of the sentences because I think to start off the paragraph by abruptly switching the subject to Smith would be jarring. So, the previous paragraph ends with Standish, we pick up the next sentence with "Standish first appears in the written record..." and then I use your wording re: Smith.
  • "50 would survive..." got rid of that, replaced with yours.
  • "Standish tended to Bradford..." same as above.
  • Having made nearly all the edits you suggested, I then went through the article looking for other examples of the passive voice (searching for the words "was," "were," and "would"). I removed the passive voice and re-wrote several other sentences which I think has helped.
Let me know if you see other problem spots and I'll gladly fix. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I did a few more tweaks, added some links (Twelve Years Truce, etc). Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Comment - William Brewster (Pilgrim) was the Elder of the Scrooby congregation; was imprisoned before they left England for Leiden; continued as Elder in Plymouth until his death. Although the focus of the article is on Standish, somehow the article should incorporate Brewster and his role. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. A couple of nitpicks so far, though I've haven't read to the end yet.
  • "On February 17, 1621, the Plymouth Colony militia elected him as its first commander and continued to re-elect him to that position for the remainder of his life.[3] Later, he served as an agent of Plymouth Colony in England, as assistant governor, and as treasurer of Plymouth Colony.[4]" - confusing because later doesn't seem to flow logically after "remainder of his life."
  • "By the 1640s, Standish relinquished his role as a man of action and settled into a quieter life on his Duxbury farm" - can "man of action be reworded?
  • "In 1620, the group embarked on a venture to establish a colony in North America, desiring to create a community free from foreign influences of the Dutch and where they could still practice their religion freely." Awkward sentence
  • "In what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts, the passengers of the Mayflower—later known in the United States as Pilgrims—established a colony referred to at the time as "New Plymouth" (although the name and spelling varied)." Tricky here. You've explained that not all passengers of the Mayflower were separatists (in fact some were Anglican) but this sentence indicates the passengers were Pilgrims which many consider to be synonymous with Puritan. Somehow, needs a rework.
  • "Anxious to prepare themselves in the event of hostilities, on February 17, 1621, the men of the colony met and officially formed a militia consisting of all able-bodied men. They elected Standish their commander, ratifying by democratic process the position that the leaders of the colony had already assigned him.[3] " Needs a little clarification. Wasn't Standish the commander prior to this event? If not who was?
  • This all very nit-pi:cky, . Overall I'm enjoying reading the article, and hope to finish tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Nit-picky is good. Thanks for the feedback. I've made the following changes:
  • "On February 17..." I think simply taking out "later" fixes the problem here.
  • "By the 1640s..." Changed "man of action" to "active soldier" which I think is better.
  • "In 1620, the group embarked..." Re-worked this into two separate sentences and I think it's clearer now.
  • "In what is now Plymouth..." Very good point here. Depending on the source, "Pilgrim" can either apply strictly to Separatists or also to all the first settlers of Plymouth (both Separatist and Anglican). I've explained this in the text and I hope it's clear.
  • "Anxious to prepare..." Re-worded this a bit to stress that he already had the position, but that the militia was confirming it by demcratic vote.
  • Hope this addresses your concerns. Glad you're enjoying the article. Let me know about other changes as you continue reading. Historical Perspective (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more:
  • "As Standish and Hobbamock burst into the shelter, Pokanokets inside attempted to flee. English outside fired their muskets, wounding a Pokanoket man and woman who were later taken to Plymouth to be treated. Inside, Standish discovered that Corbitant had left Nemasket and that Tisquantum was unharmed.[37]" – somewhat confusing to read with repetitious use of inside/outside. Try to reword slightly.
  • "In an effort to show they were not intimidated, Bradford sent the snakeskin back filled with gunpowder and shot." I'd consider flipping the clauses in this sentence because the pronoun appears to refer to the antecedent in the previous sentence.
*"To fully surround the settlement, the palisade would have to be more than half a mile (or 0.8 km).[40]" This was a bit of an awkward section. Needs some tweaking.
  • "The mission had a personal side for Standish." Reword – not literally a personal side, but maybe a personal aspect.
  • "Plymouth Colony had been granted rights to maintain a trading post at present-day Castine, Maine, on the Penobscot River. It had been captured from the French by the English in 1628." Another section with some short choppy sentences; try combining some of them.
  • I'm fairly familiar with this topic, but nonetheless know more now than yesterday! Nicely researched and presented. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Very glad to hear it's informative. I've made the following changes.
  • "As Standish and Hobbamock..." I re-phrased most of the paragraph. I think it reads more clearly now.
  • "In an effort to..." Ha. Good point. It sounded like the snakeskin was intimidated. Fixed it.
  • "To fully surround..." Re-worded.
  • "The mission had..." Used "aspect."
  • "Plymouth Colony had been granted..." Yes, this was very clunky. I re-worked the paragraph so that events are told in chronological order. I think it makes more sense now.
  • Make sure the dates in the text are formated according to WP:MOSDATES. In some cases I believe I saw commas that should be removed. Sorry I meant to post this earlier and haven't had time today to re-read the article to verify whether or not I'm correct. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have one more read through tomorrow to be certain no other prose issues jump out at me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments: please add the date of Wordsworth's book.
  • I've done a light copyedit to about half the article and will swing through and finish tomorrow. However, in my view it may need someone else to tweak the prose. Because of my familiarity with the topic it may seem more clear to me than to a reader who comes to this without any knowledge of the subject. I'll support with the caveat that the prose gets a good brush up as soon as possible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comments
    • proscribe --> subscribe is a huge vocabulary error. Please remeber this.
    • I altered one instance of Narrangansett (?) --> Narragansett, but then found several others. Is yours an alternate spelling? • Ling.Nut 03:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on "proscribe." Definitely the wrong word. "Narrangansett" was a typo. I corrected the other two instances. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010 [42].

The Open Boat edit

Nominator(s): María (habla conmigo) 14:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Stephen Crane was only 25-years old when his steamship, the SS Commodore, sank off the coast of Florida. The correspondent survived thirty hours huddled together with three other men on a 10-foot dinghy; one of them didn't make it. Out of this harrowing experience came one of the best American short stories ever written, "The Open Boat". It's a relatively short article, but comprehensive and (I hope) an interesting read. It was promoted to GA last month and recently went through a Peer Review. As this is my first attempt to bring a work of literature to FA, and several others may follow, any and all comments/suggestions are welcome. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 14:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 14:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by Ruhrfisch, with a few comments. Very interesting and well done article - I have a few comments, which do not detract from my support.
    • WP:LEAD strongly suggests that direct quotations in the lead should have a reference.
    • Should this be "leaving" instead of "leading"? ...the correspondent regularly refers to the way things "seemed" or "appeared", leading how a thing actually "is" entirely ambiguous.[28]
    • Could the word "keeps" be moved out of the quote and brackets in Editor Vincent Starrett stated in his introduction to the 1921 collection of Crane's work entitled Men, Women and Boats that the author "[keeps] down the tone where another writer might have attempted 'fine writing' and have been lost."[18] i.e. ...that the author keeps "down the tone where another writer might ...
    • WP:Logical quotation sometimes confuses me - thankfully, SandyGeorgia catches my errors - but it seems to me some of the quotes might not be correctly using quotation marks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments and support, Ruhrfisch! I've added a citation to the lead (a repeat of what is used for verification later in the article) and changed the "leaving" and "keeps" as suggested. As for the logical quotations, I've looked through them again and don't believe anything is amiss; most of the quotes used are complete thoughts, and all end in periods, which is why the punctuation is contained within the quotation marks -- even the poem has a period! Thanks again. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to help and thanks for the tweaks and checking the quotes. Well done! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a well-written, engaging, and thorough article about Crane's story. I found the critical commentary intriguing, and the prose finely sculpted. I have a few minor questions and suggestions, which I have left on the article's talk page. Kudos to Maria for another fine piece! Scartol • Tok 15:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scartol, you're a gem. Thank you so much for the thoughtful copy-editing (as always) and the in depth comments on the talk page. I'll respond in detail to your comments, hopefully tomorrow when I have my books in front of me. María (habla conmigo) 16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Professionally written, engaging throughout. I reviewed the article on March 28, and all of my concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well wrote, images check out, alt text present, and references look good. I do have one comment though. In the notes, the year of the references in parenthesis, but in the reference section they are not in parenthesis. I believe the years in both sections should have parenthesis. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments and support, Charles Edward! The only citations that use parentheses are the ones for Wertheim, in order to differentiate between his two books used as references. I don't believe the citations and the listed references need to match, per se; this is a style I've used in both Stephen Crane and, to a further extent (in which all citations include the year of publication in parentheses), Emily Dickinson. María (habla conmigo) 13:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until a concern, similar to one i raised in the GA review, has been addressed. The article is excellent, but if you read carefully it apepars to contain several instances of original research. Examples:
  • Plot summary: "The first part introduces the four characters—the correspondent, a condescending observer detached from the rest of the group..." etc. Think carefully: I presume Crane has not actually had one of the characters say that the correspondent is "a condescending observer". This is not a plot feature (ie. it should not be in this section of the WP article), and it represents an analysis of the story's characters that needs to be sourced.
  • Major themes: "That nature is an ultimately disinterested woman is an idea that appears in other works by Crane; in his 1895 novel The Red Badge of Courage, for example, the character Henry Flemming thinks "Nature to be a woman with a deep aversion to tragedy."" Superficially this appears OK, except that the footnote is to Crane's book (ie. The Red Badge of Courage etc) Thus a WP editor has engaged in OR by locating a quote from Flemming and telling us that this shows Crane repeating his theme of "nature [as] an ultimately disinterested woman". The same thing happens later in this subsection, with the sentence that begins "The correspondent laments the lack of religious support, as well as his inability to blame God for his misfortunes, musing:..." The footnote is again to Crane's story, so the interpretation of it is that of a WP editor.

I really enjoyed this article and think María does a great job, but at present she looks too close to the subject to have realised that this type of OR has occurred. I hope these points can be addressed, regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010 [43].

Olivia Manning edit

Nominator(s): Slp1 (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have loved reading and rereading Manning's Fortunes of war novel sequence, and knew that it was based on the author's real life experiences during the Second World War. Intrigued, I have been working slowly to research and expand the article. Manning herself proved to be crabbier and generally more difficult than her fictional counterpart, but that's real life for you. The article has been greatly improved following the suggestions made at Maria's Good article review, Finetooth's peer review, and a copyedit by User:PiCo. Further comments and suggestions are welcomed! Slp1 (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 12:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A comprehensive, balanced and well-referenced article. I mention in passing that the OED insists on a capital in anti-Semitic. - Tim riley (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I've changed the capitalization of anti-semitic etc.--Slp1 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review by Charles Edward
  • General
    • "Manning's youth was divided between Portsmouth and Ireland, giving her an "Anglo-Irish sense of belonging to nowhere".", is this quote from her directly? It should probably be attributed. Its grammar does not flow well with the leading part of the sentence. I'd suggest a rephrasing or omitting "to" from the quote.
  • I've attributed it in the lead and fixed up the typo.
    • "Indeed, when financial circumstances forced Manning to leave", should probably drop "indeed".
  • If you don't mind, I'd rather leave it, as it makes the link to her mother's advice.
    • Internal link "typist"?
  • done
    • "Reggie was relentlessly gregarious, and throughout his life, his warmth, wit and friendliness earned him many friends and drinking companions.", that is an opinion, it should probably be attributed.
  • It is an opinion, but it seems to be everybody's opinion, and as such I'd be sorry to attribute to only one person. Reggie seems universally acknowledged to be quite the character. See [44]; [45], [46], and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography "Large, ebullient, and gregarious, Smith was dispassionately portrayed by Olivia Manning as Guy Pringle.... Guy Pringle in these volumes is a big-hearted Marxist, just as those who knew and worked with Reggie Smith remember him...His extreme friendliness and wit, his warmth and exuberance of character, earned him an enormous circle of friends.."
    • Internal link "Egypt", "Greece", "British Council", "Cario", "Communist", etc. Lots of terms that could use links throughout.
  • The first three were already linked on first mention. I've done the last two and will check to see if there are any other useful links to add.
    • "She was also constantly anxious about illness, and was indeed frequently unwell.", unneeded "indeed"
  • Once again I'd prefer to keep this one, so as to make the link with her anxiety of illness.
    • "Indeed, Reggie was soon transferred away", should probably drop "indeed"
  • I've dropped this one as you suggest.
    • "Manning described the books as long chapters of an autobiography, and indeed early versions were written in the first person.", hmmm another "indeed" :) You should probably scan throughout to make sure all other uses of "indeed" are useful
  • Indeed, it looks like we have different views on on the use of "indeed". ;-) I've removed this and another one I found.
    • If "Jacob Morrow" was an early pen name, a redirect by that title to this article would be appropriate. It may also be worth mentioning in the lead, I leave that to your discretion
  • I'll certainly make the redirect, thanks for the suggestion, but have not added it to the lead. I think they were such minor novels, ones that she didn't admit to for many years, that it would be overkill to add them.
    • Who was her publisher(s)? There are a few mentions of them, but their name is never given, unless I missed it somehow. That should definitely be added. If there were more than one, the publisher should probably also be listed in the list of works.
  • She started, prewar, with Jonathan Cape, which is mentioned. Post war she was with Heinemann, and moved post 1974 to Weidenfeld. I've added this. I'd rather not add the publishers to the list... what with hardcover/paperbook, UK/US publishers and name changes/takeover of the publishers' etc I think it would become very complicated.
    • Are there an estimate or hard number on the amount of book she sold, or what her best selling books was? That could be useful to bring out and help establish the popularity of her works.
  • Unfortunately, I can't find any very specific information about this in the sources. Good idea though.
  • MOS
    • The references section should follow the notes section; not precede it
  • Done. Thanks!
    • At 53,000 characters, the article is at the upper limit of the recommended size of an article according to WP:LENGTH. You may consider scaling it back a bit, but it is acceptable as it is now.
  • Good. I'm not sure there is that much expansion possible, in any case, so this is as big as it would probably get.
  • Citations needed
    • "They were married at Marylebone Registry Office on 18 August 1939, with Stevie Smith and Louis McNeice as witnesses."
    • "Manning was subject to anxieties bordering on paranoia throughout her life."
    • "She frequently sacked vets – telling one "I do not pay you to tell me that there is nothing wrong with my animal" – and trying animal faith healers at times.", quote needs a citation
    • "Early in 1975 Manning began The Danger Tree, which for a time she described as "The Fourth Part of the Balkan Trilogy"; in the event, it became the first novel in The Levant Trilogy, continuing the story of the Pringles in the Middle East.", quote needs citation
    • "The first book proved "a long struggle" to write, in part because of Manning's lack of confidence in her powers of invention: the book juxtaposes the Desert War experiences of a young officer, Simon Boulderstone, with the securer lives of the Pringles and their circle." quote needs citation
    • "She died in hospital on 23 July; somewhat typically, Reggie, having been recalled from Ireland, was not present when she died."
  • I've reworked the citing so that there is an appropriate citation at the end of each of the sentences you mention, rather than a bit later.
  • Images
    • Note File:Olivia manning.jpg, is non-free, fair use rationale is acceptable
    • The size of some images are forced. WP:Image discourages forcing image size without a good reason.
  • References are all acceptable
  • Images check out
  • Alt text is present

I am leaning to support this fine article. The reference section being moved and the uncited quotes are my biggest concern. Good job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. I have done my best to respond to them.Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is a very nice article, and a very interesting read. Indeed, you are very talented! Keep up the good work. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nicely written. I made a few MINOR tweaks, revert if you wish. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I couldn't find the link to the FA on the page. Am I blind or stupid? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your changes are very helpful. Are you talking about the link to this page, that should be on the talkpage? If so, it is there! I am sure you are neither of the things you call yourself though!! --Slp1 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As Slp1 mentioned above, I previously reviewed this article for GA. How pleased I am to see it's expanded and improved so much since then! It's well written, well referenced, and certainly brings to light an incredibly interesting woman who not many are aware of. The "Work" section is exactly what I had in mind when I suggested further attention be paid to her literary output, so great work done there. I'm very pleased to support this becoming an FA. (P.S., however, why is there no article for epic novel? The redlink really jumps out at me, which is strange since there's a category and an article for epic poetry. Hmm.) María (habla conmigo) 18:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
"Her fiction and non-fiction, frequently detailing journeys and personal odysseys, were generally set in England, Ireland, Europe and Africa" - seems comicly cautious, but is also wrong - Syria, Palestine & the Lebanon are none of these. Were any set anywhere else? -ok, one I see. Does "Africa" just mean Egypt? Better rework.
We don't link London surely? Or England & Europe I'd say.
"hometown" as one word is US English it seems to me
A sentence or two explaining the Romanian political/diplomatic situation in 1939 is called for, and a couple of words on Transylvania and Egypt likewise.
"With Bernard Montgomery's Memoirs as her guide" - "Field-Marshall M" is still usual & clearer.
It would be useful to say which books remain in print, & when the others last were, where the information is easily accessible.
It is extremely heavily reliant on the B&B biography. Were there no other sources for the life?

Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Starting at the bottom, no, as far as I am aware, and after fairly exhaustive searches there are no other detailed sources apart from the B and B bio and the Dictionary of National Biography articles which I have also used. There are brief mentions of short periods of her life in various Stevie Smith, Durrell and Cairo-in-the-War bios and books. I have used these where possible. If it is any consolation there is little inconsistency between B & B and the other sources, where there these are available.
I've added a sentence about the books currently in print. I could with some difficulty ascertain when the others were in print, if you think it is worth it, though I'm not sure where and how the information would be presented.
I've fixed up the first sentence, the Monty reference and "home town". Thank you.
I've delinked some; this is so much a matter of preference and I was encouraged to add links above!! My personal view is that we should be consistent if Europe is not linked then neither should Africa etc, and that if England isn't, then Ireland shouldn't be either.
I'll work on expanding the info about Romania/Transylvania/Egypt either later on tonight or tomorrow.
Once again, thank you for your helpful comment. --Slp1 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it should'nt be that difficult if major reprints are listed without claiming they are necessarily the last. Was everything published in a North American edition? Also how many languages has she been translated into? These are not minor points, though not the sort of thing academic critics trouble themselves with. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, it isn't the focus of the bios. There are, for example, some incidental references to individual NA editions (some already mentioned in the text), but I can't think of any information about translations in them at all. I would probably need to do searches through world cat, books in print etc to figure this information out, which worries me somewhat as straying into original research. Do you have any comments about where this information should be added? To the text? To the list of her books at the end? I can't visualize how it is going to be presented, as over the 30-50 years many of the books have had several UK editions/reprints, North American, South African, Australian etc editions/reprints, and maybe even a translation. It is potentially a lot of information. It would be very helpful for me to see another WP article as a model, so that I can understand more clearly your suggestion --Slp1 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is rightly a lot in the article about how she was, or felt, neglected etc in later years, but it is hard to give context to this without knowing whether her books were still in print. Equally the books outside the series - how long did they stay in print. If it isn't covered to some extent in the biography then it certainly should be! Criticism is different. The German article mentions German editions of the series. I don't think reporting the existence of editions without drawing conclusions is OR. There is little point regurgitating the opinions of academic critics without knowing if anyone was or is reading the books. For example her first book seems never to have had a US paperback edition, or any since 1938, whereas Virago did a UK pb edn in 1988. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added
  • More context about Romania, Transylvania and Egypt at the time[47]
  • Information about the languages that her books have been translated into based on worldcat and a Romanian source that I had to hand.[48]
  • Information about the books that are currently in print.[49]
I am still unclear and somewhat unconvinced about your request for details about out of print status. For one, I am concerned that the desire to put Manning's insecurities into context by noting the reprints/out-of-print status her books etc, would be synthesis. I've been through the bio and the ODNB entry again, and neither suggest that this was part of problem for her; instead the angst noted is mainly about reviews, lack of prizes recognition. As far as putting them in the listings, I've had a look at the "works" sections for some similar featured articles and they just mention the date of first publication, not subsequent reprintings. It is also so complicated; I don't think historical information about "when" books go out of print is available, and obviously it is a kind of circular phenomenon. Yes, Virago Modern Classics reprinted (all?) her books in the 1980s and 1990s, (which certainly would be worth a mention, if only I could find a source; for some reason this list of Virago Modern Classics omits them [50]) but these editions are now out of print once again, though others have taken up the slack. If we take Doves of Venus as an example, the listing would be something like...
Doves of Venus: UK: Heinemann (1955, 1959, 1960, 1974) Virago, (1984, 1985), Mandarin (1992), Arrow, (2001), Random House (2001); US: Abelard-Schuman (1956); Denmark: Kbh (1956); Finland: Hämeenlinna (1956), Germany: Biederstein, (1957); Büchergilde Gutenberg, (1959); Australia: Little, Brown Book Group Limited (2001) Random House (2005); New Zealand: Random House (1997, 2004) Little, Brown Book Group Limited (2000); Canada : Random House (2001); South Africa: Random House (2001).
And that's one that is fairly straightforward, and making assumptions that world cat is correct in its listings, which it isn't always, and likely missing some out. I would like to try and address your concerns but at the moment, I am not clear that this would really be an improvement. I'd be glad for the opinion of others here. --Slp1 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having found this this of editions, I decided to give it a go. I've added the years of all the editions listed there and on WorldCat. See this [51] --Slp1 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's more than enough on English-language editions, but needs at least an overall ref. Also there should be some mention of translations into other languages - are they all North European for example? Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I am still having trouble understanding what you are suggesting: what do you mean by "needs an overall ref"? Are you asking for a citation to the list? More details about the various editions in the text of the article? The translations (and which languages) have been included in the text for several days now.[52]. Are you suggesting more information about the translations should be in the list? Thank you for clarifying. --Slp1 (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "Works" section is unreferenced. Presumably the information mostly came from the same one or two places in which case I would suggest only an OVERALL ref is needed, not a host of individual ones. You had not mentioned you had added the translations, and people can't be expected to reread the article every time! Hope this is clearer. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes it is. I've added a reference for the books as you requested.[53] I mentioned that I had addressed the translation issue in my April 9th post above, but you must have missed it. No worries, though! --Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My points above dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I peer-reviewed this article on March 27 and thought it close to FA quality, and it has only improved since then. Most impressive piece of work and an enjoyable read. Finetooth (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Is "in the event" correct here: "In the event, her renown..."
    • A little bit of inconsistency in the refs: Full reference supplied repeatedly for Barbera, Jack & McBrien, William (1985); McNiven, Ian (1998) & Rossen, Janice (2003).• Ling.Nut 06:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, of course. "In the event" -> "as it happened". As far as the refs are concerned, they have different page numbers cited. This seemed a reasonable way to go since the books are used only a couple of times, so I did not put them in the references. But if you have another suggestion... --Slp1 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010 [54].

Japanese battleship Yamato edit

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat) 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan][reply]


The lead ship and namesake of the Yamato class, the largest battleships in the history of maritime warfare. This article has been in the works since January 2009. Passed its GAN in January 2009, passed its MilHist ACR February 2009, and has just undergone a substantial copyedit courtesy of EyeSerene and The ed17. I have the entire subsequent week off from school, so I should be able to deal with any concerns promptly. Respectfully nominate for FA Status. Cam (Chat) 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. A dab link to Okinoshima. No external links. Alt text is currently not part of the featured article criteria, but the text in this article is probably on the long side; consider removing some pieces that are chance details of the picture rather than essential parts of what the picture conveys. Ucucha 22:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the dab link. I'll look at the image texts and see what I can do. Cam (Chat) 02:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I've already read this recently, but I'll give it another go tomorrow if I get time Cam. But at the moment.... well, I'd hope to see information about the wreck, its discovery, the museum, the significant memorials in Japan and at least a passing reference to the recent movie in the prose. I think the movie especially worthy of inclusion in this instance. I've been going off popular culture sections myself (was never too keen on them), but I do think there's room for legacy in an article - and the movie had a significant impact in Japan, being one of their first big budget movies that described their nation's sacrifice in the war. It provoked a great deal of interest in the ship and it's mission (bolstering reporting and attendance of the museum in Kure) and importantly it's been responsible for breaking down taboos in a country that has always been fairly quiet about the war previously. I don't have any reliable sources for all of this I'm afraid, but if you want to look for them the Mianichi Daily News, the Daily Yomiyuri and the Japan Times sites are good places to start. The Yomiyuri certainly had a lot in its print paper when the movie was released about all of this (although I sadly note far less online), and this really was very well reported back in 2005/2006, on the news and in the papers. I know that you can only work with the sources available, but I feel that without the stuff mentioned above this article is failing on 1b (comprehensive). Anyway, I'll have a proper read and let you know, but thought I should mention this early. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. I should note that we have quite a bit of that stuff on the main Yamato class battleship page, and it can easily be moved over to this page as well if need be. The difficulty with the stuff on the wreck is that I don't possess any reliable sources dealing with the wreck itself and its discovery. There was something at one point, but the sources weren't considered particularly reliable. If I can find anything that meets RS with regards to the wreck discovery, I'll definitely add it in. Cam (Chat) 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cam that looks really good already. Bit pressed for time today, but I'll give you a few more comments in a day or two. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly Support. The article looks great Cam (and everyone else who's worked on it), although I do have a few niggles:

  • There are some discrepancies in the size of the main guns. It's usually correct but on one occasion they're listed as 18 inch instead of 18.1 (first sentence of armament) and the ammunition is listed as 18 inch in Trials and Initial operations, when most of the time the metric version is used to describe the guns. I'd have adjusted them, but because a template is used I'm not sure what's wrong with it.
I'm not sure what's going on there. I may have to manually convert a few of them. It actually only occurs once, and I've manually converted it instead. Cam (Chat) 22:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I assumed the ammunition example was a template as well (but didn't check and thinking about it there is only one measurement, so blatently not a conversion!) I've adjusted it to metric though. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to that, is there a reason for so many Japanese ships' guns being listed metric first? It might just be the books I read but I usually see imperial first (which is also in line with most WWII British, American and German ships on wiki), and as this article appears to be British English....
Mostly because the Japanese used metric units when designating their guns. The big ones, for example, are known officially as the 40cm/45 calibre (even though they were actually 46cm!). It's a wee bit on the confusing side, but it's how they roll. Cam (Chat) 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought that would be the case. No problem then. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that two anime shows and a film get a mention, I think the Yamato Memorial Tower really deserves to be included at the end of the article as well.
I've added something. Cam (Chat) 04:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I though about just adding it myself but thought I'd let you decide where to put it! Changed my vote (and well done, it's a great little article). Ranger Steve (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything about the survivors? Who picked them up etc...
I'd assume the destroyers that then limped back to Japan. I'll add that. Cam (Chat) 22:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Leyte Gulf - the description as the largest naval engagement in history is a little subjective (and not really supported by the article itself). Could I suggest either "one of the largest naval battles in history" or "the largest naval battle of WWII"?
In terms of number of ships in the combined orders of battle, it was the largest naval battle in history. I can find a cite for it (likely in Steinberg or Swanson) if you want. I am willing to change it but I'll see if I can find a citation for it first. Cam (Chat) 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added clarifier. Cam (Chat) 22:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looking good! Ranger Steve (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Brief comments

  • Conversions are needed in the infobox for displacement, weapon size and armor thicknesses.
Conversions are done. Cam (Chat) 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conversions in the armament section are presented English units first, but those in the infobox use metric units first, as did the Japanese themselves. Some of the manual conversions are incorrect.
Fixed all the ones I found. Cam (Chat) 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coordinates in the infobox seem a bit redundant since they're also at the top of the page.
Removed Coordinates. Cam (Chat) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're using both English and British spellings, pick one and stick with it. Conversion templates default to British English. You can change this by adding |sp=us to the templates if you like. And don't forget to hyphenate adjectival forms of units when the unit is spelled out.
Converted everything to British spelling. Cam (Chat) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault. Sorry Cam; I don't know how to write Brit English! :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just add a lot of "u" and "re" to your words. In fact, you could say that the armoured cruisers of the British were of a very poor calibre compared to those of the Japanese. Cam (Chat) 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned-up extraneous refs, added   as needed for gun sizes. Deleted unnecessary conversions; my rule of thumb is once in the infobox and once in the main body otherwise it gets too distracting. Maybe we need for formalize rules for conversions in the the MILMOS to prevent people from wasting time on this sort of stuff--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)?[reply]

  • Comment - Cam, don't forget about the discovery of the wreck! (didn't combinedfleet have a page on it?) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some stuff about the wreck. Thanks for the links. Cam (Chat) 06:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my issues noted below have been resolved. --Brad (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Oppose Comment Since there is such a heavy reliance on combinedfleet.com what makes this source reliable? --Brad (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#CombinedFleet.com; it's also written by published authors, I believe. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1-C The article relies upon a secondary source for the majority of references. 17 books appear in the bibliography yet are hardly referenced in comparison to combinedfleet.com. At least two books are listed which aren't even cited in the article. The book The Battleship Yamato, entirely devoted to the ship is cited once.
Alright; a few things in response to that. Firstly, relying on secondary sources has never been an issue with regards to WP articles. Relying overly on primary documents, according to WP:OR, should be avoided where possible. Secondly, I would add that many of the instances with regards to combinedfleet are double citations. If you wish, I can remove the combinedfleet one and simply keep the other one. Thirdly, it's all a case of what's accessible. I'll do my absolute best to get my hands on The Battleship Yamato, but if combinedfleet - which is incredibly detailed and exhaustive - is the best that I can do, then it's the best that I can do. It's been relied on extensively for many other articles that have gone through the FAC process and become featured articles. I'm a bit confused as to how relying on one exhaustive source instead of another constitutes a huge issue. That said, I'll do my best to fix what I can. Cam (Chat) 04:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've cut down on its usage as much as I am able to (ie where other sources were capable of fulfilling the same role). Cam (Chat) 04:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other difficulty, as Ed and I are discovering pouring over our sources, is that very few sources deal with the Yamato in any great deal. I have seven books that mention the leviathan of a warship, but very few of them do so for more than a sentence here and there or a paragraph. The only fully comprehensive source I have access to, unfortunately, is combinedfleet. To be honest, it's one of the few exhaustive sources actually available on the nit-pickings of ship movement of the IJN. Cam (Chat) 05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "hardly referenced in comparison" - Garzke and Dulin, p. 54 are referenced 18 times alone...add in pp. 56 and 57, and it rises to 31.
AFAIK, unless the tabular records themselves have been published, the kind of information they give aren't directly in print. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brad, CombinedFleet is the only source in English that I know of that has published a TROM for Yamato with that level of detail. I have most of the books printed in English that present the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy, and I just checked them all to try to replace some of the CombinedFleet citations. I was able to replace around four of them, but the rest of the CombinedFleet citations appear to have information that is contained in no other source in English, especially exact dates and the names of Yamato's skippers. What do you expect this article's editors to do, learn Japanese, then travel to Japan and visit the war history library of the Defense Ministry to personally scrub the Senshi Sōshō for the same information? Cla68 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cla68, Brad brought up a perfectly reasonable point. In my experience, adopting even a mildly combative tone, such as that seen in your last sentence, doesn't do anyone any good. It may be that the replies Brad has received, from you and other editors, as well as the recent changes, will satisfy him; would you take it amiss if I suggested you strike or recast your last sentence and await his return? All the best, Steve T • C 13:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck it, but I don't agree that his objection is reasonable. The editors pointed out that the site has been accepted as a reliable source and it is the only source for the information in question. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think it's a reasonable point to raise that an article uses a lot of one source, while seeming to ignore others, even if one accepts the subsequent explanation as to why (i.e. the others don't carry the necessary information). Still, thanks for the strike; your previous comments stood convincingly enough without that sentence. All the best, Steve T • C 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me make it clear that I know that being an FAC reviewer is an onerous and thankless task, and I appreciate that Brad is willing to be one. If I could, however, say something to all FAC reviewers in general, please be careful not to pull out a hammer to pound the protruding nail, as in the Japanese proverb, "The protruding nail must be hammered down." In this case, the high number of CombinedFleet (CF) citations stuck out very visibly and so earned itself extra attention, and unnecessarily in my opinion. If this article's editors had combined all their citations in a single footnote at the end of each paragraph, like I usually do, then the number of CF citations wouldn't have been as visible and probably wouldn't have been noted. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the sourcing can be summed up quite elegantly in the last paragraph of the class article:
"On the eve of the Allies' occupation of Japan, special service officers of the Imperial Japanese Navy destroyed virtually all records, drawings, and photographs of or relating to the Yamato-class battleships, leaving only fragmentary records of the design characteristics and other technical matters. The destruction of these documents was so efficient that until 1948 the only known images of the Yamato and Musashi were those taken by United States Navy aircraft involved in the attacks on the two battleships. Although some additional photographs and information from documents that were not destroyed have come to light over the years, the loss of the majority of written records for the class has made extensive research into the Yamato-class somewhat difficult. Because of the lack of written records, information on the class largely came from interviews of Japanese officers following Japan's surrender."
Since the documents for the ships - all of them - are largely missing other sources must be adopted to fill in the gaps so that these articles can comply with WP:RS standards. As for this article, I agree with Cla68 that we have no need for heavy artillery to settle this dispute. It appears that combined fleet is a reliable source, and that the information in the article is well cited to a vareity of reliable sources. From where I sit, opposition on 1-C grounds is unwarrented in this article, although I intend to take a closer look at all aspects of the article before I cast a !vote on the matter of this article's FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2-C There is no consistency in the references. Some have missing page numbers and are out of continuity. Smith 2007, p. 1. is the example given @ Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. References should appear as [1][2][3] and not [2][3][1] etc. --Brad (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my viewing of it, there aren't any inconsistencies with regards to dates and pages format that are out of line. All of the refs are now in order numerically. Cam (Chat) 04:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are nowhere near complete. The author Thompson is not referenced but is in the biblio. Skulski references have (1988) while in the biblio, (2004) is given. References are missing publication dates, have outdated or missing retrieved on dates. Again, look at Smith 2007, p. 1. layout. Your refs should be inline in that manner. Notice commas and periods and where to use them. --Brad (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've removed the unreferenced book. I've added the earlier publication date for Skulski (my guess is it was a later republication), while all retrieval dates are now on the web references. As to the consistency of the print references, I'm slightly confused as to what your objection is. I've used the format of - to continue your example - Smith (2007), p. 1. in each one of my four previous FA articles. So long as they're formatted consistently, it shouldn't be an issue. As to the lack of periods at the end of some of them, I have begun to clean that up and will finish doing so tonight. Cam (Chat) 23:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "While drydocked, Captain Nobuei Morishita—former Captain of the battleship Haruna—assumed command of Yamato." You know you've got a serious problem with your captain when he needs drydocking. I'm mentioning this first, out of order, because I want to mention that the long dashes here are fine with me, because I can substitute parentheses and it still makes sense. Also, if taking a breath where there's a long dash fits the cadence of your written English, that's fine. There are other places where neither a breath nor parentheses would make sense, and I'd use commas myself in these places, but I've seen the YouTube video about dash Nazis so I won't oppose over this :)
    • Sorry that may have come across as snotty, I'm trying to say that a reader who is unclear about drydocking might assume that it's something the captain was personally involved in. As a general rule, to maintain clarity for the widest audience possible, phrases and clauses that modify something should modify a word that's somewhere close by, and in the same sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't come across as snotty at all. I looked at it again, and I'm struggling to figure out what I could have possibly been on when I wrote that sentence. Must have been powerful stuff :P Cam (Chat) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case anyone cares, the first mention of "tonnes" in the text isn't converted. As long as conversion information is in the sidebar (and it is, though not to long tons), this isn't an issue I care about, but I know some people care. Also, I don't like "Displacing over 70,000 tons", because "ton" can mean tonne, short ton or (in naval contexts, on Wikipedia) long ton; I don't think anyone will require you to give the conversions, but I'd prefer that you say which ton you mean.
I've changed it to tonnes, though it could also possibly be metric tons if that works better. Cam (Chat) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is British English (not sure why btw), tonnes. "Metric tons" is for American English (since only Americans need to be reminded about "metric"). - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is British English, I'm out of my league here, but I would have thought "class's" was the possessive, not "class'".
Ah. I'll fix that. Part of my problem is that Canadian English is sort of a variant of the two, so I usually end up having about half british/half American english. I'll fix this. Cam (Chat) 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, let's have more Canadian English articles, they're easier for me since Chicago has always been influential with Canadian journalists. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure what to do with that. From my perspective, it mostly just looked like a horribly convoluted number-system which was really irritating to read in a flow-like manner. Thanks for changing it though, because one-hundred sixty-two really didn't look that much better. Cam (Chat)
Okay, and was "increased" (instead of decreased) right? I guessed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that seems to work much better, and yes, the number was increased almost sevenfold (not that it made a whole lot of difference, given the low quality of the guns!) Cam (Chat) 04:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully we'll be working together on lots of articles, Cam, so say something now if you liked things better before I started messing with them. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. That works excellently. Cam (Chat) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. When I get to the end, I'm going to go back (unless someone says something) and remove all the conversions on the gun barrel widths, since those are commonly used as the names of guns, and since we're having trouble with the readability of sentences like this one: " When refitted in 1944 and 1945 in preparation for naval engagements in the South Pacific, the secondary battery configuration was changed to six 155 mm (6.1 in) guns and twenty-four 127 mm (5.0 in) guns, and the number of 25 mm (0.98 in) anti-aircraft guns was increased to 162." - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Changed my mind on this. People ought to be able to see U.S.-friendly units in the U.S. and SI units in most other parts of the world, and that ought to be handled automatically by the MediaWiki software by surpressing any output of the conversion template that the user has said they're not interested in or isn't likely to be interested in. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not spending my evening compensating for missing software, either. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To deal with the objection above about references, do you mind if I add a few from Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1922-1946? - Dank (push to talk) 02:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't know what "surface combatants" are. I'm imagining that means ships, or ships plus subs that have surfaced, or ships plus things that aren't ships. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Battleships/cruisers/destroyers. They are surface ships that don't use aircraft to attack things. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what "George" means in: "The intervention of a squadron of Kawanishi N1K1 "Shiden" fighters ("George") flown ..." - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone know if the reference tells us whether the 5–6° list was to starboard or port? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, I can deduce from the next paragraph that it was port. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not 100% clear on "strafing had taken a toll of the crews who manned Yamato's unprotected 25 mm anti-aircraft weapons, sharply curtailing their effectiveness". Are you saying there were so many casualties that not enough people could be found to operate the guns, or they had people available but they didn't want to operate the guns because of the strafing risk, or the guns were damaged? - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. They were unarmoured, and thus their crews died easily. Dead gunners really aren't that useful. Cam (Chat) 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm hoping that as I get better at this, I can change less when I copyedit for FAC. A really good copyeditor knows all the ways that will work, and so they can preserve as much as possible the tone of the author. I'm being a little conservative and a little anal; the plan is to relax when I see more of what passes muster and what doesn't. That's the plan :) - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Cam (Chat) 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to do with the last sentence, "... thus the battleship's end serves as a metaphor for the end of the Japanese empire". I understand the desire to finish with a bang, with something that sums up the significance, but if you keep this, then I think it would be better to attribute this sentiment to someone. In the previous sentence, I thought 4 adjectives was one too many; you might want to pick a different one to toss.
Yeah. Four adjectives is a little on the heavy side. In fact, it's a ridiculous and absurd, albeit highly loquacious and resourceful, method of writing :) Cam (Chat) 20:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be asked for more consistency in whether SI or U.S. units come first ... but not by me. - Dank (push to talk) 04:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I imagine some of them could be stubbed a little bit. Takayanagi in particular could possibly be a 2-3 line stub, but I somehow don't really think that's an option for any of the other ones. I'll delink them. Cam (Chat) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still not done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now they are. Cam (Chat) 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a thought. That seems like a bit of a stretch, given that the connection would be difficult to establish on anything more than speculation. For now, I'm leaving it out. Cam (Chat) 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel these trivia (simply "X appeared in Y"s), aside from usually being impossible to get a reliable source, are not encyclopaedic. The project should not become indiscriminate in its information; context is key. Jappalang (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MILPOP there are some occasions where such an appearance is encyclopaedic, but you are correct that I do not feel as though the current appearance that is mentioned complies with this section of the WP:MILMOS which is a part of the WP:MOS. -MBK004 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - the Yamato Museum in Kure has an entire gallery dedicated to various representations of the ship in popular culture and its shop has a range of artifacts from these appearances for sale (though I settled on a Yamato snow dome). From memory, Space Battleship Yamato received by far the most attention in the museum. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not simply that mentioning the existence of the referenced item is not encylopaedic; it is the manner of presenting such items (and more importantly their context) that becomes an issue. Compare this (with context) and this (the original form). Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. It was the wrong number, as it turns out. Cam (Chat) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of this version, I find this a comprehensive, well-written, illustrated article about one of the iconic battleships of WWII (at least to me). It does seem to go into too much detail at times, but I think that can be easily trimmed if someone deems it detrimental to the general reader, so it would not affect my support. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: all images are either in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've backed up statements and added a few sentences based on Whitley's work in Battleships of World War II. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seem to be over a hundred instances of "fireroom" (not including other instances of "fire room") on Wikipedia, but no explanation of what the heck one is. Could we pretty please either make a stub, or... is there a page giving a list of naval terminology or describing warship features... or something!... and start making some wikilinks Tks• Ling.Nut 01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it to the Glossary of nautical terms for now, then possibly stub it off later. Cam (Chat) 04:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been over the article twice and did not see anything that warranted an oppose. My only objection to the article is that it could have been so much more if the IJN had not anhilated the paperwork on these mighty sisters so thoroughly, but that is beyond the scope of our ability to adequately adress. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010 [57].

Porbeagle edit

Nominator(s): Yzx (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it's pretty comprehensive and meets the criteria. It's the first article I've nominated for FA status so we'll see how it goes. Yzx (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments (I'll review more fully later) I fixed the links to disambiguation pages. Several external links to elasmo-research.org are currently dead, probably temporarily. Ucucha 12:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is your first stab at a featured article, it's a very commendable effort: well-presented, well written, and apparently comprehensive and well-sourced. Without any specialist knowledge I can't comment on its accuracy or technical quality, but here are a few prose suggestions from the early sections of the article:-

  • Lead
    • "In the North Pacific, the closely related salmon shark (L. ditropis) takes its place." The last phrase, "takes its place", doesn't seem appropriate. Perhaps reword as "In the North Pacific, its equivalent is the closely related salmon shark (L. ditropis)."
Rephrased
    • "Behavior" is a mass noun that should not be pluralised.
Fixed
  • Distribution and habitat
    • I am slightly confused by this sentence: "The porbeagle has a global amphitemperate (missing from the tropics) distribution, mostly within 30–70°N and 30–50°S latitudes, except in the North Pacific where its niche is assumed by the salmon shark." What is the parenthetical insert referring to? And I thought we had established that the North Pacific salmon sharks were a separate counterpart, yet the "except in" phrasing appears to classify them with the porbeagle.
The parenthetical insert is to define "amphitemperate", since general readers probably aren't familiar with the term. I've rephrased it so hopefully it's clearer.
    • "as far north as southern Chile..." Southern Chile is the most southerly landmass in the southern hemisphere bar Antarctica, so "as far north as" reads oddly, especially when listed with places like Brazil which are much farther north.
Took out the "southern"
    • "much of the population spends the spring in the deep waters of the Nova Scotia continental shelf, and migrate north..." Should be "migrates"
Fixed
  • Biology and ecology
    • "Natural annual mortality is low..." It is hard for the non-expert to understand why the figures which follow this statement are "low" (10%, 15%, 20%) unless there are comparisons with other marine species.
The source only states that this mortality figure is low and doesn't give any comparative figures. I'm reticent about finding mortality estimates for other species myself as that might constitute original research.

I hope a reviewer with the appropriate professional credentials comes along soon, to do justice to what on the face of it seems a high-quality article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. -- Yzx (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did the GA review for this article and suggested that Yzx take it here; I found the prose mostly clear and compelling and saw no obvious gaps in coverage. I did a check in the Zoological Record to find whether there any unused sources, and found a few that may be of service:

Title: Tag and release of pelagic shark species by the observers on the Japanese tuna longline vessels in the Atlantic Ocean.
Author(s): Matsunaga, Hiroaki
Source: International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas Collective Volume of Scientific Papers Volume: 64 Page(s): 1690-1692 Published: 2009
  • This article includes only very brief tag data for the porbeagle, and would be of more utility to the blue shark article
Title: Diversity, distribution, richness and abundance of deep-sea chondrichthyans along south Patagonian Archipelago, Cape Horn, Diego Ramirez Islands and the northern area of the Drake Passage.
Author(s): Reyes, Pablo R.; Torres-Florez, Juan P.
Source: Revista de Biologia Marina y Oceanografia Volume: 44 Issue: 1 Page(s): 243-251 Published: 2009
  • This article is in Spanish, and in any case is probably too narrowly focused
Title: A comparative study of the ocular skeleton of fossil and modern chondrichthyans.
Author(s): Pilgrim, Brettney L.; Franz-Odendaal, Tamara A.
Source: Journal of Anatomy Volume: 214 Issue: 6 Page(s): 848-858 Published: June 2009
  • Far too esoteric, I think, at least for a species article; it might have a place on an article about shark anatomy
Title: Morphological identification of fins of the main traded pelagic shark species in chile: blue shark (Prionace glauca Linnaeus), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrhinchus Rafinesque), and porbeagle (Lamna nasus Bonnaterre).
Author(s): Hernandez, Sebastian; Haye, Pilar A.; Acuna, Enzo
Source: Gayana Volume: 73 Issue: 1 Page(s): 33-39 Published: 2009
  • Couldn't gain access to this one, though this paper on the same subject basically confirms that records of this shark's fins being traded are accurate
It is at http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-65382009000100005
Title: The rise and fall (again) of the porbeagle shark population in the Northwest Atlantic.
Author(s): Campana, Steven E.; Joyce, Warren; Marks, Linda; et al.
Source: Fish and Aquatic Resources Series Volume: 13 Page(s): 445-461 Published: 2008
  • This also appears as a chapter in Sharks of the Open Ocean, and its main points are recapitulated in an earlier chapter that is used in the article; I want to keep the fishery section as concise as possible, as it's very numbers-heavy already
Title: Trade in and conservation of two shark species, porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias).
Author(s): Fowler, Sarah; Raymakers, Caroline; Grimm, Ute
Source: BfN-Skripten Volume: 118 Page(s): 1-58 Published: 2004
  • This is basically the same information as in the IUCN reports, which is not surprising as the same people worked on them both; there are a few tidbits worth mentioning though
Title: Age under-estimation in New Zealand porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus): is there an upper limit to ages that can be determined from shark vertebrae?
Author(s): Francis, Malcolm P.; Campana, Steven E.; Jones, Cynthia M.
Source: Marine and Freshwater Research Volume: 58 Issue: 1 Page(s): 10-23 Published: 2007
  • Information from this is already used in the article (via secondary source); the broader discussion of possible inaccuracy in older vertebral aging methods I think is better saved for elsewhere
Title: On the occurrence of the porbeagle, Lamna nasus (Bonnaterre, 1788) (Chondrichthyes: Lamnidae), off Italian coasts (northern and central Mediterranean Sea): a historical survey.
Author(s): Storai, Tiziano; Celona, Antonio; Zuffa, Marco; et al.
Source: Annales Series Historia Naturalis (Koper) Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Page(s): 195-202 Published: 2005
  • This article confirms that porbeagles are rare in the Mediterranean, which is also stated in the IUCN report
Title: Morphology and evolution of the jaw suspension in lamniform sharks.
Author(s): Wilga, C.D.
Source: Journal of Morphology Volume: 265 Issue: 1 Page(s): 102-119 Published: July 2005
  • Too technical for anyone but a fish anatomist (which I'm not). In any case its interesting parts seem to be the comparative/evolutionary implications, which belong in a higher-order taxon article

And some more. I think many do not add anything important that is not in the article, but there are probably a few that do contain interesting bids that are not yet in. I can send you the complete list and assist in getting some of those references if you wish. Ucucha 02:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left brief comments on why I didn't use most of the above sources; basically they were either too technical or covered existing ground. Feel free to bring any additional articles you think might be interesting to my attention though, and thanks for the effort. -- Yzx (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; your motivations for not using the articles are good. I left a link to the Gayana piece. Ucucha 10:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all issues resolved; comprehensive and engaging article. Ucucha 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I read through the article again and found one possible problem: You write that the diversification of Lamna during the Paleogene took place because of the formation of the Arctic ice sheet, but our article Arctic sea ice ecology and history says the sheet formed no more than 4 mya. Ucucha 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article says that the evolution of Lamna itself was during the Paleogene, and that the time frame for the divergence of its two extant species is unknown. So it could've been around 4 mya (or not; it's just a theory at present). -- Yzx (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have read more closely. Supporting now. Ucucha 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. -- Yzx (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good from a writing standpoint; other than the images, which I'm not really qualified enough to review, the article is cohesive and seems to be of excellent quality. :) ceranthor 13:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. -- Yzx (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very well written and interesting shark article; I hope it's the first of many at FAC. The only thing I can suggest is a cite and link to the protologue, available here. Sasata (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the link, and thanks for the support. -- Yzx (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Overall, the article looks very well done. However, the text does not precisely support the data given in the range map. The text states, "In the North Atlantic, the northern limit of its range extends from the Newfoundland Grand Banks off Canada, through southern Greenland, to Scandinavia and Russia; the southern limit of its range extends from New Jersey, through the Azores and Madeira, to Morocco. It is found in the Mediterranean Sea, but not the Black Sea. North Atlantic sharks may stray as far south as North Carolina, Bermuda, and the Gulf of Guinea."
The range map shows the Porbeagle's occasional range as far south as Jacksonville, Florida. It does not show them occasionally present as far south as the Gulf of Guinea. Although Bermuda is listed in the text alongside "possibly straying" areas, on the map it is shown in dark blue, the color of confirmed populations. Either the range map is incorrect, or the text needs some work in this section. They cannot both be correct. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should actually be "South Carolina", so I fixed that in the text, and I fixed the map to show the possible South Carolina and West African parts of the range. I also moved Bermuda out of the "straying" part of the text. -- Yzx (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010 [58].

First Test, 1948 Ashes series edit

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


First Test of the 1948 Ashes series, a rather slow game marked by England's use of leg theory, and Bradman made his slowest Test century, snared in the leg trap of Alec Bedser, part of a trend. Compton made a famous 184 in England's second innings. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. You have two refs named "sched" and "sco4" with slightly different content. Ucucha 11:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, one redirects to the other YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 02:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
    • Passes W3C validation
    • Properly uses {{cite xxx}} templates; error check passes except for the two duplicate names already noted
    • Uses shortened footnotes with some standard footnotes; not egregious, but cosmetic
    • Cricinfo is used as the publisher in several cites, it should be used as the work; looks like it is now named ESPNcricinfo
      Cricinfo should probably be moved but that is not a FAC issue
    • CricketArchive should be used as work, not publisher; see the documentation for {{Cite web}}
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean shortened, I only put in the years if there is a need to dab. For the websites, Work and publisher only differ in italicisation and they aren't italicised as they aren't newpaper/journal titles, so publisher works the same as work with explicit italics to invert it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias
**While I obviously know what it means, would it be worth putting a note by the first use of cricket scoring notation, ie "and fell to be 74/8" and then "Bill Johnston taking 5/36 for Australia". I've started doing it in some of my articles, as people not that familiar with cricket may not understand what it means, particularly with the two being opposite ways around (though I'm pretty sure in Aus, you'd normally write the score 8/74 in that case anyway?)
    • "with ended with a hostile crowd reaction to Keith Miller," presumably should be "which ended with.."
    • "England's batsman progressed" should be 'batsmen'.
    • "Compton's innings in such conditions was highly praised." sounds a little bit off to me, but it's probably just me. I'll come back to it.
Right, that's the lead, I'm going to have to leave it for the moment. Will get back and read through the rest of it later. Harrias talk 16:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some more then; midway through the first paragraph of Day One; "round-arm action— and Miller" I don't think there should be a space after the emdash, it certainly doesn't look right anyway.
    • "Miller bowled Hutton for three" - I don't want to make this a glossary; but should 'bowled' be wikilinked for clarification?
    • I'm slightly confused as to why you reference the 2nd Test at the end of the second paragraph of Day One. I can't see any logical reason for it?
    • "as he caught the ball head over heels." I'm going to sound silly here; but my head is almost always over my heels, so I don't really understand what you mean?
    • "score at Trent Bridge, surpassing the 112 made by England.." I'm not sure 'surpassing' is the right word to use here; it kind of means the opposite of what you're trying to say.
    • "Barnes had made continuous time-wasting appeals against the light, which forced the authorities to the batting team to one protestation, after which only the umpire could call off play on his own prerogative." I can't read this straight, the piece within the commas makes no sense at all to me I'm afraid!
Again, going to have to take a break. Harrias talk 19:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 05:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The ball flew tot slip where Edrich completed the catch." - 'to', not 'tot'.
    • "to the left arm orthodox spin of Young." - should probably use "left-arm" here.
    • "with seven fours." - Nothing in any MOS specifically covering this, but it always reads oddly to me when they are both written out in full. Purely a matter of personal taste, but I'd prefer to see "with 7 fours." No issue with you leaving as it is though.
    • "from Johnson when he was eight." - "when he was on eight." maybe?
    • "with Hutton and Compton on 63 and 36 apiece." - Think this is an incorrect usage of 'apiece', it should be used when they have the same amount, in a similar fashion to 'each'. Possibly replace it with 'respectively'?
Another break for me. Only so much of this type of reading I can do in one sitting! Harrias talk 10:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 02:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At 12:35, bad light stopped proceedings, and after two inspections the umpires resumed play." Would be useful to know how long the break was, and thus when play resumed if you have that information.
    • You mention the beamer accidentally bowled by Miller, and that it is illegal, but don't mention what action was taken. I know these days, it'd be a no-ball and he'd just get a warning; was it the same then?
I don't have information on the time of the delay. As for official action over the beamer, there was no hint of a warning, I guess if there was then it would have been mentioned as Lindwall was warned in the other matches for running on the pitch and a threat of being banned from bowling is similarly important to a leg injury. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...that "No..." I know it's a quote, but shouldn't that be a lower-case 'n'? I'm not sure though.
I don't think so
    • "Apart from Hardstaff, none of the batsmen passed 25." If I'm reading it right, I think that should be "..none of the other batsmen.."
Done. Thanks very much again YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the whole article from me. No major issues, another lovely article in the Invicibles series. Harrias talk 12:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All prose issues resolved for me, I can't comment on the technical stuff, I'll leave that for other people. Pending anything terribly off with them, you have my full Support Harrias talk 08:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have made several minor fixes, typos etc. I have also been listing numerous prose queries, either grammatical, punctuation, cricket-speak or lack of clarity. Either by some telepathic genius, or maybe by stalking my sandboxes, you have anticipated and dealt with most of them, so here is a shorter list (you may have got to some of these by now, too!) As a general point for the future I would strongly recommend that you get a non-cricket person to look at the prose before FAC submission of further cricket articles, particularly match reports which are very hard to do encyclopedically. I would usually be willing to help with this.

  • Prose queries
    • The next morning, Bradman departed for 138, but his vice-captain Lindsay Hassett continued on,... The "on" is redundant.
    • Godfrey Evans, who kept wickets in the last series,... "Kept wicket", surely, and for the uninitiated this should be linked to wicket-keeper.
    • "...but the run rate remained low" followed soon after by "This ended a 64-run stand in 58 minutes". That is not a low run rate
Fair enough and removed, in spite of Fingleton and Wisden saying they were slow YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fingleton was a grouch, especially about Bradman (who for some reason he detested). Test match run rates in those days tended to be faster in terms of time than now, but were generally slower in terms of runs per 100 balls; they bowled many more overs per day, then. For example, when Australia scored 404 at Headingley, England bowled 110 overs - and that was in less than a day's play. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Fingleton and Bradman were all at loggerheads but the amusing thing is that Bradman hagiographers in Australia also often just lift all their stuff off him including all his quips and turn of phrase etc. Yeah, when I checked the scorecard again, they were bowling at 20 overs per hour that day, and 3 RPO isn't bad for that era and those crummy bats they had. Even if that hour they had only spinners and it seems Yardley was bowling some of it, so even if they had 25 overs that hour YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • O'Reilly often attacked leg stump during his career and devised a refined plan to ensnare Bradman "Refined" is surely not the best adjective here. O'Reilly's career was long over at this point, so you need to say: "During his career O'Reilly had often attacked leg stump, and had devised..." etc
    • ...while Young had none and used a pure ring field. I've never heard the expression "pure ring field" - what does it mean?)
I just used a descriptive treatment; everyone in a circle. Sometimes a commentator will say "ring field" even though there is a slip, which is a close-catching position. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As such, Yardley's leg theory tactics failed to coax them into losing their patience. "As such" is unnecessary
    • ...the ball had touched his body and not the willow. Unexplained use of "willow", meaning "bat"
    • Miller returned late in the day Needs explanation. Had Miller been off the field? Otherwise, in what sense was he returning?
    • Compton's fall at 405/7 exposed the English tail "Exposed the English tail" is cricket-speak, needs explanation
    • England made three, omitting Barnett, Hardstaff and Young to a combination of injury and poor form. You don't omit "to", you can omit "through", or "because of", or "due to".
    • Australia's batsmen set a world record by chasing down 404 on the final day to take a series-winning 3–0 lead. You need to make it clear that this was a Test cricket world record, which relates to the 404 winning total, not to the last day or the 3-0 series lead. Thus: "On the final day Australia's batsmen set a world Test cricket record by scoring 404 to win the match, thereby taking a series-winning lead".
    • Australia then completed the series in style... POV (and unnecessary rubbing it in)
Changed. Never thought of myself as a rowdy gloating nationalist YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Fifth Test was the last international match, and the tourists only had seven further matches to negotiate in order to fulfil Bradman's aim of going through the tour undefeated. Clarify that this was the last international match of the tour. Also, "only" seven further matches is putting it oddly - that's more than 20% of the whole tour.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had tweaked teh article and looked in your sandbox as I have seen FAC reviews being prepared in there. Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed all of it. Offer accepted. Many thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is nothing sacred? Having someone poking about in the sandboxes is like having a stranger going through your sock drawer. Anyhow, the article is looking a lot better now. I'll give it another readthrough in the next couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. Minor style point - referring to Lindwall's teammates as his "colleagues" read a little strangely to me, and to the extent his colleagues had a heavier workload due to his injury, wouldn't it be better to specify "the other Australian bowlers" or "the rest of the Australian attack" - because that's who we really mean. And a question to which I don't know the answer: the parts of Law 42 dealing with short-pitched bowling were introduced after the Bodyline series. Was the beamer "illegal" by 1948 or was it a later prohibition? I had a look around, and I can't find out.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Changing it in the lead. A beamer was definitely illegal by then although I don't know when it was changed. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – These are through the majority of the article, including the recaps of the first three days. For the most part, it looks like another winner.

  • "taking five wickets for Australia. Australia...". Little bit of repetition that could be sorted out in the lead.
  • Background: "It was thought that Bradman would play another leg spinner Doug Ring in McCool's place". Bracketing commas around Ring's name would appear to be needed.
  • "Joe Hardstaff junior scored 107 for Nottinghamshire, the only century made against Australia in the lead-up matches". This fact has five citations, which strikes me as extreme overkill. Do none of the books mention this, so the many match recaps wouldn't need to be used?
Of the top of my head, I think sched and/or f77 is enough but I wonder why I put those other ones there YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Day One: "Both players attacked the bowling but could get their shots through the field for runs." Is there supposed to be a "not" in this sentence? I'm no cricket expert, as I've said many times before, but it doesn't sound like they were scoring much at the time.
  • "They reached stumps at 17 without loss, with Morris on 10 and Barnes on six." That's a total of 16, not 17. Is this some oddity of cricket scoring that I don't know about?
They can get runs from extras; wides no-balls etc infringements by the fielding team YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Day Three: "Miller then responded to the spate of boundaries by with a series of bouncers." Is "by" supposed to be here as part of the terminology, or is it an excess word? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did the rest YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: first mention of stumps in the lead should be linked (as per this). Having used the word "stumps" to define end of day's play, you need another word to describe the batsman's wicket, as in Day 2 para. 2, Day 3 para 3 and Day 5 para. 2. Otherwise it all gets rather confusing. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, er I think maybe avoiding the dabbing might be more convenient YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There is a thin dividing line between cricket reporting and encyclopedic writing, and it is difficult, particularly with match reports, to keep to the right side of it. I think that this article occasionally strays over to the wrong side, but not egregiously so, and that may just be my opinion. In any event, I am now happy to support. Disclosure: I have done quite a bit of tweaking and adjusting during this FAC, stuff I would have preferred to do in a peer review. I note that with Bedser's recent death, all of the England XI have now passed away; of the Australians, I think only Morris is left. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, only Morris, Loxton and Harvey are left, and the latter two only played in 3-5 and 4-5 respectively. Thanks again for your help YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well-written. A few quibbles, though. Could you reword the last part of the background to avoid the awkward "bowlers. The bowlers" part? I realise you've done this consistently in similar articles, but with ice hockey articles I'm used to having statistics at the end. It looks a bit weird to me, with the prose-stats-prose sandwiching, but if it it's consistent and it works for you, that's fine. Maxim(talk) 03:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In cricket, football and swimming, the data sheet is usually up the top YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After my batch of comments above was taken care of, I just looked through the rest of the article and found only a couple of minor glitches, which I fixed. The article rises to the same high standard as the other similar ones that have come through here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010 [59].

Hurricane Hazel edit

Nominator(s): Maxim(talk) 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This isn't your usual hurricane article: you see, in 1954, Hurricane Hazel had the audacity to make a trip, with the strength of Category 1 hurricane, to Toronto (that's Canada, to the west of upstate New York) and cause havoc there. It also washed out western Haiti and the Carolinas' coast in particular. That was sufficient to retire the storm's name. The article itself became a GA in June, but I've recently done some considerable expansion, and I think it's ready for FAC. Many thanks for Juliancolton for giving it a quick copyedit, Risker who took some pictures, and to Martin Taylor, who donated his pictures, taken the day after Hazel, under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Maxim(talk) 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No problems in dab links, external links, or alt text. Ucucha 03:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • first impression its looking ok, last part of the Meteorological history section is awkward After leaving Toronto, the storm continued into northern(through?) Ontario and(into?) northern Quebec, and lost(loosing?) most of its remaining power over sparsely populated areas. Hazel fully dissipated on October 18, having caused 81 casualties in Ontario.[9][6].
  • Looking at the Impact section, subsection Carribbean Islands it says there are 9 fatalities in Puerto Rica mentioned first but then the next subsection Haiti starts with Hazel first brought casualties when it struck Haiti on October 12 as a Category 2 storm -- have I missed something in the sequence. Noting it follows the description of the storms progression in the Meteorological history section and its referred to as Hazel before causing damage described in the Carribean section.
  • Betty Kennedy estimates that as much 200 billion litres of water fell on to the Humber River's watershed alone.[32] whos Betty Kennedy what makes her estimates significant?

I linked Humber River and Holland Marsh as well so besides the above issues its ready to be promoted. Gnangarra 14:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. I think I've fixed all the awkwardness. Maxim(talk) 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support'; even better, also notice you fixed the other concerns as well, though you didnt take the challenge of who is Betty Kennedy :) you have my support, well done. Gnangarra 15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's the author of Hurricane Hazel, a book I used a fair bit as a reference. What she did is she took the average amount of rain that fell over the watershed (9 inches, I think), got the amount of water per a certain area, then used that, with the area of the watershed, to calculate how much water fell on the watershed; I nixed it because I felt that the up to 90% of the 200 mm of rain did the job equally as well. Two hundred billion litres of water is a bit vague, too. Maxim(talk) 15:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just saying.... here's a major, recent review that hasn't been used as a source: Sasata (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Hurricane hazel: Disaster relief, politics, and society in Canada, 1954-55
Author(s): Robinson, D; Cruikshank, K
Source: JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES-REVUE D ETUDES CANADIENNES Volume: 40 Issue: 1 Pages: 37-70 Published: WIN 2006
Yes, it hasn't been used a source. I would hardly call it 'major' -- it has an extreme and minority viewpoint, implying that officials in affected areas were searching for an excuse to clear some areas they perceived as slums, so when Hazel was coming, that was their chance. A huge chunk of it chronicles government squabbles, too. Perhaps it would deserve a mention in the subarticle, but if I were to add a bit on this theory, then I'd point out that Marie Curtis, reeve of Long Branch, one of the heavily-affected areas, had a park named after her, and I'm pretty sure there were other honours, for her work after Hazel. In short: adding such an extreme viewpoint would require it to be balanced so the article would be NPOV, and since I'm using summary style for the Canada sections (and possibly failing a little bit, too, btw), I'm not using this source, since there are more important topics to cover. Maxim(talk) 20:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - a few minor points:

  • "Hazel was particularly destructive in Toronto because of a combination of a lack of experience of dealing with tropical storms" - too many "of"s
  • "Hurricane Hazel made landfall near the North Carolina/South Carolina border by the morning of October 15, striking Myrtle Beach, South Carolina before moving north." - not sure if this is proper wording. I would make the statement more firm; i.e., by substituting an "on" for "by", unless the time of landfall is a rough estimate.
  • "The storm drastically slowed on reaching the region" - wouldn't "upon" be more proper?
  • "it was centred" - unless this is proper Hurricane terminology, "centred" is British English, and the article appears to be written in US Eng. See WP:ENGVAR.
  • In File:Hurricane Hazel -- St.Phillips Road.jpg's caption, "needed to fixed or outright rebuilt after Hurricane Hazel." - typo.
  • In current Ref 14, "Barbara, p. 169" → "Stokes, p. 169"
  • For Betty Kennedy's book in references, shouldn't it be "Kennedy, Betty"?

I might have more later. A truly fascinating storm. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments, I've fixed most of them. For the centred part -- I'm writing in CanEn, and it's spelled properly. I'd be kinda surprised if some parts are AmEn, US spelling looks weird to me. ;-) Maxim(talk) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected that the article might be Canadian English, but I didn't have enough time to be certain - sorry about the confusion. I've struck the resolved issues above. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season, and one of the deadliest and costliest storms of the 20th century." — would you agree with replacing one of the "deadliest and costliest"s with another word, perhaps "devastating"? It would remove the redundancy and help with flow, in my opinion. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments/leaning oppose
    • In the lede, the first sentence seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. There were many deadlier and costlier storms of the 20th century. Certainly its destruction was widespread, but try and find some wording that can be more quantitative.
      • Fixed.
    • Also in the lede, you say "On its way towards Canada, it passed through several more states", but the center didn't move through some of those you mentioned, like Delaware and New Jersey.
      • Fixed.
    • "bringing wind gusts near 160 km/h (99 mph)" - any reason the mph is so specific? It happens elsewhere in the article, where the first unit is rounded to an even number, but the converted unit is not rounded.
      • Fixed.
    • Parts of the met. history are confusing. First, I suggest you use the Monthly Weather Review more for the MH, since it's another official government source of info to the CHC. Some of the info is inconsistent with the best track, which has it as a tropical storm before hurricane status. It also has a different forward speed. I'm not saying that the CHC is a bad source for the MH, but if there are inconsistencies, then it should be in line with the official database.
      • I think I've fixed all the discrepancies, but I could take an extra look just in case?
    • "As a whole, the storm proved to be very unpredictable, defying forecasts on multiple occasions, which made it even more dangerous" - I think the last part is not necessary, as it's a POV. Tropical cyclones are always dangerous. More importantly, perhaps, why did it turn to the north?
      • Fixed the dangerous part, although I haven't been able to find a reason as to why it turned -- my personal opinion is that there was a change in wind patterns, but I'm afraid I can't give an answer that'll satisfy WP:NOR and WP:V. ;-)
    • "The storm crossed Haiti two days later as a Category 2 hurricane, killing over 1,000 people" - since that is the first sentence of a new paragraph, I am unsure what the date reference is, so you'd be better just saying the date. It might be worth noting that the Saffir-Simpson scale was not in use then. Perhaps just list the wind speed at landfall? Also, the MH is only supposed to be for meteorological details. I don't mind the rainfall stuff later on, but it gets redundant with the casualties in the lede, MH, and impact. Somewhere, regarding Haiti, you should mention the mountain peaks are 8,000 feet tall, per the MWR.
      • Fixed.
    • Have you found any meteorological details why it restrengthened north of the Bahamas? Also, I'm curious, how big was the storm?
      • The initial prediction was for it to lose steam, perhaps the waters were warm enough to sustain, or it was an anomaly (so I'm afraid the answer's the same as for the question about why it turned north. No luck for the size of the storm.
    • Landfall intensity for NC/SC would be good.
      • Fixed.
    • "Hazel accelerated to over 80 km/h (50 mph) upon landfall" - technically, according to the official database from 2010, that is untrue. The fastest it got as an extratropical storm was 48 mph. On the other hand, the MWR from 1954 says it accelerated to 60 mph.
      • Fixed.
    • "The storm drastically slowed upon reaching the region" - again, inconsistent with the official database.
      • Fixed.
    • The article seems really Canada-centred. Any preparations/warnings for Haiti? Any more preparations for North/South Carolina? You mention that evacuation warnings were issued, but you don't say if people actually evacuated. Did the National Guard help out at all? Were there any repercussions to the hurricane threatening the Carolinas?
      • I'm really not finding much on Haiti, especially nothing with regards to preparations. Probably it's partially due to Papa Doc Duvalier's voodoo cult there at the time. They thought it would bypass the US altogether, so nothing more.
    • I'd recommend merging the "Caribbean Islands" and "Haiti section". Considering the flooding in Puerto Rico was the worst in over 50 years, there should be more details there. Surely there's more info in another source. Is there any more on physical damage in Haiti? You have the mudslides and the crops, but not much about buildings. Were people left homeless?
      • Fixed.
    • Also, have you searched for a more updated Haiti death toll? This report from 1993 said 410 deaths in Haiti, with 250,000 affected.
      • The problem with Haiti is that death toll is somewhat vague due to the conditions there. I'm using the estimate (as much as 1000 people) from Gifford 2004.
    • You're missing any impact in the Bahamas, which concerns me with regards to comprehensiveness. I know it's an historic cyclone, but one can't just focus on the main points and expect it to be comprehensive. As I said above, the MWR has lots of stuff, and in this case, some Bahamian info.
      • Fixed, it was a silly oversight.
    • Overall writing is good. One thing sticks out. In the US section of the impact, you have a sentence starting with "However"; however, "however" isn't meant to start a sentence, and it should be preceded by a semicolon.
      • Fixed.
    • The US section seems somewhat lacking. Was there much impact outside of the Carolinas? Even in the Carolinas, you go into a good bit about certain coastal sections, but I'm baffled that 15,000 houses were destroyed, without mention of other forms of impact. Don't forget to inflate the damage totals. Speaking of Carolinas - you mostly only mention North Carolina impact. Was there anything in South Carolina? My biggest problem with the US impact is that it's four paragraphs, while the Canada section is seven *and* it has a sub-article. The Canada section should be trimmed to be in line with the US section. After all, there were 95 fatalities in US and 81 in Canada, and the damage was greater, monetary wise, in the US.
      • Fixed.
    • Don't get me wrong, it is a good article, and a great source of information on the storm. I just feel it is too biased toward Canada's impact, with not enough focus or information on other areas. That is why I have to oppose at this time. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part of the reason IMO is that there are simply more sources for Hazel in Canada than in the US. In the Carolinas, a hurricane is not unusual, and a major one is cause for concern, but again it happens; in Canada, especially in Toronto, the reaction can be termed "WTF?!?!", so that'd explain more availability of Canada-related sources. I think the article is more balanced now. Thanks a lot for your review. Maxim(talk) 02:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, fair enough. I only have two other suggestions, to have an impact table (like in Hurricane Isabel), and to remove the Raymore Drive pic (since it's not directly related to the storm), but you've addressed my concerns enough that I can support. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I put in the impact table and removed the pic. Thanks a lot for the support and for the review. Maxim(talk) 00:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Rotberg first author, or Clague? I see two different versions in notes versus refs. • Ling.Nut 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rotberg should be first, thanks for spotting it. Maxim(talk) 19:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A well written/researched article which i have been reading over the last few weeks.Jason Rees (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010 [60].

Big Butte Creek edit

Nominator(s): LittleMountain5 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all of the criteria. Although quite small, I believe it covers nearly everything about the small stream. The article is very similar to Little Butte Creek (Rogue River), which recently passed its FAC. My thanks to Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot who passed its GAN last month, and everyone who helped out with Little Butte Creek, because, like I said, this article is very similar. :) Sincerely, LittleMountain5 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In which case a brief note ("Windows platform only") would be polite for our readers. Tony (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments very nice article. I have some prose suggestions you might consider.
lead
while is generally temporal. Although I understand you're trying to convey that the two forks flow from two different sources, I suggest that you use either a semi-colon or make this a compound sentence, rather than use the word while.
course
what begins near Mount McLoughlin? The faults, or Fourbit?
are Big Butte springs hot springs? (I suppose they must be, given that there is fault in there)
Discharge
the first sentence is lonely. Can it be combined w the next paragraph?
A gauge on the south fork above its confluence with Willow Creek recorded data between 1986 and 1991.... According to a USGS gauge on the south fork above Willow Creek, between 1986 and 1991, .....?
Measurements were taken on the south fork 2 miles (3.2 km) above its mouth near Butte Falls between 1911 and 1991..... Similar measurements on the south fork ...between 1911 and 1991 showed....
I'm wondering if this could be in a chart. It's hard to read.
can you push the contrast a bit on your map? I found it hard to read.

more later.....This is fascinating and I'm looking forward to supporting it! Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review!
    @Comment 1: Changed to a compound sentence.
    @Comment 2: Fourbit, fixed.
    @Comment 3: I don't think they're hot springs, but I'm not sure. I'll do some research.
    @Comment 4: Merged.
    @Comment 5: Reworded, thanks!
    @Comment 6: Reworded.
    @Comment 7: That's certainly an option, although I'm not too experienced with charts. I'll take a stab at it sometime in the next few days.
    @Comment 8: Would a darker blue for the streams and stream names make it easier to read?
    Thanks again, LittleMountain5 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would help. or a bluer blue would be good. There has to be someone with some expertise who could help. That paragraph with all the data is really hard to read and understand. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a table in my sandbox, see what you think. It could either use the section header or the table header; which do you think would look nicer? LittleMountain5 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and GrahamColm has darkened the labels on the map. (Thanks!) LittleMountain5 14:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad to know I wasn't the only one who couldn't read the letter on the map. It looks much better now (probably could be darker, but it's readable now).
      • chart is also good. I'd add some text to explain how the information was collected. Just a few sentences, with your citation.
    Added the chart, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean about explaining how the info was collected... Mind clarifying? Thanks, LittleMountainPublic 14:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a few last comments.
Do flora inhabit? Just a question. I'm not sure that is the right word.
Sedimentation sometimes occurs due to road construction and logging....Road construction and logging sometimes cause sedimentation, leading to high turbidity, but .... Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Comment 1: I'm not sure, but I changed to 'grow' instead.
@Comment 2: Reworded that sentence.
Sincerely, LittleMountainPublic 14:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was about to say that I have tweaked the watershed map a little because I coudn't read it very well, but I see that you were watching me :) This is a well-written article with an engaging prose style and is a valuable contribution that I think satisfies all the criteria. I see it's been at FAC for some time. Let's hope for a few more reviews. Best of luck. Graham Colm (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! I just happened to notice (when making the table) that the map labels were darker than usual... two minutes after you darkened them. It looks great, thanks again. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 23:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wonderfully written and illustrated. Well done. Pyrrhus16 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! LittleMountain5 15:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth: Sorry to come in so late. I didn't notice that this one until today. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a fairly short list of nitpicks and quibbles. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I'm a member of the rivers and Oregon projects.

  • Lead:
    • "until it empties into the Rogue River about 1 mile (1.6 km) southwest of Lost Creek Dam." - Would it be helpful to add the dam's other name (William L. Jess Dam) in parentheses; i.e., Lost Creek Dam (William L. Jess Dam)?
    • "The small town of Butte Falls was incorporated in 1911." - Technically Butte Falls is a city, although a small one. Also, should it be linked to Butte Falls here on first use?
    • "The creek was named due to its close proximity to Mount McLoughlin, formerly known as Snowy Butte." - How about "The creek was named after Snowy Butte, an early name for Mount McLoughlin"?
  • Course
    • "There are two main forks of Big Butte Creek: the north fork and the south fork. They meet each other at 2,244 feet (684 m) above sea level." - Could these two short sentences be combined, thus: "The two main forks of Big Butte Creek, the north fork and the south fork, merge at 2,244 feet (684 m) above sea level"?
    • "The Big Butte Springs are located on Willow Creek, and the Medford Aqueduct parallels the south fork all the way to Butte Falls." - Would it be helpful to add the purpose of the aqueduct to this sentence; e.g., "Medford Aqueduct, which carries drinking water to cities in the Rogue Valley, parallels the south fork... "?
  • "The south fork flows over the 15-foot (4.6 m) tall Butte Falls," - Would it be helpful to add here that the waterfall is near the city (if that is the case)? Otherwise readers may confuse the city and the falls.
  • "from its mouth in the Pacific Ocean" - Is the mouth "in" the ocean? "On" and "at" don't seem quite right either. Hmmm. Maybe "its mouth, where it enters the Pacific Ocean"?
  • Watershed
  • "The Big Butte Creek watershed experiences a Mediterranean climate... " - "Has" rather than "experiences"?
  • Could you add just one or two more sentences to the geology paragraph that mention the volcanic nature of the Cascades. Mount McLoughlin, for example, is a volcano. The link to pyroclastic is almost enough, but not everybody will click on the link; "volcano" is much more familiar (and nicely illustrated in the article).
  • Could you add a sentence naming the nearby watersheds? What watersheds border the Big Butte Creek watershed?
  • Recreation:
    • "Many tourists also come to sight see." - "Sight-see" or "see the sights"?
    • "has several stops along its length for hiking and vistas of the surrounding landscape" - Maybe "includes stops for hiking and viewing the landscape"?
    • "a half day long drive" - This seems awkward without hyphens. Maybe "a half-day-long drive"? Or "a 12-hour drive"? Hmmm. What is meant by a half-day?
  • Notes:
    • "Source elevation derived from the GNIS mouth elevations of the north and south forks." - Rather than "derived from" would "is identical to" be more clear?
Finetooth (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments. All have been fixed, except riparian zone because it is linked earlier in the section (second to last sentence in the first paragraph). Thanks again, LittleMountain5 15:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks fine. You are right about riparian zone, and I added one word, "volcano", to the Mount McLoughlin sentence. Please double-check to make sure that's right. I'm switching to "support". Excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Your support is much appreciated. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 16:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Just one suggestion, could the captions be elaborated on a bit? They seem a bit too simple to me. Otherwise, it looks good. ceranthor 23:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit to them. Thanks! LittleMountain5 15:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: It looks like this is in en-us, but the things that measure the streams are called "gauges". In the US, they are "gages" (yes, it looks weird at first). Awickert (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Did it. Don't have time to thoroughly review the article at the moment though so can't support or oppose (drop me a message if you do need another review though). Awickert (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, didn't know that. LittleMountain5 20:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Though strangely enough, the general-use verb in US English is still to gauge. Awickert (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:35, 10 April 2010 [61].

Ganoga Lake edit

Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is an article that grew out of a red link in Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park. It recently became a GA (thanks Arsenikk) and I want to thank Dincher and Jackyd101 for their reviews too. None of the reviewers found major problems, so I thought I would bring it to FAC as I believe it meets all the featured article requirements.

I want to note that because this is a privately owned lake, current sources on it are limited. I also want to thank Ben Kouba and Justin Mowery on Flickr for freely licensing their beautiful images for use in this article. Thanks in advance for your comments, which I will do my best to respond to quickly. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support all of my concerns were addressed in an earlier review. Dincher (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. I could fix a few dashes, so I can feel I did something useful here. Ucucha 03:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking the dabs and ELs, and for fixing the dashes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No need to thank me for my review, I really couldn't contribute more than praise for this excellent article which I am happy to support without reservation. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support and kind words. I found your peer review comments helpful too ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review by Charles Edward
    • "However, according to a 1917 Pennsylvania Water Resources Inventory Report, in its longest dimensions it is 3,720 feet (1,130 m) long (0.705 miles or 1.135 km) by 1,025 feet (312 m) wide.", should probably have a citation there
    • "It has an average depth of 10 feet (3.0 m) and a maximum depth of 13 feet (4.0 m).", should probably have a citation there
    • The alt text for File:Ganoga Lake Map.png is very long. It should probably be cut back.
  • Images all check out good
  • References are great
  • Prose is outstanding
  • Alt text present
  • No outstanding MOS issues

Support, this article is fantastic. Great job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your kind words, support, and suggestions. I added the same ref (p. 70 of the 1917 Pennsylvania Water Resources Inventory Report) after each of the two sentences. If they all use the same reference, my preference is to have one ref at the end of a series of sentences, but this makes it very clear where each sentence gets its data. I also tried trimming the alt text some. Hopefully these are better now? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:35, 10 April [62].

Elizabeth Canning edit

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 22:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Elizabeth Canning was an 18th-century 18-year-old maid who went missing for a month. She returned and claimed she had been abducted, the supposed perpertrators were arrested, tried, and found guilty. Some thought it all very suspicious, investigated, found some serious problems with the case, and had Canning arrested and tried for perjury. She was eventually found guilty and shipped off to what is now the US. It's all a bit of a mystery, but it was one of the most famous legal cases of 18th-century England, and I present it to you now. Parrot of Doom 22:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text looks good (no longer an FA criterion). Ucucha 22:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Do you think 'hayloft' needs to be wikilinked? Also, shouldn't "Background" be separated from the "History" section, even if it is very small. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hayloft isn't really a helpful article, as it doesn't mention the use of loft space in living areas (as was common at the time). I don't think it's possible to separate the background from the history section as Canning's upbringing and employment status was important to the story. Parrot of Doom 22:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Houndslow (blue-linked) is in Scotland. Do you mean Hounslow? A long way from the City even so. Houndsditch is near Aldgate – is that what is meant? St Botolph's Aldgate is on the corner of Houndsditch – you mention a (red-linked) Aldgate church – which makes one suspect that "Houndsditch" and "St Botolph's Aldgate" are correct here. This is an important point in the narrative and needs to be cleared up.
      • It was Houndsditch, fixed.
        • Good. That was the only point causing me to withhold support - now given, below. Given that Houndsditch is correct, the red-link for the Aldgate church is a bit forlorn: there isn't another candidate than the blue-linked St Botolph's, so nobody will ever write a new article to turn the red-link blue. I'd remove the link, I think, or change the wording to blue-link to St B's. Tim riley (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. Living over 200 miles away, I'm a bit hesitant to change that link. I wonder if someone with more local knowledge might do it one day? When in doubt... Parrot of Doom 13:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fortune nor Judith Natus were were…" duplication
      • Fixed
    • "fish-monger" – the OED does not list this hyphenated version of "fishmonger"
      • Fixed
    • "the The Bottle Conjuror…" duplicate word
      • Fixed
    • "the Reverend Harris" is good American usage, I believe, but is a solecism in English usage (just as one wouldn't say "the Honourable Smith" or "the Right Honourable Jones"). Either "the Reverend James Harris" or else "Mr Harris" or just "Harris" is needed here.
      • I've removed most of "The Rev..." and changed to "Rev...", with so many names I think its easier for the reader to be reminded who Harris was.
    • "the Squires had very likely been travelling..." – plural of the name Squires should be Squireses shouldn't it, cf. Jones and Joneses?
      • You've got me there, I find it all quite confusing. Both sources use s's.
    • Possessive of Squires: consistency needed – at present the article has both "Squires'" and "Squires's". The latter is the conventional English form.

Most of these comments are of minor moment, but the first really does need putting straight if this fascinating article is to be promoted to FA. – Tim riley (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A well-written and comprehensive article, formidably referenced and very nicely set out. - Tim riley (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Parrot of Doom and I have written a few articles together, but I've had nothing to do with this one, which I think is excellently written, comprehensive, and fully meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The article is in good shape, but going through this, I see some potential problems. For example, "When Canning failed to return to her lodgings at Lyon's house, he twice went looking for her at her mother's home." Who is the 'he' referring to here? There's an aunt and uncle mentioned in the previous paragraph, but it's implied they left her.
"She was forced to walk to a house, where an old woman asked if she would "go their way"." What does this mean?
Basically it means that they wanted her to be a prostitute. The article does mention this but I've clarified it Parrot of Doom 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Canning was still extremely weak, but her supporters took the risk of moving her so she could identify her captors, and the room in which she had been held, before she died." Seems confusing. She didn't die; presumably they thought she would die.
I agree, I've changed it to in case she died Parrot of Doom 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "stays" is wikilinked at its second and third occurrence, but not its first.
Fixed. Parrot of Doom 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More later. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There, before the two kidnappers, Lucy Squires,[nb 4] and Hall, the old gypsy had assaulted Canning, before forcing her up the stairs, where she remained until she escaped." The six commas lead to a choppy, fragmented sentence. I suggest something along the lines of "There, in front of the two kidnappers, Lucy Squires,[nb 4] and Hall, the old gypsy assaulted Canning and forced her up the stairs. She remained there until she escaped."
We're speaking in past tense here. I can't write "in front of" because that may not have happened, so I made this change Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC) - just to add - I changed the "she remained" to "the young maidservant remained" Parrot of Doom 07:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can write "before the two kidnappers" you can substitute "in front of the two kidnappers"; I was hoping to avoid confusion, but am happy with how the sentence turned out.
Another example of fragmentation and "snakiness" (50 words): "Squires, charged with assault and theft, and Wells, with "well-knowing" what her accomplice had done, were tried on 21 February at the Session House of the Old Bailey, before the Lord Mayor of London Sir Crisp Gascoyne, a panel of other justices, and a gallery packed with interested spectators."
Made this change Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"said that the Squires' had visited his house..." Apostrophe here?
It was the Squires family that had visited his house, not Squires alone. I think the US style here would be "Squireses" but the British/US sources I've used both agree on "Squires's" for the possessive, and "Squires'" for the plural. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add apostrophes to make names plural. This is not an example of BrE/AmE differences. This is Grammar 101. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Little Jemmy, "a poor man who cries sticks about the streets"..." What does this mean? Is this a BrE phrase, or an old euphemism for something antiquated? It sounds (to me) like he was selling sticks. Not truly a FAC objection, but please pity the poor American readers. ;)
No idea. One of those things, although it'd be interesting to know :) If I come across it elsewhere I'll add a note. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Through January, he thought, the Squires' had very likely been travelling through Dorset..." Apostrophe here?
See above. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add apostrophes to make names plural. This is not an example of BrE/AmE differences. This is Grammar 101. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Reports began to emerge, of sinister goings-on..." No comma here.
Well...I'll have to disagree on that one, but it isn't a big deal. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"she was given a month's imprisonment, to be followed by seven years' transportation." This is explained in a later section, but will not make sense to readers who don't read down that far.
Linked. Parrot of Doom 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron of Ronchester 05:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support + Comment I changed one instance of Mrs --> Mrs., but then undid my own edit after I found several of these. Is this a British thing? Or a rule I'm unaware of? But otherwise +S. • Ling.Nut 03:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No full stop in UK usage is my understanding. Parrot of Doom 07:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, no image review, has anyone checked them, or can you scare up an image reviewer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:33, 9 April 2010 [63].

Zapata Rail edit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Viva Zapata!. Now you hear it, now you don't. Join the real James Bond and Fermín Zanón Cervera in the steaming swamps of Cuba Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You've got a dab link to sawgrass and no dead external links. One thing I don't understand: why choose some weird bird when there's also a unique rodent in the swamp? Ucucha 11:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn, I must have put in the link after running dabcheck, fixed now. Lol, at least mine is there, rather than was. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it may still be there. Thanks for the fix. Ucucha 12:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are four results in the Zoological Record, and of those you missed:

Title: Exhibition of a specimen of the Petehora Pipit (Anthus gustavi) from Fair Isle ; also a British-killed specimen of White's Thrush (Turdus varius) and a rare Rail Cyanolimnas cerverai from Cuba.
Author(s): Hartert, E.
Source: Bull. Bt. Orn. Cl. Volume: 49 Page(s): pp. 57-58 Published: 1929

I doubt there will be anything of value in that.

  • I can't access it, but it looks like it's just a round up of rarity sightings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images look good, except that File:Clgar_u0.gif is missing evidence for the claim that drawings by Cada are free to use.
  • I've tracked down the Fishbase original and added its location and the correct Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
  • What makes the Arturo Kirkconnell piece a reliable source?
  • Arturo Kirkconnell is co-author of Birds of Cuba, Andrew Mitchell is Director of the Global Canopy Program, which is referenced in the Birdlife International Cuban Kite evaluation.
  • The Tierramérica and IPS News sources don't seem to be the highest-quality reliable sources, but I suppose they could be used if there is nothing better.
  • Tierramérica is a joint project of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The World Bank (WB), with IPS serving as the executive agency, so not bad Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments:
  • Is "limnas" really Latin? It sounds rather Greek to me.
  • It does, but Sabine's source for this is as good as it gets - perhaps came into Modern Latin from Greek limnae. a pond, but that's a guess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps leave the phrase saying it is almost flightless out from the description, since the point is discussed more fully later.
  • Ridgway cite should be completed with the title of the contribution &c.
There is little to tell, but what there is told well. I look forward to supporting after the above issues have been resolved. Ucucha 03:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the careful review. I guessed the Kirkconnell/tierramerica/ips would be picked up, but I couldn't see an obvious mechanism for flagging them as reputable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for the replies. Ucucha 10:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for support and for completing the Ridgway ref - I wasn't sure whether the family stuff should be included - it's a bit of an odd one for me, where a journal has a single item as its contents Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment The article information seems comprehensive; I just have a couple specific notes:

*The intro might be helped with a few more sentences, e.g. size, diet, and reproduction, even if it's just to note that there isn't much information. I for one like to see where information gaps exist, rather than think that the intro is incomplete

*A minor point, but could the range be changed to a more obvious color, like red? It took me a while to find it on the thumbnail map.

  • The bird project convention is to use green for resident species, but I could change colour if it's a real issue Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, like I said, a minor point

*"...and become a professional naturalist"

  • become->became, unless you meant "he had stayed on to become an ornithologist"

*"...he sent the Spaniard on a series of trips into the region, where he eventually found the rail"

  • the two uses of "he" here seem to refer to two different people? Perhaps rephrase or split into two sentences

*"...his name is commemorated by the new centre in the Ciénaga de Zapata National Park"

  • centre of what?
  • ecological, added

*"Barbour did not believe that the three swamp bird species..."

  • What three species? Do you mean that the rail fossils at Havana, Pinar del Río and the Isla de la Juventud were not all Zapata Rails but belonged to different species?
  • No ,changed to Barbour did not believe that the rail, Zapata Sparrow and Zapata Wren... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"...conditions similar to those found today may once have extended over the large submerged area now represented by the shallow banks, with scattered mangrove keys, which extend towards the Isla de la Juventud and perhaps eastward..."

  • The two uses of "extend" here make the sentence read a bit odd; perhaps rephrase?
  • oops, sloppy - second occurence now replaced with stretched

*"The fossils from Isla de la Juventud are small compared to the limited samples from the extant bird, but the paucity of available material makes it impossible to establish whether the populations were genuinely different."

  • The wording of this sentence makes it seem you're comparing the sizes of the actual fossil remains (bones and such); perhaps rephrase to something like "the birds fossilized at Isla de al Juventud are smaller than the few extant specimens..."
  • now The birds fossilized at Isla de al Juventud are smaller than the single extant specimen... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*link rainy season

*"The few records in subsequent years suggested that numbers remain low..."

  • verb tenses should agree on "suggest" and "remain"

*"...but after no official sightings for two decades, a 1998 survey found two more locations in the Zapata Swamp"

First, the conjunction "but" doesn't seem to fit here, as the discovery of 70-90 birds doesn't seem to contradict the statement that their numbers are low. Second, do you mean "found the birds at two new locations"?
  • but to although, rephrased as suggested

*The name of the catfish is all-capitalized in the image caption, but not in the prose

*Also, perhaps one of the images of a living catfish here would be more informative?

*"The Zapata Rail is restricted to a single area, with an extent of about 1,000 km2 (386 mi2), and its small population of between 250–1000 individuals is assessed as decreasing"

  • Are these population figures extrapolated from the 1998 sightings above, or have there been more recent surveys?
  • now its small population, estimated on the basis of recent surveys and local assessments of population densities at between 250–1000 individuals... ref tweaked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"There are plans to encourage more tourists to visit the Zapata area, particularly from Europe, and if the United States allows its citizens to visit Cuba in the future, this could further increase the demand for ecotourism"

  • Would "impact of ecotourism" be more appropriate than "demand" here? Also, the way the sentence is phrased makes it seem that ecotourism levels are only contingent on whether the US allows travel to Cuba
  • now effects of ecotourism. (impact is first verb in next sentence). The interpretation you take is what was intended. The US is large, wealthly and very close, so if US citizens are given the right to travel freely, it's bound to outweigh all other tourism Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"Rising sea levels due to global warming could contaminate the wetland saltwater"

  • Contaminate the wetland with saltwater, or contaminate the saltwater in the wetland? If the latter, how?

*"...the debris left by hurricanes could lead to further damaging fires once the fallen vegetation dries out."

  • Is the debris left by the hurricane the fallen vegetation? Or is the hurricane debris setting the fallen vegetation aflame? Or are both the hurricane debris and the fallen vegetation contributing fuel for worse fires?
  • now Bouza warned that the fallen vegetation left by hurricanes could act as fuel for further damaging fires once it had dried out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all for now. -- Yzx (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review and useful suggestions, I think I've dealt with all your concerns, let me know if anything more needs doing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Changed to support above. -- Yzx (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments I'm glad you've expanded the description, and added a mention of the catfish in the text. Any weights, even of small samples?
Apparently not. Van Perlo always gives weights where they are available (and the number of samples, which can be just one, if that's all there is), but does not do so here. The detailed description by Barbour & Peters and by Ridgway would have been from prepared specimens sent back to the US, so live weights would not have been possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tourism and climate change may pose future threats" seems awkward; how about something like "may pose threats in the future"?
Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can it be stated that the rails "usually" breed in those sawgrasses, if they've only been recorded breeding once? —innotata 18:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the Cuban breeding season, the rail is always seen in this habitat, and is known to return to the sawgrass after the rainy season. The only nest was in sawgrass, and there is no reason to assume that it was atypical. It's difficult to come up with an alternative scenario. Thanks for reviewing, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Seems fine with me, and has been pretty well reviewed by others. —innotata 14:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks again - one thing with a short article is that it gives less targets (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:33, 9 April 2010 [64].

Battle of Taejon edit

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a MilHist A-Class Review, and I believe it can become Featured as well. —Ed!(talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links. No external links. Alt text fine; I made a few edits. Ucucha 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

  • References needed
    • "Advance elements of the 24th Infantry Division were badly defeated in the Battle of Osan on July 5, during the first battle between American and North Korean forces"
    • "The three regiments were below strength due to heavy losses; after the previous two weeks of fighting, the 21st Infantry had 1,100 men left, having suffered 1,433 casualties thus far in the conflict. "
    • "The 34th Infantry had only 2,020 and the 19th had 2,276, placing the division's total strength at 11,400. "
    • "B Battery was attacked by 400 North Koreans, but an advance of South Korean horse cavalry spared the battery heavy losses, allowing it to make an organized retreat."
      • The ref at the end of the next sentence (Ref 14) covers this fact. —Ed!(talk) 02:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was put under the command of Major General John H. Church in the absence of Dean. After three weeks of fighting, the division had suffered almost 30 percent casualties, with 2,400 men missing."
      • The ref at the end of the next sentence (Ref 41) covers this fact. —Ed!(talk) 02:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although the force was badly defeated militarily, the 24th Infantry Division accomplished its mission of delaying North Korean forces from advancing until July 20" - needs ref, but if that was the goal of the 24th, you should probably mention that up front.
      • I don't think it was, but the refs have been cited. —Ed!(talk) 02:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose
    • "The 24th Infantry Division was also suffering..." - unneeded "also"
    • "The division also had no tanks to defend with..." - unneeded "also"
    • "The North Korean 2nd Infantry Division was ordered to attack from Chongju against the American right flank, but it was slow to move and was too late to participate in the battle. Instead, the North Korean 3rd Division was ordered to attack from the north, against the flank. The North Korean 4th Division would attack across the Kum River from the east and south, in order to envelop Taejon and the US 24th Infantry Division with it.[9] Eventually they would also be supported by elements of the North Korean 105th Armored Division.[10]" - This paragraph is a little tricky. You need to make it clear you are talking about the battle plan by noting that.
    • "At 0300 on July 16" - this will be somewhat confusing to reader unfamiliar with military time. I suggest converting such instances to standard time formatting.
      • I tried to do that to prevent confusion in the article, my other FA used military time without a problem.
    • "Regardless, the 34th Infantry Division soldiers had repeatedly attempted to hold lines of ground, but were repeatedly overwhelmed by numerically superior North Korean forces" - suggest change the second "repeatedly" to "consistently" or "continually".
  • General
    • Throughout the article it is not really clear what the strategic point of the battle was. I suggest adding that to the background section. Why were the Americans trying to hold that position? Why were the Koreans trying to capture it? There is alot of detail about the actions of the battle, but this aspect is missing.
      • Added at the end of the section. —Ed!(talk) 03:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "North Korean forces continued to infiltrate the city disguised as farmers and the remaining elements of the 24th Infantry Division were pushed back block-by-block." - that is a little vague. Where they sneaking in disguised to spy on them, or carry out suicide attacks, or just what? Being pushed back block by block sounds like a military engagement between units.
  • Images
    • File:19th Kum River Map.JPG is on the left hand side under a level three heading. WP:IMAGE does not permit this. Move it down a paragraph, or put it on the right.
      • Actually, the MOS changed several months ago, and this is no longer disallowed. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I moved it anyway since I don't think it looked very good. —Ed!(talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Korean front 071350.JPG - it is not clear that this is public domain. The source listed on the image page is not a government website, and where it links, it is not clear to me anyway that the image was originally taken by the US government.
      • I believe I have asnwered this in the image description page. The map reproduced on the website was originally from an official US Army history book by a government historian. —Ed!(talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:34th Kum River Map.JPG - same as last image
    • File:19th Kum River Map.JPG - same as last image
    • File:General Dean's Kill!.jpg - the date of this image is listed as "20 July, 1950 (Probably not, some times later)" - what does that mean?
      • That appears to have been added by another editor. One way or another, the date of the action is painted on the tank in the image. I removed this from the page. —Ed!(talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:William F. Dean.jpg - the source listed is a dead link. That needs fixed
      • I replaced the source with a reproduction of the image from a public institution since I can't find its new location on the US Army homepage. —Ed!(talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very good article. Those issues are relatively minor. Address them and I will be glad to support! :) Good job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have responded to all of your suggestions. —Ed!(talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this very worthy article. Great work! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • images are all appropriately licensed, no dab links, alt text present (no action required);
    • are there any Korean sources that might be able shed some light on casualties? Jim101 might be able to help, have you talked to him about it? — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been working closely with Jim101 working on a lot of Korean War topics, and his sources don't mention anything about exact numbers just as mine don't. There was a lot of confusion at this phase in the war because of a lack of communications equipment and high casualties on the American side, so most sources I have a hold of say the North Korean casualties "can't be estimated." —Ed!(talk) 02:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Background section, this sentence seems to be missing something: "Losses in earlier fighting reduced artillery two battalions." (I think it is missing the word "to");
    • In the Background section, I think "Far east" is incorrectly capitalised. I think it should be "Far East" as both words are part of the noun, which is in this case a proper noun (I suggest just piping it to the correct capitalisation);
    • In the Background section, I think "combat ready" should be hyphenated as "combat-ready";
    • In the Background section, this sentence is missing something: "Taejon was major South Korean city 100 miles (160 km) south" (I think it is missing the word "a", as in a major South Korean city);
    • In the Second North Korean attack section, I think "regiments" should be capitalised as "Regiments" in this sentence: "The division's 19th and 34th regiments";
    • In the Taejon falls section, "North Korean 105th Armored Division" is overlinked (it is already linked above in the First North Korean attack section).

— AustralianRupert (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article looks very complete to me, and it is well illustrated. Shockfront (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my comments have been addressed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the 24th Infantry Division of the Eighth United States Army, headquartered in Japan, was the closest combat-ready division' I wasn't really combat ready at all.
  • 'Originally below strength on their deployment, heavy losses in the preceding two weeks had reduced their numbers further. The 21st Infantry had 1,100 men left, having suffered 1,433 casualties." You don't say what the establishment strength of the regiments and the division was, leaving the reader unable to determine how under strength it was.
  • "The division had no tanks: Its new M26 Pershing and older M4A3 Sherman tanks were still en route." Its -> its
  • A-Battery -> A Battery and B-battery -> B Battery Hyphens are not normal here.
  • "and suffered 650 casualties of the 3,401 men committed there" of -> among
  • "the Eighth Army Commander, General Walton Walker" walker was only a lieutenant general at the time
  • "After three weeks of fighting, the Division had suffered almost 30 percent casualties, with 2,400 men missing." So there were 922 men killed and 228 wounded and about 2,400 missing?
  • "The Division went on reserve status while it rested and rebuilt," on reserve status -> into reserve
  • 'the first unit of the division back into action, the 19th Infantry Regiment, did not move to the front lines of the Pusan Perimeter until August 1" That was just over a week - not very long at all.
  • What type of guns was the 63rd Field Artillery Battalion equipped with?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have responded to all of your concerns. —Ed!(talk) 14:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all my concerns have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "The first two Medals of Honor for the Korean War " should be mentioned in the lede.
    • The 3.5-inch bazookas were newly-made and newly-arrived; the unit had very few. Dean found only two, separately: one, which had only one round, and later a second, which was better-equipped. The account in Fehrenbach pp. 98-9 is quite riveting.
    • I'm not sure the first para of the Aftermath section captures the plight of the 24th fully, see Fehrenbach p. 101, "After seventeen days"... • Ling.Nut 06:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently Leaning Oppose, though I could be persuaded that I am wrong. I am late to the party here, and have only read several passages of Fehrenbach (see comments above). Fehrenbach makes very, very little of the numerical difference between the forces, explicitly saying on p.  88, "The 24th was on the brink of disaster, and not because of the enemy's numbers." The problem was that the American forces were distressingly under-equipped (especially in communications, but also in every other way, apparently) and the command situation was also woeful. The losses among commanders were high to begin with, and mounted as time went on. Those left in command were under-trained (and again, under-equipped, it seems due to budget cuts) to do so... It also seems that every regiment had only two battalions (I only see this mentioned with respect to one regiment in the article, but I could be wrong), and no one had been trained to operate under these conditions... essentially, the US military screwed up, and screwed up badly. All of these facts are kinda mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure that they are presented clearly or strongly enough. The Wikipedia article really seems to me to read as though it was all a case of numerical inferiority...In short, I don't think the cause(s) of the American tactical defeats were explored clearly enough... .while I'm at it, the strategic and tactical importance of Taejon (Fehrenbach p. 88) does not seem well-presented here (though it is true that the main strategic outcome, delaying the North Koreans until a Pusan perimeter could be completed, was presented very clearly). I'm open to the possibility that all of the above is Fehrenbach's POV; am looking forward to exploring other sources. • Ling.Nut 07:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a caution that it may not be wise to use one source's opinion to hold against this article. According to the current leading Korean War expert Prof. Allan R. Millett, Fehrenbach's book belongs to a genre of books that only examine the American military weakness during the Korean War, and according to the principle of aging source, Fehrenbach's book, which is published in the 1960s, is superseded by newer works such as by Bevin Alexander in the 1980s and David Halberstam in 2007. If you are looking for a complete combat analysis of the battle, Fehrenbach's scope is not as comprehensive as the works of Colonel Roy Appleman of the US Army. Jim101 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me with that! Now, can you tell me two things: 1) why did we get our butts kicked, and 2) where is this summarized in the lede and clearly explained (or at least fully addressed) in the article? I'm also wondering where you got 20,000 troops in the infobpx, but that is less important.Tks • Ling.Nut 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) I've tried to emphasize in the article how little the importance of the tactical defeat was. The American forces never really were planning or expecting to win at Taejon - the goal was to delay the North Koreans as much as possible. I've expanded the background section and lead to include a little more about the lack of equipment and training by American forces but as Jim said, other sources corroborate the story that it wasn't equipment alone that lost the fight. American forces were also untrained, undisciplined, outnumbered and defending a city that could be attacked from three sides at once, but they didn't "lose" the fight per se, their mission was a delaying action and they were able to hold the area as long as their commanders had originally ordered them to. As for the infobox, I amended it to be more specific to Fehrenbach's troop estimate (two divisions of 11,000 each operating at 60 to 80 percent strength) but neither he nor any other source estimates more numbers for the large contingent of forces from a third division (the 105th Armored) present at the fight. —Ed!(talk) 18:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the deep Army cuts ordered by President Truman, the Army suspended the draft. It decided to keep the same number of divisions active (seven infantry, two airborne and one armoured) but to reduce their subunits and non-divisional components. There was no Army-wide method of doing this, but in MacArthur's Far East Command (FEC) all four divisions inactivated the third battalions and tank companies of their infantry regiments, the third battery of their field artillery battalions, two companies in each tank battalion, and two batteries in the antiaircraft battalions. There was one exception: the 24th Infantry, being made up of buffalo soldiers, was kept at three battalions due to the Army's racial segregation policy. It was planned to inactivate one of the four divisions in 1950. Elsewhere, the division in Germany and the 2nd and 3rd Infantry and 2nd Armored Divisions in ZI were maintained with their full organisation but with all components at reduced strength. The 11th Airborne Division had only two regiments. The 82nd Airborne Division was the only division in the Army at full strength. Because they were manned by volunteers, and they were at full strength, the remaining battalions in FEC were well-trained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source location for that? Every source, US government and scholarly alike, corroborates that the 24th had undergone reductions by the time the Korean War broke out. In fact, the 7th Infantry Division lost most of its compliment to reinforce the other three divisions moving into Korea at this time. —Ed!(talk) 01:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I made two wikilinks to add some depth to the whole issue of being under-equipped because of cutbacks. If the article were stand-alone I'd want refs/cites, but this is Wikipedia, and I'm OK with just links in a background section. So now, why were they so under-trained? Were they raw recruits or... what? PLUS I see the point above about the whole action being just a delaying action, but Dean had to order airstrikes on his own equipment more than once. Surely that isn't standard procedure (to say the least). So... they were getting their butts kicked... Hate to do this, but is there any ref that says the top brass knew they were ending lambs to the slaughter? Fehrenbach (I know, outdated) seems to attribute it to a mild form of arrogance or tunnel-vision. • Ling.Nut 04:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence to the background that more directly states that (cited by ref 2). I only have one source saying directly that the men of the 24th were sacrificial lambs, is it then inferred to be true? Also, I added more to explain that indeed most of the US soldiers were raw recruits. —Ed!(talk) 05:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't infer anything, Ed. We must be extremely diligent about keeping the article text that we add strictly within the scope of statements licensed by reliable sources. Controversial statements can't be accepted (or rejected) based on the word of a single source. My "lambs to the slaughter" comment was just for the sake of this discussion... In other words, in the case of a controversial statement, if e make it at all we need to find the three or four or so most reliable sources available, and try to distill their input onto the page, very carefully citing it. But back all this up. What do the best available sources actually say about all this?• Ling.Nut 05:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, and please note that I went to page 52 of Alexander's "The first war we lost" and it does not say what you have it saying in note 2a: "However the division would be trading land and casualties for time during the next few battles." I suppose it implies this, but it certainly does not imply it strongly enough to warrant a cite to this page of this book. This, unfortunately, is a problem. Are there more problems of a similar nature? • Ling.Nut 08:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just cutting that sentence out. None of my sources say it directly then. If you can find a source that says it clearly enough to warrant a cite let me know. —Ed!(talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I have removed the "Currently Leaning" from my Oppose. I just don't think this article does an excellent job of communicating the battle of Taejon to our readers. Although I think you can be proud of how far you have taken it so far, I think it needs more work. For example, this map is pretty much incomprehensible. An incomprehensible map is merely a decoration. (Someone like User:Sémhur could help...there's a far better map on p. 95 of Alexander). I'm not sure the under-equipped nature of the units are explained well (though of course the fact is presented), I'm not sure the geographic aspect(s) of the battle(s) are explained well, etc. • Ling.Nut 09:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK...do you have a criticism that is actionable that I can address? —Ed!(talk) 14:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely every word I have said is completely actionable. Fix the maps. Rewrite to reflect your sources and explain the situation. Your response puzzles me. I'm sorry to +O, but I think it's just not ready. • Ling.Nut 15:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there something specific about the map that is confusing? It honestly makes sense to me. As for "the situation," I am trying very hard to change every specific thing you are mentioning but if I am not doing so correctly please let me know exactly what graphs are not correct. The problem is I don't see what specific details are missing that aren't given plenty of context in this article and its links. —Ed!(talk) 16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      A Compromise: Just my idea on how to address those concerns. Working with Prof. Millett's recommendations, just using sources which are aimed to criticize the armed forces, such as books by Fehrenbach and Alexander, may lend undue weights to certain details. I suggest use the established combat analysis, such as the book South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu and Policy and Direction - The First Year to measure just how important the cutbacks were to this battle or whether the US got its ass "kicked or not". As for confusing maps, I suggest a new section in the article just on describing the locations like this example here. Now this section could be the hardest section to find footnotes for, but in my experience it can go a long way on resolving confusions. Jim101 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm OK with using sources that are less critical; I just think the whole issue has to be explored in-depth. I didn't walk away from the article thinking, "Oh, I learned about the combat-readiness of the equipment and men in the Battle of Taejon." As for the maps....the legend is seriously too tiny to read. If I have to spend 5 minutes leaning forward and squinting, the map is useless... The first line looks like... 5somethingsomething positioned somethingsomething night june something. Other lines no better. There is no easy way to distinguish between NK, SK & US forces — colors would be nice, and the units should be visually distinct. They all look like little envelopes. What's that... boat-looking thing.. moving away from the lowest envelope, near the lower left corner of the map? Nothing is labeled! I also didn't get a sense that I could match the text up with the map — more help in this respect would be nice. Etc. • Ling.Nut 23:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have substantially expanded the article, specifically with more detail about the state of the forces involved for both sides, in the "Forces involved" section. Much of the article, including the aftermath, has been expanded with additional information on the battle and the loss for American forces. Is this satisfactory? As for the maps, I am taking them off of the article while I attempt to create clearer maps. —Ed!(talk) 03:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update: I have re-added the map you were concerned about with color, larger scale and easier to distinguish features. —Ed!(talk) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your zeal is commendable. I left a query re the image here. I'll look at the article text later... • Ling.Nut 07:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • + Support. Text much improved. • Ling.Nut 08:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 8 April 2010 [65].

Red-capped Robin edit

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think this birdy is really cute :) but seriously, errmmmm...well I have buffed it up and a few experienced editors have looked at it and offered improvements. Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • Are males and females the same size? I only ask because dimorphism can include size difference, but sameness is not noted.
Yes -added a sentence to confirm that Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall taxonomy needs work. I think all of the data is there, but it's a little too compact and some stuff is repeated.
    • The first sentence in taxonomy is quite a mouthful. Do you mean to say that the location it was collected at gave them the idea it was related to the old world fly catchers?
I reworded - it wasn't the location which influenced initial placement in Muscicapa Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kuburi is a name from the Kimberley.[6]" - Just sort of hanging there... looking at the ref there are probably more interesting things to say along with it. Would "Kuburi is a name used in the Kimberley" make more sense?
Yes to the rewording. The ref had a folklore tale in it. I did muse on a "culture/folklore" section but this was absolutely the only material I could find in it. I will see if I still have access to the material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paragraph of taxonomy feels like it's trying to jam too much information into a small area.
    • The end of the 2nd para of taxonomy repeats the information from the first (old world fly catcher...changed taxonomoies etc).
tried rejigging both paras - how's that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good - One last thing - Does it make sense to put "The Australian robins were also classified for a time..." a the beginning of the 2nd para? Then all changes are listed in time order.
    • I don't understand how Pachycephalidae fits in?
transient classification - after Muscicapidae and before Petroicidae Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it be a good idea to repeat the infobox image in Description so that you can see a male and female in the same spot?
rather than repeat the image, I found another appopriately licenced on on flickr and added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The male selects the nest site" ... "before the female ultimately makes the decision where to build". If she makes the decision he isn't selecting the site. Maybe just changing to "selects nesting sites" would fix it.
Good point. male selects --> male proposes Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall pretty good.

-Ravedave (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made these changes, please check
  • small thin black bill and eyes are the eyes small and thin as well as black?
oops, missed that. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • European Robin, it is not closely related to it or the American Robin I wondered if this was Euro/US-centric, since Erithacus and Turdus both contain other birds named as robins - not a deal breaker if you're happy as is.
They were the two most notable species known as robins and are the ones which these critters were mentioned as not-being-related-to in books. Need to think about this one and think about sourcing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • at around a year of age or in the months following that bit clunky
Yeah, had trouble with that one when I added info. Tried "at around or just over a year of age" Casliber (talk · contribs)
deadlink removed. alttext for map added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review all images appropriately sourced and licensed Jimfbleak - talk to me?
  • Support - declaration, member of bird project, never edited this article before fac. No further issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the map the birds do not populate Kangaroo Island. If this is correct, I think this needs to be made clear in the text. Snowman (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not thought of that. It is rare in regions of Australia next to the coast, which includes places like Kangaroo Island. I will see if a ref explicitly says "not in Kangaroo Island" although usually they just say where tehy do occur. 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • According to the text it is native on Flinders Island, but this is not a feature of the range map. I think that it would be worth making the map and the text consistent. Snowman (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update - checked Higgins p. 652, which explicitly states it is absent on Kangaroo Island. However Higgins does not mention Flinders Island at all, which is odd. I will look online for this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Flinders Island segment for the moment, as the Higgins HANZAB book, which is pretty authoritative, does not mention it and there is nothing online. Also, it is a dryer climate bird, so its presence there would be counterintuitive. I do not have the Boles book now, and hence I suspect I might have inadvertently flipped the pages and it was a reference to the Flame, Pink or Scarlet Robins which do occur there. I can find the book in the library next wednesday or friday Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: If it is a monomorphic (without subspecies) species, then the article should say. Snowman (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
noted now Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Issues addressed; great article. Ucucha 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Comments. I take it you've checked through the list of sources I sent you?[reply]

I have had a good read of many of them as the author Dowling has much on his personal website. Some material I'd already encountered. I have been busy IRL. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The robin has a small black bill"—does this refer to both sexes? If so, it would be clearer to say "Both sexes have ..."
yes - good point and done Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These are similar across mainland Australia but distinct on Rottnest Island"—you said before that there was no geographic variation other than some variation in fur color
The original source on variation didn't include voice - and does discuss voice in another part of the source, so the best I can do is reconcile it to appearance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in southern coastal or northern parts of its range"—not sure what this means—are there some commas missing?
It means that the species is uncommon to rare in the vicinity of the coast in southern and eastern Australia. I tried " in coastal regions in the south and east of the continent," Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The long breeding season and multiple broods therein"—in Terrick Terrick? If so, you'd better combine the short paragraphs.
No, it means overall. I have had trouble figuring out the best place for this Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd to have both categories "Birds of Australia" and "Birds of South Australia".
Agree - I think the bird cats need some overhauling - made it state dependent for the moment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map has the distribution rather more restricted than the text.
Interesting - I'd assumed the Top End covered more of northern oz and into northern WA. Might have to check the deifnition of it and clarify with some more precise northern limits. I can do that in the next couple of days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it referred to the northern one third of the Northern Territory, but may of course be wrong. Thanks for the fixes made so far. Ucucha 10:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right it seems - I have added the last bit on WA, where it is absent from the Kimberley, although there have been sitings in the southernmost bits Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images look good. I made some changes in the prose and have a few more nitpicks above, but otherwise I see no problems. Ucucha 02:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 8 April 2010 [66].

Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) edit

Nominator(s): Awickert, ceranthor Ruslik0 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is a comprehensive, well-written, and interesting account of one of the most powerful volcanoes in the world. Cerro Azul's two greatest eruptions, the largest in South American history, were a bit difficult to find detailed information on at first. When I contacted Awickert and Ruslik0, we were able to improve the article from 4000 bytes of iffy prose to a tight article of 14 kilobytes. Their help has been invaluable, and should not go unrecognized. I'd also like to thank Malleus Fatuorum for copyediting as well as Eubulides for a quick alt text check. Note: I realize that this picture is missing copyright information; I am working on it. I am completely willing to respond to any comments, !votes, or suggestions and will try to do promptly. Thanks! ceranthor 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd forgotten about the WikiCup. :/ ceranthor 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A dab link to precipitation. No dead external links. Alt text is fine (I made some edits). Ucucha 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dab link. Thank you for the help! ceranthor 23:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Like a few thousand other articles, this one has been changed from American English to British English, through the use of an overwhelmingly complex template, without understanding how to use it. I have long objected to the improper defaults to British English in {{convert}}, yet it remains that way. Every editor should need to specify the spellings to be used. The problem here is exemplified by this edit two weeks ago by User:Malleus Fatuorum changing from:
Extended commentary on minor issue moved to talk; please advise when resolved on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this has been taken care of. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Awickert (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's done. Striking my objection. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "immediately south of Descabezado Grande volcano" looks wrong; "immediately south of the Descabezado Grande volcano" or "immediately south of Descabezado Grande" maybe? I might be talking out of my arse. Another problem (previously raised with Ceranthor) is that a large chunk of the "threats and preparedness" section deals with Chilean volcanoes and the SVZ, not Cerro Azul specifically. Ironholds (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "traversed as far as Brazil. Locally, after the 1932 eruption, vegetation was devastated, and the area remained "barren" until the 1990s" - any reason you can't use travelled rather than traversed? And why is "barren" in quotes? "After the 1932 eruption, the local vegetation was devastated" I'd suggest. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to fix your concerns; tell me any others you have. ceranthor 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems all good. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • USGS or United States Geological Survey in the notes? Pick one (I prefer the later)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ceranthor 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If alt text is to be part of the FA criteria then it should be targetted at being helpful to its audience, not just a bunch of words written-through-gritted-teeth-because-someone-is-bound-to-object-if-it's-not-there. This, for instance, "Chile hosts multiple volcanoes. Cerro Azul is the northernmost, close to the city of Santiago. Three others that are close to each other (from north to south Copahue, Llaima, and Villarrica) are further south, and Cerro Hudson is the southernmost of the five" is a mini essay on the geography of Chile, not a succinct and helpful description of the image. The others are similar, some even mentioning colour. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blame me, I wrote that piece. Alt text for maps needs to convey the most important information sighted readers get from the image (WP:ALT#Maps), and I think this alt text does that; if you have any suggestions for improvement, I would be happy to hear them. I don't see any inappropriate mentions of color in the alt text, and took out a few places where color was inappropriately mentioned a few days ago. Ucucha 00:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current alt-text guidelines are at best misguided and help nobody. My oppose stands. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm confused as to what you want me to change. Is it that you want the alt text to relate each image to the article, or make them more succinct, or both? ceranthor 01:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The alt text should be describing the image, not telling those who read it more than the image itself does, or interpreting the image, and should be short and sweet, one sentence at most. It's a map of Chile's major volcanoes. That's it. Anything important about the information provided by the map should already be in the article body. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • When I got to this, the alt text was "A map displaying the major Chilean volcanoes.", which was indeed short and sweet but was inappropriate on two counts. First, it repeated the caption "Major Chilean volcanoes are marked by red triangles on this map" contrary to WP:ALT#Repetition. Second, it didn't convey the gist of the map as per WP:ALT#Maps. I reworded it to "Five major volcanoes range from Cerro Azul in central Chile, south through Copahue, Llaima, and Villarrica, to Cerro Hudson." which is still short and sweet, and conveys the gist much better. Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this any better? ceranthor 02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, but this is even better. How could I tell from the picture that there was a glacier? And I thought that Ucucha claimed above to have removed all references to colour? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All inappropriate references to color. Ucucha 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All references to colour are inappropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Color that is an important part of the visual appearance of the image should be mentioned in alt text. Currently the only color mentioned is "black", as in "black caldera", and that use seems appropriate. Perhaps the inappropriate references to color were removed before I got here? Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Alt text for maps needs to convey the most important information sighted readers get from the image," and "should be short and sweet, one sentence at most", seems like a difficult dichotomy to straddle for complex diagrams. What is the verdict on things like the tectonic/volcanic map? Awickert (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should take the advice of authorities in the field, like the RNIB. I quote from their guidelines on alt text for what they call complex images: "Complex images are images whose full meaning cannot be adequately described in a short phrase or sentence. This may include graphs, charts and maps. A brief name or description should be given in the ALT text, and a longer description of the content of the image given elsewhere."[67] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thank you. I'll fix them based on this. Awickert (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done unless other issues arise. Awickert (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better, thanks. But I don't think you can use templates in alt text; in any event, the alt text for the map in the infobox is broken. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The templates were removed here, so that fixes that problem. Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Awickert (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
    • I don't believe that the alt text should be telling me more than the image does. The alt text for the map in the infobox tells me that "Cerro Azul is located in East-central Chile, a country on the southwestern coast of South America that is approximately 4000 kilometers from North to South, but only about 175 kilometers from East to West." That is not describing the image but describing Chile. There is no scale on the map, so without looking at the alt text I have no way of knowing anything other than that Chile is long and thin on the east coast of South America.
    • Cerro Azul doesn't appear to be in the same place on the two maps it's shown on, seems to have moved south on the second of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alt text shortened. Both maps appear to have it in the same place to me. In any case, the lat/long are cited to the USGS, as is the fig. I think that part of the issue is that the fig has a simplified geometry and is a different projection. Awickert (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first one I am still sorting out. The second one is legitimate, I believe, given a review of the user's edits. I have provided the source for the third one. ceranthor 17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is extremely close; hopefully, I'll find it. Malleus, I am working on the alt text issues. I'm a bit time pressed so I';ll have to finish them tomorrow. ceranthor 17:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced the first image with one from the USGS. This resolves the copyright issue and should probably be the one that we use unless someone has found a better image and/or resolved the prior copyright issues. Awickert (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Looks good, but needs a bit of scrutinty for 1. Here's the lead:

  • As the MoS says, try to avoid what should be triple compound items: "500-meter-(1,600 ft)-wide summit crater", made worse by the need to convert. Why not reverse? "summit crater 500 meters (1,600 ft) wide". And again, here, where the en dash makes it hard to comprehend: "creating an 8–9 square kilometer lava field". It requires "creating an 8–9-square-kilometer lava field", which is unacceptable. Try "creating a lava field of 8 to 9 square kilometers (conversion blah) in area".
  • Why is "effusive" linked? The target is all about chemistry. Is this the technical meaning?
  • "took place" -> "was"? Or "... erupted most recently in ..."?
  • "Chile has almost 100 volcanoes," all piped. Perhaps make it neater and more focused by piping just "almost 100 volcanoes"? Tony (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the above; thanks for the comments. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have struck my oppose above not because I think the alt text is now acceptable – which I don't – but because I don't think it's fair to single out this one article for the failings of a supposed guideline that has not been properly thought through; I very much hope that this half-baked addition to the FA criteria will be removed in short order. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just looked through the "Threats and Preparedness" section (which I hadn't done prior to our nomination), and changed some stuff around. Just a heads-up. Awickert (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article is pretty much there, I believe. I have a few things that I wanted to point out.
  • Second sentence is a bit awkward. The current phrasing makes it seem like the lower slopes are capped by the summit crater? I am not familiar with volcano terminology; is that accurate?
  • The third paragraph of the lead looks like it would be better served for a Volcanoes in Chile article. Perhaps that needs to be reorganized to focus on the Threats and preparedness paragraph.
The point of that blurb is to connect the number of volcanoes in Chile to the threat from them.
  • Does "Descabezado Grande" ever refer to anything other than the volcano? If not, "Descabezado Grande volcano" is probably redundant.
  • Wikilink "caldera complexes" and "Holocene"?
  • "500 meters (1,640 ft) deep struts" – meters should probably be singular,
  • The tense in "First documented activity, 1846" needs to be made consistent. Right now, it is a mixture of past, present perfect, and present tenses.
I think I fixed this.
The second sentence still has both past and present tenses. In addition, the fourth sentence feels a little awkward now.
  • The third sentence of "Early twentieth century" has some passive voice that doesn't need to be there.
  • Wikilink "plume"?
  • To the uninformed, the second sentence of "Major eruption, 1932" seems a like a non sequitor. How does a sentence about the frequency of the volcano's :activity flow from a clause about the the lack of large Plinian eruptions?
  • Standardize your AMs and PMs.
  • Choose either imperial or scientific notation and stick to it. Sometimes you have miles (km) and other times you have kilometers (mi).
I don't think there are any mi to kilometer converts in the article.
Second to last sentence of "Major eruption, 1932".
  • The Mount Hudson picture, if one does not look at the caption, makes the reader think that that is a picture of Cerro Azul. I think it ought to be removed.
I modified the caption to clarify that it wasn't Cerro Azul. The reason I included it was because it was accessible and because Hudson is the best known of the Chilean volcanoes, IIRC.
Even so, it seems a bit misleading for someone who is only skimming the article. But it is your call.
  • I don't really understand the part about the VDAP. If their goal is to help out with relief efforts, why are they outfitted with equipment to monitor :volcanoes?
Should be clarified.
  • As a matter of fact, that entire section seems an amalgamation of things that have happened in the Andes in general and things that have happened in the craters of Cerro Azul. Perhaps it could be refocused?
How so?
Well, looking back on it, I'm not terribly sure why I made that comment. I suppose it isn't terribly important in any case.
  • Why was the González-Ferrán source not used?
I have not been able to find it anywhere. I considered it, but then we were able to find excellent information from the Hildreth and Stern papers.
  • If these could be fixed, I would probably be willing to support. NW (Talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the ones I've responded to, these are fixed.
I think I got to all of these now. Thanks! ceranthor 15:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I am happy supporting now. NW (Talk) 19:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Is "Azul" an accepted abbreviation for the volcano? Seems a bit odd to me.
  • Azul has produced the largest eruptions ever in South America - Seems pretty awkward and leaves much to be desired. "Azul is responsible for South America's largest recorded eruptions"?
  • In 1846, an [[Effusive eruption|effusive]] eruption formed the vent... - Why pipe the link?
  • In 1932, 9.5 cubic kilometers (2.3 cu mi) of dacitic tephra erupted... - Sure, it's linked, but seriously...
  • The last paragraph of the lead is taken out of context, and probably doesn't belong in the lead at all. I'd be much happier with some more info on the geology of this particular volcano.

–Juliancolton | Talk 02:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful comments.
  • "Azul": I agree; I made all of them use the full name.
  • Phrase replaced with your suggestion.
  • The link is piped because "effusive" redirects to effusion, which isn't what we're talking about
  • Well, I mean why is [[Effusive eruption|effusive]] eruption instead of [[effusive eruption]] used? –Juliancolton | Talk 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, isn't that obvious! Sure thing. To what lengths will my obliviousness take me next...? Awickert (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1932, 9.5 cubic kilometers (2.3 cu mi) of dacitic tephra erupted...: what is wrong with "dacitic tephra"? I imagine that it is because it is technical language: "dacitic" is composition, "tephra" is morphology. We could say "ash" if the consensus is that a less-technical more-generic term in the lede is better.
  • I think that I agree with you on the last paragraph of the lede being out of place. Geology could be done, but ASAP for me (at least) is the weekend.
Awickert (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I'll finish a review of the rest of the article before them. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, and thanks so much for your time! Awickert (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - As I noted above, the lead needs work, but since that will be taken care of in time...
  • Volcanoes in Chile (including Cerro Azul) occur in the Central (CVZ), South (SVZ), and Austral Volcanic Zones (AVZ). - Why do we need the first parenthetical bit?
  • The South Volcanic Zone, of which Cerro Azul is a part, runs through central and western Chile and extends south to Argentina. - Really clunky.
  • ...that erupted in at least 12 volcanic episodes during the Quaternary period—the upper lava layers are dated at 340,000 years.[9][10] - Why a dash instead of a new sentence?
  • with the majority of its eruptions in recorded history originating - See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing.
  • The issue here is rather the clumsy connector "with", which hardly ever works. Changed to "... but most of its eruptions in recorded history originated in Quizapu Crater, on the northern flank of Cerro Azul's cone." --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At between 3,080 and 3,230 meters (10,100 and 10,600 ft) elevation - Didn't you just say it was 10,801 ft?
  • Cerro Azul is situated in the Mediterranean climate zone. It is characterized by hot and dry summers, but mild and wet winters. - No need for two sentences.
  • Annual precipitation is up to 800 mm. - Needs a conversion into inches.
  • Above 1600 m the slopes of mountains... - Same as above.

–Juliancolton | Talk 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between the bunch of us, looks like these are taken care of. Thanks for your careful reading. (The elevation issue was due to two different sources; I decided to keep the Global Volcanism Program one, as the other paper talked a little too much about variability in the height for an article like this; the peak seems to be better.) Awickert (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. As requested, I have read the article and am making some copyedits. I also have some questions / comments that I will raise here. Looks generally good and I am leaning support once my comments have been addressed.
  • Would it make sense to give the elevation of the summit in the lead? This volcano is a kind of mountain, and it seems odd to have an article on a mountain without the height in the lead. If there is some WikiProject Volcano guideline against this, I will defer to that.
    But the height is in the infobox? Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the Geography FAs with "mount" in the title and Loihi Seamount, Mount Rushmore, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Tambora all mention elevation in the lead somehow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was added. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quizapu seems to be an alternative name for the volcano - two of the references use "Volcan Quizapu" in their titles. Should Quizapu be listed as an alternate name in the lead?
    It was added. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organization - this goes from Chile to South America then back to Chile. In general, going from more general to more specific topics flows better. Is there a reason not start this with South America, then go to Chile? Volcanic activity in Chile varies widely, and includes explosive eruptions and both subaerial and submarine basalt flows. Volcanism in the Andes is caused by subduction of the Nazca and Antarctic tectonic plates under the South American Plate. Volcanoes in Chile occur in the Central (CVZ), South (SVZ), and Austral Volcanic Zones (AVZ).
    I changed Andes to Chilean Andes. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help to link subduction?
  • This sentence is not clear to me Nearly 100 Quaternary (Pleistocene- or Holocene-age) volcanoes exist in the country, as well as 60 complexes and caldera systems.[3] Does the nearly 100 figure include the 60 complexes and caldera systems, or are there nearly 160 total volcanoes and complexes and calderas? Seems like the latter, but I was not sure.
    This was changed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Local setting section, I think it would help to add that Quizapu crater is part of Cerro Azul Its largest historical eruption was at Quizapu crater, and its most active volcanoes are Llaima and Villarrica.[7] I know Quizapu is mentioned twice in the lead, but this is the first it is mentioned in the body of the article, so adding it is part of Cerro Azul here might help.
    Added. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be converted to cubic miles too The cone of Cerro Azul has a total volume of about 11 km3, and is a young feature, formed in the Holocene.[10] and this needs to be spelled out (meters) and needs conversion for feet too The summit of Cerro Azul is crowned by an asymmetric crater about 500 m in diameter.[10]

OK, I am stopping for now, more soon. Please revert or fix my copyedits if they have introduced errors. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) More comments from Ruhrfisch[reply]

  • Would it be possible to translate the Spanish names into English? So for example, Cerro del Medio or Volcan Nuevo or Caracol, Crater los Quillayes, Crater la Resolana, and Crater sin Nombre (the last just means "Crater without a name" so is that really an official name?)
    Cerro Azul was at least translated. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My Spanish is very fragmentary, I think this would be helpful if it is possible. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I translated those that could be translated. Ironically, from what I understand, "Crater sin Nombre" is the name of the crater. At least this is what the USGS has. Quillayes and Resolana are probably some local proper nouns that do not translate, so I haven't provided translations for those. Awickert (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not very fond of using "~" in The radius of the crater floor, which is the current inner vent, is ~150 meters (500 ft), ... - could you use about or approximately or some other word(s) instead of "~"?
    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unclear what the "It" in this sentence is refering to - the crater floor? the crater rim? Perhaps even the wall of the crater? It is cut by two long, dacitic lava flows which are probably the remnants of a dome or an eruption.[13]
    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temperatures need to be converted to Fahrenheit too In the Andes the annual average maximum temperatures lie in the range of 20–25 °C, while minimum temperatures are below 0 °C.
    What for? Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a little thing called MOS:CONVERSIONS ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it myself, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem sentence Above 1600 m (5249 ft) the slopes of mountains are covered by Alpine like steppe, while below there are zones of Nothofagus forest, Hygrophilous forest, Sclerophylous forest and matorral. 1) Both Hygrophilous forest and Sclerophylous forest link to Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub but there is no mention of Hygrophilus forest in that article. 2) Does the sentence follow WP:ITALIC - Nothofagus (Latin) is italicized but matorral (Spanish) is not.
    (1) I delinked Hygrophilous as there is currently no article about it. (2) Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear that we have read specifically about "the two herdsmen" - could the first "the" be removed? That night, the two herdsmen near the site heard a continuous roar punctuated by loud bangs...
    Removed the "the", Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid the use of today in Today, the field is twice that size.[19] the ref is from 1992, would "As of 1992, the field was twice that size.[19]"
    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this Beginning in 1907, though with a possible precursor explosive event in 1903, Cerro Azul once again erupted. be clearer as something like After a possible precursor explosive event in 1903, Cerro Azul once again [definitely?] erupted in 1907.
    Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd that the History section ends with 1932. There is a brief mention of the 1967 eruption as the last one, but were there any eruptions between 1932 and 1967? What happened in 1967? What type of eruption was it? How long did it last?
    It has not ended yet. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I think that needs to be made clearer in the article. I assumed it had a small eruption in 1967 and was quiet since. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a new paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above comment that the Threats and preparedness section seems not to be very foucsed on Cerro Azul. I will think about ways to try and make it more focused.
    I added new information. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to be a bit overlinked in places - phreatic eruption, tephra, dacite - my rule of thumb is to link terms once in the lead, once more at first use in the article body, and in tables or captions if needed.
I am done with comments for now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried tweaking the first paragraph of the Threats and preparedness section to focus a bit more on Cerro Azul. I think the second paragraph could also be more focused if the current first sentence Every known type of eruption (Hawaiian, Strombolian, Plinian, Subplinian, phreatomagmatic, and Vulcanian) has occurred at some point in the range. were followed by something about the types of eruption known to have occurred at Cerro Azul. I was asked to come here and comment on this FAC by one of the three nominators - it is a bit disconcerting to have no repsonse(s) to my review comments in over 24 hours. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my comments to support above. I would still prefer to see more translation of Spanish names and something done about overlinking, but it is close enough to support now. Thanks for an interesting article! Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruhrfisch! Thanks for the help. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner; it's been a crazy week for me. I just did the translations, dealt with as many overlinks as I could readily find, and added in the Cerro Azul specific eruptions (thanks for that suggestion). Awickert (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The length of this comment might make it seem like I've done a half-cocked review, but I've read this a few times over the last couple of days. Most of what I would have complained about before seems to be resolved. Prose is fine; the sources I was able to check online pass verification. I noticed the unstruck image concern above; from what I can see, it's now properly sourced. Nothing really to complain about! Nice work, Steve T • C 11:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 8 April 2010 [68].

Parks and Recreation (season 1) edit

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second FA nom for this article. It has already long been listed as a GA and gone through a peer review, but the first FAC failed largely because the prose needed work. It's since gone through a second peer review and some further copy editing by myself. I believe it's now ready for FA, and if there are any other prose issues that have been missed, I'm confident they can be addressed here at the FAC review level. Thank you! (Please note, this is a WP:WikiCup nomination) — Hunter Kahn 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, external links and alt text fine. Ucucha 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 2 images. 1 Fair use, 1 free. File:Parks and recreation season 1 dvd cover.jpg could probably be replaced with a version that's not a picture of the actual physical box, but... whatever. Free picture is on Commons with everything attached. --PresN 17:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Sources look good, except for officetally.com, which I noticed was called out last time as well. I'd not accept that as a reliable source unless you can show a couple reliable sources that refer to it as important or reliable. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Much improved since previous nomination. Can't find any substantial issues. A small style discrepancy: "p.m." in lede and Ratings; "P.M." in Filming.—DCGeist (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this recently and thought it was in pretty good shape then. As requested, I have read it again now and find it meets the FAC criteria. I have a few nitpicks which do not distract from my support.
    • It is unclear who is meant by "she" here. When she resists the idea, Leslie's mother suggests blackmailing the official with information about her husband's drinking problem. From the peer review I am pretty sure she is the official (the sentence has been tweaked since then). Perhaps something like Leslie's mother suggests blackmailing the official, who is resisting the the idea, with information about her [the official's?] husband's drinking problem.
      • It is indeed the official. I've tried rewording it a bit, let me know if it's better. — Hunter Kahn 03:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it make sense to add in the lead that the last episode, while the lowest in the ratings, also was the best reviewed?
      • I've added a sentence to the lead. Let me know if it works. — Hunter Kahn 03:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail.

  • I know some people are keen on the extra comma, but it goes bump-bump here: "between April 9, 2009, and May 14, 2009."
    • Dropped. — Hunter Kahn 13:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aw, no. Tony, Toni, Toné, your über-sensitive ear has heard a bump-bump where there ain't none. That "extra comma" is just proper U.S. English style—the style in which this entire Ameri-topicked article is appropriately written. Eliminating that comma leaves us with a style that's inconsistent, favored nowhere, and just plain ugly, ugli, uglē. Please put back that comma, Master Kahn.—DCGeist (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot the redundant word: "Like that show, Parks and Recreation also strongly encouraged ...".
  • I'd put a comma after "households": do you agree?
  • "Despite the low rating, "Rock Show" received the best reviews of the season, with some commentators declaring the series had finally found the right tone." Instead of the "with plus noun plus -ing", which even the Chicago MoS deprecates as usually awkward, why not ", which convinced some commentators that the series had ..."?
    • I added this sentence recently to feedback above, so it didn't go through the peer review process and was lacking. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 13:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are "Australia" and "United States" linked in the infobox. Do we have to have a flag-waving competition? Why not leave the main image to itself without pretty little icons below it?
    • The flag thing was because it was a {{United States}} template. I've dropped it, as well as the Australia wikilink.
  • Link to "improvisation": it's a common term and a pretty crappy article, I must say; there's a citation tag at the top, too.
    • I didn't even consider the quality of the article it was linked to. But I dropped it. — Hunter Kahn 13:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrative descriptions: OMG, we're dealing with crap here too. It's hard to make a case that even a good article on this kind of subject is "among our best work", as required. I find some of the language informal and presumptuous: "love interest", "greenlight the park project", "after cashing in the favor". There's my favourite "In order to ..." (two redundant words, and it recurs, dear dear). "Leslie and the pit beautification committee go door-to-door"; run that past me again? "do a story", "staying on message", "gets jealous". Now the "pit beautification committee" is "the pit subcommittee" (are they the same?). I don't mean to offend: this has been a good exercise for the authors. But really, such a topic needs to be highly professional in its writing, tone and content to get a star from WP. Tony (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmmmmm, NO. Much love to my passionate antipodean brother, the undisputed Master of the MOS, but the narrative descriptions are far from "crap." A considered comparison of these descriptions to those in other TV-related Wikipedia Featured Articles and professional publications as varied as TV Guide and the encyclopedic Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows (8th edition, Random House, 2003) demonstrates that they satisfy our criteria. The phrases that Tony calls out are absolutely in line with the phrases that actual professional writers employ to summarize the plots of television shows. Tony's perturbation is understandable: never in the history of (wo)man has there been a general-interest encyclopedia that treated equally in-depth subjects as important as Earth ( ) and unimportant as Parks and Recreation (season 1). But that's what we are responsible for here, and this article indeed does meet the standard we have set. If anyone doubts it, please read the real-life professional writing that is analogous. I believe you will find that what I have said is true.—DCGeist (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I've made changes based on the comments you made in the above paragraph as well.) Look, I don't mean to offend either, but this isn't the first time I've had people show up nearly a month into the FAC progress, point out a few grammatical nit-picks, slam a quick-fail vote and leave without follow-up comment. This article has had barely any feedback for weeks, and then suddenly a quick-fail vote at the 11th hour. It would be so much more helpful if you would get involved early in the FAC process and helped me improve the article, rather than swooping and leaving some general comments at the end when I likely won't have enough time to do anything. Are these issues really so insurmountable that they cannot be addressed through the FAC process itself? I've gone through FACs that involved very thorough copy edits that resulted in strong improvements to the prose. But both here and in the last FAC, I've had people claim the prose needs work, and leave it pretty much at that. So the FAC fails as a result and I'm left with very little constructive criticism to work with, other than that it needs a review by a thorough an independent editor. So I sought a second peer review, incorporated the changes, made another pass myself and brought it back here. Now, if it fails again, I'll have even less to work on except that the prose is still lacking. Should I bring it to peer review for yet a third time? (Additionally, when you say "It's hard to make a case that even a good article on this kind of subject is among our best work", are you saying you have a problem with the subject matter itself?) — Hunter Kahn 13:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to vent, but I'm sure you can understand my frustration. If you can spare the time and effort, I'd really appreciate it if you could take another look and help me address these issues. Otherwise, the article's just going to keep going in circles, and who knows how many times it will come back to FAC like this... — Hunter Kahn 13:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the above author hasn't responded, and since I've responded to all actionable objections, and since all other comments have been supportive, I just ask that the closing nominator at least consider passing it in spite of his vote, or at least that other people reading this still consider weighing in themselves... — Hunter Kahn 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I support Master Kahn's plea, per my observation above. If we actually make the effort to compare his work—particularly after his recent revisions—to the verifiable professional analogues, it is clear that this article is on par with the sort of content for which people pay cash money.—DCGeist (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Clear improvements in prose since previous FAC, and outstanding coverage on a topic merely a year old! The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 00:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... portrayed the protagonist ... " twists my tongue-- could be just me. I see what looks like overciting in several places, sample: The idea was partially inspired by the portrayal of local politics on the HBO drama series The Wire, as well as a renewed interest and theme of optimism about politics stemming from the 2008 United States presidential election.[25][26][34][35] What does "the series was paneled" mean? Why is California linked-- is there anyone who doesn't know what that is? Look at the repetitive and confusing prose here: The character traits of Ron Swanson, a government official who believes in as little government as possible, was inspired by a real-life Libertarian elected official Schur encountered in Burbank who favored as little government interference as possible and admitted, "I don't really believe in the mission of my job." More work needed: these are only samples, please have others go through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to respond to your specific comments (except the California wikilink, because I can't find California wikilinked anywhere except in the Claremont, California link, which leads to the town, not the state). If the article fails, I'll indeed seek another review from an independent editor, although I should point out this has already been done twice for the article and apparently hasn't been sufficient... — Hunter Kahn 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I eliminated the California wikilink, as well as some other instances of overlinking per Sandy's observation.—DCGeist (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sandy also observed a general problem with overcitation. I went through the entire article, spending time with the actual sources, and reduced all the stacks of three or more note callouts to a maximum of two by focusing in each case on the most relevant citations.—DCGeist (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see you've (both) tried to respond to Sandy's specific comments, but in that one example of repetitive prose, it still reads poorly. I don't know if you saw me suggest this at my talk page, but I'll repeat what I said over there. The original read:

          The character traits of Ron Swanson, a government official who believes in as little government as possible, was inspired by a real-life Libertarian elected official Schur encountered in Burbank who favored as little government interference as possible and admitted, "I don't really believe in the mission of my job."

          It's not just repetitive, but twisty and overlong. All you've done to remedy it is change one instance of "government" to "municipal", and paraphrased "as little government interference as possible" to read "minimal government". That's fine if you're just trying to chuck out repetitive words, but what about repetitive ideas? Think about what can be combined or eliminated, what ideas are redundant in the wider context of the article. I'm sure it could be phrased better still, but my suggestion from a few days ago:

          Inspiration for Ron Swanson came from an encounter Schur had in Burbank with an elected official, a Libertarian who favored minimal government interference and admitted, "I don't really believe in the mission of my job."

          To me, that doesn't lose any of the intended meaning (Swanson is already established in the article as a character, so how he acts are his traits; the mention of Schur establishes the "real-life" nature of his encounter; Swanson's beliefs and that of the inspiration are combined), but by eliminating the repetitive words and ideas we have something that the reader is less likely to become bored with; they're not re-reading things they're already familiar with, and can be moved swiftly on to the next piece of information. Steve T • C 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Steve, I didn't see you had responded to me. I've incorporated your suggestion into the article. — Hunter Kahn 01:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool; no doubt Doc will be able to massage my merely-functional suggestion further. :-) I had planned to offer up a very regretful oppose, based on the prose, which isn't as tight as I've seen on some of your previous articles. But Doc's a pro, so I'm happy to wait until he's done before looking more closely. Something that I did notice was this statement in "Ratings":

      Several reviewers pointed out that The Office experienced similarly poor ratings during its first season but later became a success. However, commentators said Parks and Recreation would find an ever greater challenge in staying afloat if the early ratings were poor ...

      It's something I see a lot at film articles, so the sentence was an immediate red flag for me. The issue is with the weasel-y terms "reviewers pointed out" and "commentators said", when you're citing the opinion of just one writer. Essentially, it fails verification; the NYT writer isn't covering what reviewers or commentators have said, he's just offering his own—singular—opinion. Steve T • C 08:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for pointing this out Steve, and please take a look at my modification to see if its sufficient. I was pretty certain other commentators have made this observation, but couldn't find them among my source material right away, so for now I've simply made this change. If I do find other sources later and tweak it again, I'll bring it to your attention to see if it still works... — Hunter Kahn 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's much better, but looking at it, I'm thinking that Itzkoff may be authoritative enough that he doesn't even need to be named. Imagine how the sentence might read if it began with "The Office experienced ..." instead. Anyway, no need to act on this for my future support or otherwise, it was just an idle thought to do with what you will. :-) All the best, Steve T • C 13:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I like your suggestion and I've made the change. If you think it was better the other way, feel free to let me know or revert. (The same goes to the good Dr. Kino when he gets to that particular section.) — Hunter Kahn 14:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's close. Doing a top-to-bottom copyedit. Should finish tomorrow. DocKino (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The description in the "Cast" section of Mark as "Leslie's unrequited one-time lover" is quite confusing. Could you please rephrase it more clearly? DocKino (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just dropped the "one-time" bit altogether and changed to "unrequited love interest". It had been written that way because Leslie and Mark had sex on one occasion in the distant past and Leslie still harbored feelings for him, but Mark did not feel the same way. But it's not really necessary to convey that here... — Hunter Kahn 20:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it may be. He's described as her "former lover" in the episode 1 summary above, which is accurate as far as it goes, but has a very different implication from "unrequited love interest." It's also not as clear as it could be who's interested and who's not requiting. I don't think it would hurt to have a sentence in the "Cast" section spelling out the relationship for those unfamiliar with the show. Something like this: "He was cast as Mark Brendanawicz, a city planner. Mark and Leslie had a long ago one-night stand, but her feelings for him were unrequited." Or similar, per the show's content. DocKino (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine by me. Check out my addition and if you think it needs more work, either let me know or feel free to tweak it yourself. — Hunter Kahn 20:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great. I just cut the final clause, which was already clear from the preceding. DocKino (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've finished a pretty rigorous copyedit. The article is well sourced and structured, and I believe it now meets the prose standard. DocKino (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much, DocKino. As usual, your copy edit was extensive and excellent! — Hunter Kahn 01:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Other than my randomly-scattered comments above (now resolved), everything seems fine. I checked some sources at random, all of which supported the text they were attached to, and they all scan reliable in my book (TV Squad I'd be less than thrilled with if it were citing anything more than a broadcast schedule and personnel change). The images are correctly licensed, and the prose is much improved through the recent work. Nice job, Steve T • C 10:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:45, 6 April 2010 [69].

Herschel Greer Stadium edit

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria to become featured. It is listed as a good article and was peer reviewed in April 2009. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text generally excellent; perhaps you can drop the overly exact locations ("seats behind the third base dugout"), which are unlikely to be verifiable to a non-expert. Ucucha 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes to alt text as mentioned above. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 02:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Check: Passed - 8 images. All are CC-by-SA or PD, and are located at commons- all are pictures taken by WP users at the stadium, except for one picture of a game transferred from Flickr. File:GreerStadiumScoreboard.jpg has tags all over it that the license tag is wonky since WP changed the site licensing- please try to fix this, though I don't think it makes the use of the image invalid. --PresN 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an administrator reading this who could look into the presence of disclaimers with the original upload to the English Wikipedia (it has been deleted)? NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Ucucha 18:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The full text of the image description page, as written by Kinu (talk · contribs), was:
== Summary == A view of the scoreboard at [[Herschel Greer Stadium]]. Taken by [[User:Kinu]] on [[2005]]-[[07-25]]. == Licensing == {{GFDL-self}}
Ucucha 18:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it appears no disclaimers were present at the original uploading, I have replaced the liscense template with {{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers|Kinu}}. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support well done. Dincher (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments -
  • Just a note for other reviewers, a good number of the sources are to the local baseball team that plays in the stadium, so special attention should be paid to that to ensure thre is not unintentional bias introduced.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nit-picks suggest a run-through the whole is in order.

  • Something tells me it should be a numeral when with a symbol (abbreviation): (3 km).
  • Why is "guitar" linked? Should "all-star games" have a capital A?
  • In order to: spot the two redundant words. But regardless, let's avoid "to ... to ...": "with the city for a new ...".
  • "the final cost added up to over $1,000,000"—"added up to" is a little clunky ... just "was"? And we presume this was still the total projected cost, not what it ended up being on completion? It's not clear.
  • This is a winding route: "With the help of country music star Conway Twitty, other stars such as Jerry Reed, Richard Sterban, and Cal Smith, as well as other members of the Nashville community, were brought in as team shareholders." Can't it be shifted around to avoid the bumps? And there are two instances of "other". Rethink.
  • Theatre type seats—hyphen, I think.
  • Just a personal style thing: "approximately" is such an ugly word; won't "about" do? But I note this is a rough estimate (extra 5,000), yet the total is expressed as a definite 13,0000. I'm confused.
  • "which resulted in the field being raised 5 feet (1.5 m) above its previous elevation"—erky: this is a noun plus -ing construction that doesn't work, unlike some. "which raised the field by ...". So easy to fix.

And more. I've looked only at the top part. A run-through by an unfamiliar editor would be good. Not a long job. Tony (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, as I keep pointing out at FAC, just reverse the order to avoid an ungainly construction that really should be triple hyphenated:

"A 4-line-, 10-foot-(3.0 m)-high scoreboard". Try "A 4-line scoreboard 10 feet (3.0 m) high replaced ...". Tony (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this sentence needs a complete audit: "The field measured 330 feet (100 m) down the left and right field lines, 375 feet (114 m) to left and right-center fields, and 405 feet (123 m) to center field.[10] Lighting grids atop 8 100 foot (30 m) steel poles ...". First, 8 100 is no good (see the MoS). Spell out the 8. Hyphens required, or try reversing as above. Is it left-center and right-center fields (a hanging hyphen is required, see MoS), or the left field and the right-center field (leave as it is)? Tony (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Pretty much picking up from where Tony left off, although at least one thing came from what he looked at. Most of the comments are basic nit-picky stuff, but there are a couple referencing-related comments that left me somewhat concerned. I'm sure they can be handled, though.

  • "Theater-type seats with back support and armrests accounted for 3,000 of the stadium's seats, bleacher seats made up the remainder." Feels like the comma should be a semi-colon, or "and" should be added after the comma. Either way, it feels a shade off now.
  • A 4-line scoreboard 10 feet high replaced the stadium's original which was...". Probably should be a comma before "which".
  • "In the 2000s, following the construction of newer, relatively luxurious minor league ballparks, Greer has fallen below standards set for Triple-A stadiums by professional baseball." If 2000s is used to signify a decade, the sentence should be made past tense since we're now in the 2010s. If not, it's fine as is.
  • "and has been the subject of many renovations in order to meet Triple-A standards." Little bit of wordiness that can easily be removed. Tony would approve.
  • What is citing the part about the cancellation of plans for a new stadium? Is it the reference that follows?
  • I see $1 million used here, but earlier I remember seeing $1,000,000. They should probably be made consistent; I personally prefer it with the space.
  • "The restaurant, which relocated from its downtown location, closed down that November." No source for this is provided, and the one that comes after doesn't mention this at all.
  • Major league exhibitions: "The 10–1 Yankees victory was played before a standing room only crowd of 17,318 spectators." Should be a hyphen in "standing room only".
  • "beating the Yankees 5–4 before an attendance of 13,641." This is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "before an attendance of". Maybe try "before a crowd of"? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I left the "2000s" part as is. It originally referred to the decade, but it holds true today as the stadium is still below other Triple-A parks. I took out the part about Judge Bean's as I feel it holds little relevence to the park's history. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good to me. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article has plenty of sources, illustrations, and the prose is very clear. Shockfront (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 23 innings, or 24? I think I see both... • Ling.Nut 12:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. (It should have been 24.) NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:45, 6 April 2010 [70].

Marsh rice rat edit

Nominator(s): Ucucha 12:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is the common rice rat of the United States, and much more is known of it than of any other rice rat I have brought to FAC so far. The article comprehensively covers the information of major secondary sources and the many papers that have been published on this species and is part of a planned featured topic on its genus, Oryzomys. I am looking forward to your reviews and comments. Ucucha 12:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, RATS! This one looks like a cutie. I'll look forward to reading the article. Meanwwhile:
no dabs.
several red links, one forbidden.
several brown links indicate some kinds of problems or access issues. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I looked at all the links earlier, and while there are various weird things going on, they all seem to work. Ucucha 15:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commensal needs link in lead
  • Done.
  • the marsh rice rat is a medium-sized rodent that resembles common rats. For consistency, the common rat
  • Used this because it refers to both the black and the brown rat, but changed anyway.
  • builds nests of sedge and grass and occasionally runways. Reads oddly, I’d put the runway first
  • The problem with that is that it would read like the runways are made of sedge and grass.
  • less brownish less brown?
  • Yes.
  • Carnivorans is this a real word?
  • Yes, it refers to members of the order Carnivora, as opposed to "carnivore" which refers to any animal that eats meat. I put in a link.
  • contain much less dimethylsulphoniopropionate significance? Is it toxic, unpleasant tasting or what?
Thanks; hadn't noticed that the paper I got the name from used British English. They hypothesize that it is some sort of signaling molecule that herbivores don't like. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 11:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No further issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment "Entepicondylar foramen" link is red. I don't think it is "bad" but it doesn't looks good to me. Other than that a very good and easily read article even for somebody like me who knew nothing of rats beforehand! --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I placed your "support" at the start of the line per FAC instructions.) Thanks for the support. There's a lot of anatomical terms I have to write on sometime, and this foramen is among them. I don't think the redlink makes it hard to understand the sentence where it occurs, but I agree that the link would be better blue. Ucucha 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah thanks, still new to this. If it is going to be written about sometime it is agreeable to keep on the page. Striking comment.
  • SUPPORTComments Lovely article. My comments are addressed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several predators prey...this sounds redundant to me.
      • "Several animals prey" now.
    • Three years later, Spencer Fullerton Baird argued that the referral of the species to Arvicola was erroneous and introduced a new generic name for the marsh rice rat, Oryzomys, which was from then on recognized either as a full genus or as a subgenus of the now-defunct genus Hesperomys.[22] "Oryzomys" combines the Greek oryza "rice" and mys "mouse" and refers to the marsh rice rat's habit of eating rice.[21] Since the 1890s, Oryzomys has been universally recognized as a distinct genus, with the marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) as its type species.[23] This first sentence in this set of sentences is very confusing. Perhaps end at Oryzomys, which combines the Greek orzya (rice) and mys (mouse) and refers to the marsh rice rat's diet of rice.
      • Question, though: was the name recognized as a full genus or a subgenus of the nonw defunct genus Hesperomys until the 1890s? or is it still ? In which case, the last sentence is confusing. You see my problem?
        • I reorganized the paragraph.
    • what does less brown mean? If my hair is less brown, does that mean it is more blonde? More black? More gray? (well, yes, that, but...)
      • It comes pretty directly from the source, but another part of that paper makes it clearer. The marsh rice rat is more gray.
    • just a comment, the chipmunk article doesn't have an explanation of cheek pouches either.
      • So much still to be done
    • Many of these characters are common adaptations to life in the water in oryzomyines
      • shouldn't oryzomyines be in italics? and shouldn't characters be characteristics?
        • I replaced it with the slightly more precise "traits". Oryzomyines doesn't need italics, as it is an informal term, and we don't italicize names above the genus.
    • with those from southern Florida (coloratus) brighter than those from the center of the state (natator) with those from southern florida...being brighter (parallel construction).
      • Really? The sentence sounds fine to me even without that, but I made the change anyway.
    • I would call this color a red grizzle, or a brown grizzle. See Border Terrier. It looks like the hair is several colors along the strand. Is that right?
      • Possibly; I have tried to follow the sources in the terms described. The third picture is also a Florida rice rat, and it looks rather yellowish than reddish to me, but we'd better use what the people who studied variation in this animal wrote. Different color bands may well be present, but the sources I read didn't mention them.
    • Sigmodontinae... italicize?
      • No, it's a taxon above the genus.
    • a fleshy process... what is a fleshy process on the penis? I guess the question is also what is an urethral process?
      • According to Weksler's figure, it's a little flap on the urethral process, which is a bigger flap somewhere in the top of the penis. I added a little clarification.
    • According to Goldman, Florida animals (coloratus and natator) generally have the largest and broadest skulls, and western specimens (texensis) have somewhat smaller and narrower skulls than those from the east (nominate palustris). have smaller and narrower (not somewhat). Do Florida animals not qualify as animals from the east? or do you mean such states as South Carolina or North Carolina? The states in the northern part of the animal's range?
      • "animals from the east" there does not include those from Florida; clarified.
    • Population dynamics, you might start with the typical density, then mention that weather may influence, then the Everglades (where weather did influence), and Louisiana.
      • Repeated rewriting made that paragraph a bit incoherent. I think it's better now.
doesn't DMSP taste good? Why don't they want it? (or do they?)
      • The source doesn't really say; nothing definite is known and it says nothing else about rice rats than what is there already.
    • I think they would be --on-- plantations.
      • Sure.
    • do you think you have enough sources?
      • When I am quite honest—I'm hoping hard this gets promoted before Sasata comes along to do a literature check, because otherwise I will probably have to add at least a few hundred more.
  • this is fascinating, and most of my comments are quibbles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, which helped improve the prose greatly. Ucucha 03:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010 [71].

Battle of Dürenstein edit

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... it fills a wikigap, and generally a B I G gap, in coverage of the Danube campaign between the surrender of Ulm (a big event) and the Battle of Austerlitz (another big event). It has been through some serious scrutiny by the project, and others, and I hope it's ready. Citation style is slightly different. I'm experimenting, and where there are duplicate consecutive references, I've used the name citation template. Thanks in advance for your constructive comments! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Is there some reason you have capitals in "Order of Battle" and "Allied Columns"? And a change in citation style—courageous indeed. Ucucha 17:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "column" was a formation, like a Corps or a Division, and it was a specific name. I'm not married to the Order of Battle (changed), it could be Order of battle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought it was courageous of me to try something different. ;) thanks for noticing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Ucucha 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • "Databook" or "Data Book"? You use both in the notes. done
  • Current ref 15 (Stadt Krems..) just has a numbered link, it needs a titled link same for its listing in the bibliography. done THANKS~
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review concern -
    • File:Austerlitz1805 Alombert1.jpg: the source should not point to the exact image link but from the page, which is hosting the image; thus, it should be http://www.napoleon-online.de/html/1805karten.html, which thankfully gives its sources. This map was published during 1902–08; unless the deaths of Jean Lambert Alphonse Colin and Paul Claude Alombert-Goget are known, their copyright status in France (source of origin) is unknown. The map is public domain in the US by virtue of pre-1923 publishing. Therefore, it should be stored on Wikipedia instead of Commons unless the deaths of Colin and Alombert-Goget are known. Jappalang (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin, Jean-Lambert-Alphonse, 1864-1917 and Paul Claude Alombert-Goget, b. 1857. according to LOC. I'm looking for a death date. The book this is from is published in 1903, and is in public domain (it is on Google books, at least), but I have difficulties scanning pages from there, so I found the copy of the page on the other site. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • thanks for replacing the monument image with a free one! Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problems; images are now cleared with the provided deaths of the cartographers(?). Jappalang (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Historians. we can be cartographers too sometimes. ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for an overall wonderful article. However, I had a few concerns. For starters, the last part in the lead about Napoleon marrying Marie Louise puzzled me. That happened in 1810 and was not related to the immediate aftermath of Austerlitz. It really should not appear in this article. Also, I think the article could benefit from an additional copyedit to make the prose flow better. Right now there's way too many semicolons that butcher the prose in several spots. Ignoring or satisfying this last request won't affect my supportive decision, but you definitely want to remove the part about Napoleon's marriage to Marie Louise.UBER (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amazing. I knew that, and it still got in there. Oh well. I did take it out. And I took out a few of the semi-colons. Not all of them, but some. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support * Comments: There are some issues, as detailed in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Battle of Dürenstein/archive1#Jappalang's comments, I would like to be addressed before I feel comfortable throwing in my support for this article. I have some confusion with parts of the content. Although I did some copyediting, I would prefer if another editor, more experienced and "powerful" in prose, were to take a gander and further tighten the language. Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've gone through your comments on the talk page. Thanks for such a careful review of the article. I think I've addressed them all, by rewriting several areas myself or adopting your prose. Thanks for your comments! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have updated my comments based on your changes and inputs. Jappalang (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've responded to your comments on the talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • After copyediting and having my concerns resolved on the talk page, I think I still would be much more comfortable to make a decision if someone more experienced were to copyedit the article. Could you find someone to do so? Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • sure. I'll ask someone to do so. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jappalang, I LOVE what you did with the chart and the map!!! Beautiful! Thanks so very much! Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problems, tis what I can help. I have read the article again, and I believe the prose has improved significantly. The illustrated article is a comprehensive look at one battle of the Napoleonic Wars—teaching in brief the wind-up to this battle, the flow of the battle, and the aftermath. I would like to complain about the last section where it seems the information is dealt with as trivia ("The battle appears in this."). However, I think Auntieruth has done superbly here by titling the section "Battlefield commemorations"; hence putting things (which are put into context rather than tossed in) in focus here. I am happy to support this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for your support, and your effort on this. I particularly like what you did with the chart and the map, and I particularly object to what happened with the cites and the bibliography. I've brought this up on your talk page, and we can continue the conversation there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article has come a long way since I initially assessed it as B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support now, was Comments by Ruhrfisch. As requested I have taken a look at the article. While I am close to supporting, there are some issues I would like to see addressed before that.

  • Perhaps a place to provide context to the reader Political conflicts in Vienna delayed Austria's entry into the war [of the third coalition] until 1805. (my capitalization is probably not consistent, but you get the idea)
good idea. fixed.
  • Clarify which hostilities ended in 1800 here: After hostilities ended in 1800, Archduke Charles, the emperor's brother, developed a military restructuring plan ...
Another good idea. fixed.
  • Say this was at Ulm? On 16 October, Karl Mack surrendered his encircled army of 20,000 infantry and 3,273 cavalry.
A third good idea, fixed.
  • The Locale section seems like it could be written more clearly. For an article on the battle of Dürenstein, it mentions that location pretty late. Would something like "To the west of Stein the Danube made a large curve, with a crescent-shaped floodplain between it and the mountains. At the far western end of the floodplain, where the mountain came down to the river, was Dürenstein, with its castle." Then go on to describe the dimensions of the plain and the other villages / hamlets? A map of the palin would really help.

OK, have to stop for now, more tomorrow, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified, I hope. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much clearer. I looked at Open Street Map to see if the map there could be used, but it is modern and shows the highways and rail lines. I think the improved description and panoramic photo give a good idea of the battlefield. I have struck my comments above, more follow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More Ruhrfisch comments
  • I think there are inconsistent verbs in this (parallel construction), and it should either be "preventing" or perhaps "to prevent": This Corps was to secure the north shore of the Danube, blocking any of the Austrian or Russian groups from reinforcing one another and, importantly, prevent Kutuzov from crossing the river and escaping to Russia.[17]
  • This seems like an error, wouldn't it be 9 November? On 9 March, Gazan's division reached Marbach an der Donau, and covered the 50 kilometers (31 mi) to Dürenstein...
  • For those not clear that dragoons are cavalry, would adding cavalry somewhere help this sentence: This failure was an important factor when Mortier lost his Corps's so-called "eyes": after he and Gazan had crossed the Danube, the French dragoons had veered to the northwest, leaving only a small [cavalry?] contingent available for reconnaissance.
  • Who is Mortimer? Despite Strik's continuous assault in the next two to three hours, Mortimer and Gazan were pushing the Russians back up the narrow fissure in the hillside. Mortier?
  • Since metric units are used first, I would change this to "within a few kilometres": Unknown to either Gazan or Mortier, the Coalition had concentrated a force of approximately 24,000 men (mostly Russians and a few Austrians) within a few miles of the French position at Dürenstein.
  • I would link guidon in the infobox
  • One more. The caption for File:Dürnstein-Loiben.jpg reads Little Frenchman Memorial, at Loiben. but it is not clear which memorial described in the text this is. I imagine the ruins visible on the mountain behind it are Schloss Dürenstein, would it be worth mentioning that in the cation too?

OK, those are all my comments, expect to support soon, interesting read and nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of these. I've also added a map I just drew. I cannot get rid of the black line in the lower right, perhaps someone better versed in inkscape can figure that out. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments I have switched to support above, and have struck the points that have been addressed. A few questions remain, and I found these few more quibbles while rereading it, but it is close enough to support now. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would also change acres in Acres of terraced vineyards extended up the sides of the Krems river, until it became a mountain stream and terrain was unsuitable for cultivation. probably to hectares or perhaps square kilometres
It wasn't meant as a specific measure, but rather a general sense of space. I took it out, and I deleted the photo and caption from this page.
  • Missing word in caption? Or is the "and" an estra word? The French occupied the vineyards in the floodplain, and were surrounded by Russian troops as they emerged from [the valleys?] and defiles of the mountains. Another column of Russians approached Dürenstein from the south.
Fixed caption.
  • I like the new map but am unable to fix it. For some reason the blue river shows on the map when I look at it by itself, but does not show on the map in the article in either IE or Firefox. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped the svg version of the map for a png version and it looks fine.
Thanks for your efforts and support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments We have two spellings for the name of the man who was familiar with the local geography: Steibar and Steiber. Could you check the source to see which is correct? --JN466 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've completed another copyedit of the article.

Support promotion to FA. --JN466 14:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JN. Re Steibar and Steiber, the sources have 2 spellings, so I'll pick one. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they have roughly equal frequency of occurrence in sources, "Steiber" seems much the more plausible spelling. It is a reasonably common German name today, whereas "Steibar" is not. --JN466 15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have managed to track down a snippet view of Egger. He says the man was called "Kreishauptmann Christoph Freiherr von Stiebar" (i.e. with "ie", not "ei"). That checks out – there was a documented noble family of that name in the region which is mentioned in multiple books – so forget what I said before, and let's go for "Freiherr von Stiebar", with the title. --JN466 15:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC) JN466 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for fixing that. I have the entirety of Egger, thanks to Ucucha. It's interesting reading.

Support promotion to FA. --Frania W. (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noticed a couple of little nothings, such as conversion of kilometers vs miles, which I mentioned to Auntie Ruth - the conversion as shown in text makes it look as if 1 mile is 2 kilometres, while it is 1.6 km: to me, this type of detail is important as, in a battle, bombs that fall 400 metres off the intended target can mean the death of friends instead of foe... (read the battle of Normandy in July 1944!) --Frania W. (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to the Wikipedia:CONVERT page and tried to use the sigfig= parameter, but I cannot get it to work. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
okay, it's fixed now! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010 [72].

Donner Party edit

Nominator(s): Karanacs, Malleus Fatuorum, Moni3 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A harrowing tale of bravery, hardship, and cannibalism in the old Wild West. It was hard to read about and hard to write; I hope the consensus here is that the effort was worthwhile. Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Malleus' intro to say of all the articles I have written, none of them have been this difficult to read about. It was sometimes miserable to feel the suffering of these people and I realize I have no sense of humor about their trials. What they went through was absolutely brutal. But I hope the article explains it well. I hope once you get started reading it, it will be impossible to stop. This isn't a train wreck that you cannot look away from. This disaster left train wreck far behind in the dust 38 miles back. Thanks for reading and let us know what we can do to improve it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 67kB of readable prose - needs some trimming. I can offer suggestions, if the editors are willing to cut. Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to listen to any suggestions, although I'd dispute your needs some trimming. Sometimes the story has to extend to that eleventh page. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is that the article takes over an hour to read, with any close attention. Our readers will generally not pay attention that long (my college students certainly won't). I think doing justice to the story requires paying attention to the genre we are writing in, which requires summary style. I will provide a list of suggested tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look forward to your suggestions, but I'll need some convincing. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's now down to 61kB, 10,761 words of readable prose. Malleus Fatuorum 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added my suggestions on the talk page of this FAC - apologies for the delay. Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've incorporated most of your suggestions, Awadewit. The article is now around 9400 words, and is much tighter and easier to read, in my opinion. Thank you very much for your help. Karanacs (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I'm currently watching the talk page. As a published expert on the Donner party has raised some questions about the article (specifically issues that an expert is better at addressing than I am), I'm going to watch those comments carefully before supporting. I am particularly concerned with the following issues: 1) outdated sources; 2) injection of editorial interpretation, often overly emotional writing; 3) some factual errors in the article. It is rare that we have the opportunity to have articles reviewed by experts. I am curious to see how this will go. Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It lacks an opening sentence. The first sentence should summarise the lede, just as the lede summarizes the article. jnestorius(talk) 00:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my understanding of what a lead is. Maybe what language I use to define a lead is not the same language as yours. Can you give an example of what you mean? --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully I've addressed the point you're making Jnestorius in my response to Brianboulton below. Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I don't think that works; the transition from sentence 2 to sentence 3 is too abrupt. Here's my suggestion for the lede:
The Donner Party (also called the Reed-Donner Party) was a group of American pioneers who became trapped by snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains in the winter of 1846–7 while migrating from Missouri to California. When their food supplies ran out, some resorted to cannibalism to survive, eating those who had already succumbed to starvation and sickness. Of the 87 who set out, 42 died en route.
The Reed and Donner families set off in a wagon train in May 1846, on a journey that usually took about four months. They chose to follow the Hastings Cutoff, a purported shortcut route to California which Lansford Hastings had promoted despite never having traveled it himself. The winding route through the Wasatch Mountains and Great Salt Lake Desert resulted in the loss of many of the party's cattle and wagons, and fragmentation of the group into bitter factions.
The pioneers were a month and a half behind schedule when they reached Truckee Lake in the Sierra Nevadas in early November. Trapped by an unusually heavy snowfall, their food stores ran out. Members of the party set out on foot to obtain help, and several rescue attempts were made. The last survivors were rescued in mid-March.
Western immigration decreased significantly after news of the Donner Party's fate spread, until gold was discovered in California in 1848. The episode has endured in United States (U.S.) history as a tragic event during which the pioneers resorted to cannibalism. Historians have described it as "one of the most thrilling, heart-rending tragedies in California history",[2] explaining continued interest in the story because "the disaster was the most spectacular in the record of western migration".[3]
Para #1 is of the form I'm advocating. I added a few bits but mainly rearranged the existing lede. jnestorius(talk) 10:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jnestorius, you've got a dangling modifier in there: "Trapped by an unusually heavy snowfall, their food stores ran out." It wasn't the food stores that were trapped. The Grammar Grinch 18:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I understand what you're saying about placing cannibalism in the first sentence, but I have reservations about doing that. Their story endures for this very reason, but the cannibalism was the end result of en entire universe of bad luck directed toward them. It's difficult to decide what to do here. On one hand, pandering to the most sensational aspect of this story by bringing it out in the first sentence overshadows the deeper details of what occurred. These weren't just cannibals; these were normal people who were put into an awful position to make choices that are so unique their story still horrifies. On the other, it's going to be pretty much what people come to read the article for. I'd like to read what others have to say about it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your points are valid for a magazine article but not an encyclopedia article. We shouldn't assume the reader has any prior knowledge of the topic. A magazine article can exploit the expected readership's existing information and emphasise the difference between the common-knowledge view and the deeper view. It can use a narrative build-up, which will have one resonance for readers who know what happens at the climax, and another resonaance for readers who don't; both resonances are effective in a magazine article but inappropriate in an encyclopedia. I appreciate and agree that we must not sensationalise; but neither should we be too circumspect or reticent or coy. jnestorius(talk) 12:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully behind Moni3, and I would very strenuously oppose any attempt to introduce cannibalism in the lead without first giving its context. The suggestion that we were writing a magazine article rather than an encyclopedia article I will simply dismiss as insensitive ignorance. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some misunderstanding. Leaving cannibalism to the second or third paragraph is absolutely fine by me. But the opening sentence should state that the Donner Party endured numerous misfortunes and travails, and many of its members perished. It should not state that the journey usually took four months. jnestorius(talk) 03:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I don't often enthuse, but this is superb. I was very much reminded of when I read Voss by Patrick White, years ago when I was a student - the article is that good. Too good for me to bother with my normal nitpicks—I don't really want to change anything. The only thing I would say, about the lead thing above, is that WP:LEAD says: The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Your opening sentence doesn't do that. Perhaps it should be redrafted so that it does, but don't change too much. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to get it into one sentence, but I've tried to get it into two. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Leaning to support: for more details, refer to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Donner Party/archive1#Jappalang's comments.
    Contents: I am still puzzled by some conflicting content (perhaps language is the issue), so I hope to have them addressed (see this FAC's talk page).
    Prose: I have some suggestions to make as detailed; regardless, the prose is more than wonderful enough to win me over.
    Images: Most images are okay on copyright grounds; I am encouraged to see that the nominators are proactive in getting images with verifiable sources. One image, however, requires some attention as detailed in the talk page. no issues, either in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Overall, I would support once my more serious concerns are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: after Malleus and Karanacs' work, I have only three two serious concerns for addressing. The rest of my thoughts are more of possible improvements. Jappalang (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing to full support; whatever concerns I have remaining (except one) I consider not opposable. The circumstances on Salvador's death (per this FAC's talk page) warrant a check, but I am confident the nominators would address this. Jappalang (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Although Jappalang's comments are extremely incisive, none of them could possibly prevent me from supporting the most compelling read I've yet encountered – on purely diegetic terms – on Wikipedia. At points the language is exquisite, and highly evocative of the era. While that might necessitate slightly straying from an encylcopaedic tone, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. A fantastic read and wholly troubling. Seegoon (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: The tables all appear to be collapsed by default. This is contrary to the MOS (because when the article is printed part of it would not be shown). There are also a couple of places where the images cross section boundaries a little awkardly (and there could be a little better image/quotation/table staggering in a couple of places too). Nevertheless a very nice article. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are perhaps reading from a different MoS than the one I see, which says: "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable for use, but should not be used in article prose." The collapsible tables in this article are not used in article prose. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't see any inline citations linking the decline in migration to California with the news of the Donner Party. Could it not just be coincidence? jnestorius(talk) 03:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added citation to Unruh (1993), who says explicitly that the decline in migration was because of the Donner Party's fate. Malleus Fatuorum 05:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't read the placement after "...25,000 people went west" as covering either "Emigration to the west decreased..." or "The ongoing Mexican-American War may also have deterred emigration", since they're substantively unrelated assertions. I suggest repeating the REF tag three times, assuming it's the same pages in Unruh that make all three claims. jnestorius(talk) 09:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unruh cites the numbers of people going west in 1847, 1848, and 1849. Rarick suggest the Mexican War was the cause of the dropping numbers. I've cited this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I'd support but there might be a conflict of interest as I've worked on several articles with Malleus), "Luke Halloran, a young man who seemed to be getting sicker with tuberculosis every day, was passed from family to family, as none could spare the time or resources to care for him.[27]" - later we learn that he died, but that he was nursed "to the end" by Tamsen Donner. I'm not sure if he went begging from wagon to wagon, or if each family looked after him for a short while before booting him out, and was Tamsen Donner his last call? I know it isn't important in the grand scheme of things but I think those two sentences could be joined with a couple more words. Parrot of Doom 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed that slightly to "nursed at the end", as it seems that he just happened to die when he was staying with the Donners. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and quibble ....and I thought this would be about doner kebabs! Just one niggle, where is Blacks Fork - not shown on map or explained in text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: eh! I'm afraid this has turned into a "too many cooks spoil the stew" situation. The article originally nominated was full of "brilliant prose" and I really give all the credit in the world to Moni, Karanacs and Malleus. However, all of this cutting and copy editing has been a detriment to the article in my opinion. I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to support or oppose since I did a lot of research on this from the beginning and tried to help as much as I could. However, as others have done previously, I'll leave some comments on the talk page of this FAC. Hopefully we can get back to the brilliant prose that was there last week. Tex (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead looks fine now; one remaining issue I have is with the File:Donner route map.png. It seems (from the Talk: page) the Oregon Trail in 1846 did not follow the purple line on the map to Fort Bridger, but rather turned off it earlier at Little Sandy. If the map cannot be amended to reflect that, the caption ought to note it. jnestorius(talk) 15:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have an amended map shortly. Kmusser (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from rʨanaɢ (talk):
    • The third paragraph has but the first relief party did not arrive until the middle of February 1847. There are not any months given in the other parts of the lede (either the first sentence which says the Donner Party set off in 1846, or the immediately preceding context which says family members made several rescue attempts but doesn't say when specifically those rescue parties set out. So it's hard to get a sense of how much time passed before the rescue party found them.
      • Good catch. I've added that this was almost 4 months since the party became trapped. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I don't know if this has been discussed above, but I could do without the 4th paragraph of Families and progress (the one basically just listing the other families that were in the party). In an article of this length, this seems like the sort of detail that can be left to the external sources and looked up by readers who want to know more—a note or footnote pointing to Rarick and Stewart would be sufficient, I think.
      • I don't think these should be removed. All of these families are mentioned again in the article. We can either introduce them the first time that we run into their names later, which may break up the prose flow, or we can not give further details when we later discuss them, but then we may miss out on motivations. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think introducing them the first time we run into their names later is the best way to go. I didn't remember the names from the long list anyway (it's hard to remember lists of names with little extra information like that, and I don't know how many times during the reading of this article I was coming across some name, say McCutcheon, and plugging it into my browser search and going up the page to figure out who that was—introducing the names only where they become relevant would cut down on the searching). Plus, I'm not sure how necessary a lot of that information is anyway (as far as "motivations" are concerned); it looked to me like most of it was just saying how many people were in their family, and if they were immigrants, stuff like that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Wasatch Mountains section, what does it mean when it says the party was "joined by" the Graves family? Were the Graves also taking the Hastings cutoff, behind the Donners, and caught up with them? Or were they wandering around that general area and they came across each other (something that seems unlikely, given how hostile and uncharted that environment sounds)?
      • The Graves had set out after the rest, and caught up with them in the Wasatch Mountains. I've clarified that in the text.[73] Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like the citation style used within the notes, including parentheticals after the period and including a period within the parenthetical. I can accept having them after the period if this is a British-US difference or something like that, but is the extra period (after the page numbers in the parentheticals) necessary? It makes it look kind of messy to me.
      • Periods at the end of all parenthetical references now removed. Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it says George and Jacob Donner left, does that mean just the two of them, or them and their families? And I was a little surprised that this was mentioned in such an offhand way; given that George Donner was putatively the leader of the party, shouldn't this have been a big deal? Do the books say a lot about it?
      • I've clarified that this meant the Donner families. Wagon trains were very loose organizations to begin with; the wagons have to travel in a line, rather than in a bunch for there to be enough room to maneuver, and in relatively safe areas it was not uncommon for the train to be stretched out over miles. In this case, when you have families that are already starting to blame each other for the delays, then it makes even more sense that some parts of the group may try to distance themselves from the rest. "Leaders" didn't have much responsibility in general and could be deposed at will if they ticked off the group. None of this is explicitly in the sources we used, as it's more assumed that the readers of those books are familiar with wagon trains. I'm not sure what else could - or should - be done to further clarify. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That makes sense. Just figured I'd ask, but it looks like there's probably not much that can be changed anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk)
    • There seem to be a lot of footnote pairs in which one footnote is to Rarick and the other is to the same fact in Stewart (or sometimes Johnson). Can these be merged together, like Stewart, p. 66; Rarick, p. 74.? This could cut down the number of references; it's what I did in Chinese classifier. In fact a couple of the references in the article are already like that; I just came across one Hardesty, p. 3, Johnson, pp. 8–9.
    • In Snowbound, I'm not sure whom the following sentence is referring to: the next morning they found the summit impassable, forcing them to return to Truckee Lake and the pioneer cabin. It seems to be a remnant that got stranded from copyediting or something, because in the version I'm reading there's no one past Truckee Lake at this point anyway (the Eddys already turned back and the Donners aren't there yet).
      • They camped for the night, intending to try again the next day. Then it snowed and they couldn't make it. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hm, so should it read forcing them to remain at Truckee Lake? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This has been fixed - the latter half of the sentence is now gone. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the first paragraph of Reed attempts a rescue: where is Bear Valley (where Reed went looking for the people) in relation to Truckee Lake and the camps? Knowing that would give me a better idea how far off Reed was, but I can't find Bear Valley on the map. (I notice that one paragraph later you mention Reed got to within 12 miles of them, but anyway this still reads awkwardly to me.)
      • It is, at least now, on File:Donner_route_map.png. It's close to Sutter's Fort on the left-hand side of the map. Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops, looks like it was there all along; my bad! (This is why I shouldn't read at 2 AM :P) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor question about File:Map of Truckee Lake and Alder Creek.svg: the Graves-Reed place is labeled as "Graves-Reed camp", but in the article it sounds like they had an actual cabin (like the Breens and Murphys).
      • Perhaps this was changed since you looked at it, but right now it says "Graves-Reed cabin" and "Donner camp". Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, looks like Jappalang fixed it in the meantime. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • After walking for 2 miles (3.2 km) they burst into tears and began to pray, overcome by exhaustion and emotion. Refers to Eddy and Graves, or to "the rest of the group"?
  • That's all. Overall I support the promotion of this article—as Moni said above, this is a gut-wrenching read and yet I couldn't take my eyes off it. There are, of course, little things that can be tweaked (such as my comments above) but there always will be little things, even after this is promoted, no article ever looks perfect to every editor. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely one of our best - I was nearly moved to tears. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all my compliments to the primary authors—overall an excellent job describing a complex and heart-wrenching story. I'll almost certainly support promoting this to feature status, but I did lay out some (mostly minor) issues on the talk page here. I'm happy to help out addressing some of these, particularly with respect to the opening of the background section, if that would be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is an excellent piece of work. It's on the long side, and I had to read it in bits rather than in one sitting, but looking over it there's nothing obvious that can be cut. I learned a lot and was moved by it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was watching as it developed and read it again last night and today. Personally I favour long articles that you can set you teeth into. IMO it accurately reflects the major sources. The article is a great achievement. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've read the article three times now, and I find nothing lacking. While, at 9,379 words it is long, it can still be read comfortably in an hour, and the level of detail is important for a full understanding of the events. There's some articles that stray into meaningless details, but this isn't one of them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010 [74].

Roderic Dallas edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk), Georgejdorner (talk), 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nominating this major revamp of an old article on a great pilot and leader of men in World War I, generally reckoned to be second only to Robert Little on the list of highest-scoring Australian aces, but given Dallas' almost complete indifference to making claims, who knows? This is a joint effort and nomination with Georgejdorner, who added a great deal of information gleaned from the subject's sole full-length biography, while I looked after the format and added some further detail from other sources. Recently promoted to A-Class in the MilHist and Aviation projects, and also a Good Article. For me this is also a WikiCup entry... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No links to dab pages, and no dead external links. Ucucha 17:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I supported this article for A class and see no reason why I shouldn't support for FA. I believe that this is an excellent article that meets the criteria. Well done to both Ian and George. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I too supported this at the Project ACR; I thought then it was one of the finest articles I'd read in a while, and I still think so. I appreciated the way the editors explained the technicalities of early combat aviation. Instead of glossing over how Dallas did this and that, they explained the different kinds of maneuvers, the problems with establishing the number of "kills", etc. I'll be interested to hear what other reviewers who are not in the Project have to say about this article. Obviously Rupert and I think it's top notch. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many tks for your reviews, Rupert and Ruth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is incredibly comprehensive. Shockfront (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very detailed content and cross-referencing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an excellent article which easily meets the criteria Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just a quick comment from me from me for now: a number of the web sources are without access dates, and one could use correct formatting. Also, as I brought up once before in one of your articles, you have entered the Red Baron as "Baron Manfred von Richthofen" when in German titles the "von" means baron, making "Baron" redundant and slightly incorrect. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catches, especially after all the time they've been sitting like that - ta! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:00, 4 April 2010 [75].

1956 Winter Olympics edit

Nominator(s): User:H1nkles citius altius fortius 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been greatly improved after undergoing reviews at WP:GAC, WP:PR, and WP:OLY. This is an important FA nomination as I hope to establish a template for other YEAR at winter/summer Olympic Games should this article pass. Special appreciation must be extended to Parutakupiu who supplied sizeable chunks of information for this article. While the 1956 Winter Olympic Games do not garner as much attention as many of the other celebrations of the Games, you will soon see that these Games were very pioneering and set the foundation for the next fifty years of Winter Olympics. Thank you in advance for your reviews. User:H1nkles citius altius fortius 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Oppose. Images lack alt text, as required by featured article criterion 3. See WP:ALT for advice on alt text. I will strike this oppose when this issue has been resolved. There are no links to disambiguation pages and no dead external links–good! Ucucha 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose until the alt links are fixed, other than that it's good to go. Dincher (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support alt text in place, striking oppose now supporting. Dincher (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text has been added to all images. Thank you, I learn something new everytime I do this. Please advise if it is acceptable. User:H1nkles citius altius fortius 05:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I made some further edits, and it's fine now. For future articles, what is often the most important part of WP:ALT is WP:ALT#Verifiability: generally, all aspects of the alt text need to verifiable from the image alone to a non-expert. When I see File:1956 Winter Olympics opening ceremonies.jpg, it's not immediately obvious (although very likely) that the flags are those of the participating nations. Most of my other edits were made for the same reasons. Also, chance details such as whether a photo is black or white generally don't need to be mentioned. Ucucha 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much appreciated, and also thanks for the guidance. Is there anything from your perspective that I need to do further regarding the alt text? User:H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's fine, as I said. You're welcome. Ucucha 15:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Magazine titles in the references should be in italics, I noted Popular Science Monthly but there may be others.
  • What makes http://www.skateresults.com/skaters/248 a reliable source?
  • You use the one link the in the "external links section" as a source, so it should not be in the external links, which is for links that are NOT used as sources.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I italicized the magazine, switched the ref to a more credible source and removed the external links section. I'm not sure if there should be a header for the categories and footer information though. Any thoughts on that? H1nkles citius altius fortius 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you remove the external links section, it'll be fine. I have a number of articles that don't have external links and the cats and footer info are just fine. What'd you replace Skate results with? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that my interpretation of WP:EL#Official links is slightly different than (I think) Ealdgyth above. The external links section of all of the Olympics main articles contains at least a link to the official site (which is what this link is), and I believe that this is within the guidelines even if the official site is used as a reference or citation (which it usually is), in order to highlight it to the user for further reference. If we need to call it "Official Site" to meet the requirements of the editor above (the guidelines on this aren't clear to me), we should be able to do that across the board with a change in the template that formats these links. Donlammers (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright review: 7 images. Following issues:
The logo for each olympics is placed in the infobox for identification, just as a corporate logo is placed in infoboxes in corporate articles. From the file information: "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing 1956 Winter Olympics, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." I'm not exactly sure what else is expected here. Donlammers (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to consider is other FA's that have logos in the article, Idlewild and Soak Zone, Rosetta@home, Olympic Games, and Dartmouth College are examples. If there is something I can add to the licensing to make sure it is compliant with WP standards please advise and I'll happily add it. H1nkles citius altius fortius 03:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never really liked the image so this gives me a great excuse to change it out. I'll have it fixed by Monday. Thanks for the review. H1nkles citius altius fortius 03:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others seem fine; oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have replaced the Albright image, I hope this meets the standards and that your concerns have been addressed. Please advise if there are unresolved issues with the images. H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
  • It would be nice to say which three Alpine events existed (different in 1956 than now) so readers don't have to click out of the article for the information. I'd suggest adding slalom, giant slalom and downhill to the Alpine section. Also the women who received gold medals in the Alpine events deserve mention. I haven't been through the entire article and subarticles, but that jumped out at me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it does seem a bit sparse. I've added some more info on the races and then outlined the women's gold medalists. I can add the silver and bronze medalists if you feel that would be appropriate. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better. As soon as I get a chance I'll read the entire article and the subarticles if necessary, but at the moment my impression is there's more room for development in the main article. Will post back soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that's a tricky one, I can always add more silver and bronze medalist information along with interesting tid bits about the competition but I feel like I have to watch over-detailing the main article. The events section is about the only place I can add more meaningful information, the sources for the organisation and venues sections quickly fall off into construction detail that would bore the reader to tears. I'd really have to stretch to find more stuff on politics since most of the sources give much more emphasis to the political drama of the 1956 Summer Games. There really isn't much more to say about the host city selection. So it comes back to the events. I'll expand the bobsleigh section since it seems rather light compared to the rest. I've already added to the skating section. Let me know what you think and if more should be added I'll be happy to work on it. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to use the nice table at the bottom as an organizational tool. You have 8 sports in the table, but only 4 paragraphs devoted to sports. Would it be too sparse to separate figure skating from speed skating and alpine skiing from nordic skiing for example? Also, I like the new skating image, but the description is for a nordic event - that needs to be looked at. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm interesting suggestion, hadn't thought of it. I'll play around with it and see if there's enough to make separate paragraphs. I'm confused on the image comment, I have the caption, "Pairs figure skaters at 1956 Olympics" under the figure skating image and the caption, "Sverre Stenersen on his way to victory in the nordic combined event" under the nordic combined skiing image, which is immediately below the figure skating image. It looks ok to me, am I missing something obvious (wouldn't be the first time)? H1nkles citius altius fortius 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments -
  • It seems odd to use conversions for the races. A 1500 meter race isn't normally referred to as a 4900 ft. race. Unless I'm wrong, and somebody objects, I'd consider deleting the conversions.
  • There is no clear policy as I can tell for conversion of race distances, I errored on the side of inclusion. I'll be glad to remove them as I agree it does look odd.
  • I'd prefer to see the list in the venues section as prose as the paragraphs are fairly chunky for a list.

  • I thought I had gotten all of the NBSPs but I'll roll through it again to catch any that I apparently missed.
  • I've gone through with a light copy-edit. I'll re-read again later to see whether anything jumps out at me.
  • I like this article, think it's important given the recent Winter Olympics, and would support with the above changes and as much possible development given the sources available. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I've broken the events section into separate sub-sections based on the calendar of events later in the article. The only event I did not give its own sub-section was Nordic combined, as there isn't much on this event. I'll work a little harder on it but it was only one race so it's hard to generate enough information for its own sub-section. I'll keep tinkering though. I also took out the bullets in the venue section and made each one its own paragraph of prose rather than a list. I removed the conversion template for all races and checked for non-breaking spaces. Let me know if there's anything unattended to or anything else you'd like me to take a look at. H1nkles citius altius fortius 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added enough info to the nordic combined event to create its own sub-heading. This should complete the suggestions made by Truthkeeper88. Please advise if I've missed the mark. H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : looks good with the changes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick drive-by comment – Cortina, which had originally been awarded the 1944 Winter Olympics, beat out three other cities for the right to host the 1956 Games seems like a fairly obvious statement without providing additional information. Which three cities? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question, my only answer would be for consistency between all of the YEAR at Summer/Winter Olympics articles. Later Games articles (2010 Winter Olympics for example) when there were more sports and more medals awarded, have the same top-ten medal-winning countries in a table and then a separate article for all the medal-winning countries. Would you suggest I break down the medal table in the 1956 Winter Olympics article to the top five countries? Would that help give some weight to having the medal table article? I don't think I could remove the 1956 Winter Olympics medal table article without getting community consensus. H1nkles citius altius fortius 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might work too, but personally I'd suggest simply merging the table article. Standalone lists should really only be used if the content is unable to fit into its parent article for whatever reason, and obviously two additional entries won't cause the article to be too long or unwieldy. That said, since this is a fairly widespread issue, I won't let it prevent me from supporting based on the article's prose and apparent completeness. Nicely done. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support, I'll bring your comments to the Olympics project and see what they say. H1nkles citius altius fortius 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for your help. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I'm honestly surprised that this was the position I would up in, since there has been so much support already. However, when I went over the article with a fine-toothed comb I found quite a few prose glitches and such.

  • "The 1956 Winter Olympics ... was a winter multi-sport event". A couple sentences later in the first paragraph start "The Games were..." Tenses should be more consistent.
  • "The Soviets would go on to win more medals than any other nation at these Games." Replacing "would go on" to "went on" eliminates an unnecessary word, and makes the voice of the sentence more active, which is usually a good thing.
  • "Politics did not impact the 1956 Winter Games as it did the Summer Games in Melbourne, Australia, when the Soviet response...". "when" → "where". Works better with what comes before it.
  • Host city selection: "They persuaded the city council of Cortina to bid for the 1944 Games." The last sentence only mentioned one Bonacossa, so "they" really doesn't apply anymore. I suppose this should start with "The Bonacossas" or similar.
  • "presented Cortina's bid to host the 1952 Winter Olympics, at the 40th IOC Session in Stockholm, Sweden." Minor point, but the comma after 1952 Winter Olympics can probably go.
  • "Despite the success, Bonacossa would die on 30 January 1953; three years before he could witness Cortina host the Games." Another minor punctuation point; the semi-colon should just be a regular comma.
  • Organisation: The Italian National Olympic Committee doesn't need another link after the one in the previous section.
  • "the alpine ski runs were in poor condition as was the ski jump and bobsleigh run." Here, "was" should be another "were" since there is more than one element after it (assuming they were different sites).
  • "They commenced the competition by playing each team in their pool in a round robin format ." Get rid of that space before the period.
  • "while the United States took the silver and Canada, with their two loses, earned the bronze." "loses" → "losses".
  • "Her teammate, Carol Heiss won the silver". Situations like this are one of my pet peeves. Surrounding Carol Heiss' name, there should either be two commas or none. I would go without, but either would be better than leaving one hanging like this.
  • I have concerns about a couple of sources used in the article. Reference 4 is to Merriam-Webster, and reference 7 is to Brittanica. Surely for a page on an Olympic Games, which surely has good sources waiting to be found, we can do better than a dictionary and a fellow encyclopedia.

It's definitely a good article, but I don't think the prose quite rises to the level of what I've been seeing in recently featured FAs. With a little copy-editing, though, passage should be doable during this FAC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I will address the issues you brought up and do a thorough copy edit. Fresh eyes are always appreciated especially regarding prose, so if you (or any other editor) see prose deficiencies please bring them up and I will correct them. H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've made the suggested changes and worked through the other sections not mentioned above. I tried to tighten up the prose and fix problems as I found them. Regarding the two references mentioned, I changed the Webster cite but it was difficult because the information is most readily found in travel websites and I felt that those were more suspect than Webster. I was able to find a book that I think will work for a replacement. I also replaced the Britannica site fairly easily. I was not aware that those two references were looked down upon at FAC. Thank you and please let me know if my work does or does not meet the standards. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - I feel happier about the prose now. beginning a read though now. The prose is a little repetitive with some redundancies which should be easy to iron out. Please revert any changes I make which inadvertently change or lose meaning. I will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..Norway, defeated Cortina by twice the number of votes - does this mean Norway had double or triple Cortina's votes? i.e. " by twice..."
It should mean that Norway had double the votes that Cortina had but it really is unnecessary information (how many votes Norway beat Cortina by), I will remove this. H1nkles citius altius fortius 22:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if it were me I might add an adverb like "soundly defeated" or something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty I'll work on a good adverb, nice thinking. H1nkles citius altius fortius 02:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! H1nkles citius altius fortius 03:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - This was an interesting article. The TV and Soviet Winter Olympics debut info was new to me. I went through and did a little copyediting, but didn't make it all the way through. Please revert if I messed up the meaning anywhere. I skimmed the rest and have a few comments:
  • In the venues section, "The ability...was unprecedented" reads a little funny.
  • "A special cooling plant was built under the stadium, which froze the rink" — Maybe this is OK. Maybe should be "froze the ice"?
  • Refs 3, 4 and 37 are missing a space before the page #. Nitpicky, I know.
  • It's a bit tricky to summarize main articles into single paragraphs, but when this is done, the text sometimes seems a little choppy. One example was the opening ceremonies and I tried to smooth it a bit. Another is the ski jumping section.
  • In the closing ceremonies section, it isn't completely clear here if Greece and the US were also participants. And I was surprised to read "respective poles". I cannot think of a great way to write this, but could it be something to the effect of after all the flags of participating nations were displayed, the Greece and US flags were hoisted as the originating nation and the next winter olympics host? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, I'll work on your suggestions. H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've made the suggested corrections, I tried to find some better wording for the sections you mentioned please see if it is improved. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All these issues were addressed. Good work! Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two MOS issues that should be fixed. First, the template used in See also breaches WP:LAYOUT-- it repeats the article in See also (!!!) and contains links that should be worked into the article. Second, I suspect a review of WP:ACCESS is needed for the chart in Calendar-- I don't think it would be understandable to color blind people, and tables should not rely on color. Or something like that. Please work on these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference bwp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ McGlashan, p. 16.
  3. ^ Stewart, p. 271.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/April_2010&oldid=897284319"