Nominator(s): ceranthor 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that the prose is now much better. During the last FAC, it had five supports, which spiraled into 4 supports/3 opposes. The content was still good, it was the prose that we had to take care of, which I can thank Malleus, Tony1, and of course, Steve for. Plus, this will be only the second earthquake FA, if promoted. ceranthor 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present, but needs some work. The infobox image lacks alt text. Some claims in the existing alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded or moved elsewhere or removed as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "responsible for the earthquake", ", which is responsible for many earthquakes", and "630 feet (190 meters) tall, the highest monument in the United States".Eubulides (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed those parts, how does the text look now? The infobox image had alt text, FYI. ceranthor 11:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You used wrong parameter: "image alt" instead of "map alt". Ruslik_Zero 12:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you Rus. ceranthor 13:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The revised alt text all looks good, except for the new alt text "Map of the United States and part of Canada", which doesn't convey the gist of the map's info to the reader. It should give the reader a brief impression of what that map says about the intensity, e.g., intensity IV all the way to Lincoln, Nebraska, and intensity V throughout the southern half of Illinois and adjacent areas in Kentucky and Missouri.Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, do I need to list all those states with I–II intensity? ceranthor 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all: a brief description is fine. The point is to communicate the gist of the image, not every little detail. Eubulides (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I might've screwed it up. Would you mind fixing up the alt text on that one, to save both of us time? :) ceranthor 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you had was pretty good, but I tried to improve it by mentioning the high-level intensities first, and focusing more on the high levels than the low. In hindsight I shouldn't have suggested Lincoln, Nebraska. My version may be a tad long though, and please feel free to revert. Eubulides (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can not support because I contributed too much into this article, but I think it is close to FA standards. Ruslik_Zero 12:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the images were reviewed at the last FAC by Jappalang. ceranthor 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great article I liked it. But then again there is scarcely a disaster related article I don't. One question however...
"One man thought his son was "jumping up and down." - This was a full sentence in the article and first time I read it I immediately had a big "What?" come into my head. Mind clarifying what this adds to the article or at least eluding to what he thought his son was jumping on? Thanks. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I believe. Thanks for your support. ceranthor 21:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for short articles! ceranthor 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are just suggestions. If you prefer the current wording, you don't have to change it as far as me supporting or not.
"was the largest earthquake recorded" -> "was the largest earthquake ever recorded" or "was the largest recorded earthquake"
"Prairie State" maybe link it?
"caused considerable damage, cracking buildings' structures and toppling chimneys." seems a bit awkward.
"A future earthquake in the region is extremely likely" -> "Another earthquake in the region is extremely likely"
"suggest that earthquakes in the area are of moderate magnitude and can be felt over a large geographical area." -> "suggest that earthquakes in the area are of moderate magnitude but can be felt over a large geographical area."
"such as the 1972, 1974, and 1984 events" -> "in 1972, 1974, and 1984"
Support, at least on the writing, which is pretty good. Congrats. Captures the drama without losing WP's authority, I think.
Could the infobox map be a little larger? The text, including that in the key, is impossible to read. There's a map further down that looks (on my monitor) like a pic of a nasty skin disease: can that be larger? Please note that MoS expects detail and composition to play a role in image size.
Fixed the second image, I have no idea how to make the infobox map bigger, though. ceranthor 09:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you, Tony. ceranthor 11:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly increased the width of the infobox, if that is what you meant. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Several locals thought their furnaces had exploded, and one woman thought a bomb had exploded."—This has a trivial ring to it in the lead. Can it remain just in the main text below? (I removed it; in any case, a semicolon would have been better before the sentence.)
Roll's second mention ... Is it Professor Roll, Dr Roll? That or state his first name too? Just a little more to remind us of his mention way up in the previous section. "Also" can be removed. Tony(talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, the source says he is a reverend, but I don't think that's necessary to mention. ceranthor 09:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing weak oppose At WP:GAC and the prior WP:FAC I have asked if it is possible to name municipalities or at least counties for the epicenter. I have not had any satisfactory response yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is wrong with the : in the time of my signature above. It is causing a line break.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, this is not an actionable oppose. No information was given at all about where it was in Illinois, otherwise I would have put it into the article. ceranthor 09:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was in Hamilton County. I added information. Ruslik_Zero 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I stand corrected. I must have missed it somehow. ceranthor 10:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony—the other one—suggested that there was enough distance between that and the first mention of Roll to make it necessary. YMMV. SteveT • C 06:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I supported in the previous FACs and feel the improvements made since then have only added to the quality of an article that was already sufficient. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. ceranthor 11:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still finding ce issues and sentences that need smoothing out, unsure about this sentence:
Since 1968, other earthquakes have occurred in the same region in 1972, 1974, and 1984 events, and, most recently, 2008.
What is a nodal plane? It's redlinked, but not defined for the reader.
(suggests ... and to ?) This faulting suggests dip slip reverse motion, and to a horizontal east–west axis of confining stress.
(At what time?) At that time, no faults were known in the immediate epicentral region ...
I stopped there ... let's get a bit more work on the prose.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I fixed your examples. Nev1 is probably going to visit and provide some comments, hopefully some prose ones, too. ceranthor 01:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The footnote (not references) system is broken. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted this before, I think, but I have no idea what happened with the alignment. ceranthor 01:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed footnotes. Ruslik_Zero 07:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are awesome. ceranthor 11:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the svg map in the infobox, it's much better than the map used when I last saw the article back in May. It's a shame it's not bigger, but there's nothing that can be done about that while using the infobox.
I've changed "...with a Richter scale magnitude of 5.4" to "...measuring 5.4 on the Richter scale" as it's a phrase I've heard more often with earthquakes (Google sort of backs me up [2][3]).
The list of recorded earthquakes in the region (ie: 1838, 1857, 1876,[a] 1881, 1882, 1883, 1887, 1891, 1903, 1905, 1912, 1917, 1922,[b] 1934, 1939, 1947, 1953, 1955, and 1958) might be better summarised as "Before 1968, there were 22(?) earthquakes recorded in the region" with a footnote containing the details of the individual years. That way, the reader isn't bombarded with a string of numbers, but those interested in the subject can still find the information in the article. The list of quakes after 1968 isn't so long so I think listing the years is fine.
I think I'll opt to keep it, if you don't mind.
Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could the first first two paragraphs of the geography section be merged? They seem to be linked. If they were merged, "The magnitude of the quake reached 5.4 on Richter scale" could be moved to after "During the quake, surface wave and body wave magnitudes were measured at 5.2 and 5.54 respectively".
Done.
It's just a question of style and certainly isn't important, but the sources sub-section of the references section might be better titled bibliography as all of the links in the references section are sources really.
Done.
The first sentence of the third paragraph is a bit jargon-y. If it could be made a bit simpler that would be great, but if not I don't think it matters too much (I see attempts have already been made, ie: "one is always a fault plane, the other an auxiliary plane"). I would expect that most of the people who read this article will be familiar with and understand such terms, in which case I don't view it as a problem and there's only so much it can be dumbed-down without clogging up the article.
What would you suggest? I'm stuck on making it simpler.
I'm afraid I can't suggest a rewording because I don't fully understand what's being said. As I said though, there's only so much that can be done without labouring the point and becoming tangential, so I'm fine with it as it is. It will be understandable to most people who look for this article. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be correct to say "director of seismology at Loyola University" rather than "Loyola University's director of seismological studies"? It's simpler, but if my suggestion is incorrect, obviously it shouldn't be used. Also, should Loyola University link to Loyola University Chicago?
I would assume so. ceranthor 22:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some copy edits, but I strongly recommend that Ceranthor checks them over to make sure I haven't changed any meanings. Especially this edit as American geography isn't my strong point and my rearrangement may have introduced errors. I don't see my comments as a reason for this article not to be a Featured Article, but it would be nice if they could be addressed. I'm happy to lend my support to the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, and no, you didn't change the meaning for any of them. You made the wording better.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because...First, the article meets all content, citations, sourcing, image, and notability requirements. Second, according to all reviewers, it is well written, broadly constructed, accessible (although long), and well designed. Third, it is a top priority article for the WikiProject Germany. The citations and formatting are rationally constructed (see note on article talk page) and consistent within the article (at least they are at the time of this nomination). Its previous nomination was unsuccessful: due to its length, only 2 reviewers read it. Although it is not shorter, I have marshaled some reviewers from the project to offer feedback. Thanks for your attention and constructive criticism. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I supported it last time round after extensive proofreading and fact-checking; it has changed little since then, and I still support now. JN466 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some initial comments:
Some of the images are improperly placed, according to the MOS; images shouldn't be left-aligned directly under section headers (honestly, I don't know why this is, it seems silly to me. The MOS says it apparently can cause technical problems, but I've never seen any).
for most of those, it was a matter of trying to place the illustration "fairly" near the text. Even if I moved it to the middle of a section, the picture often "appeared" right under or beside the heading. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok with me, this isn't a big enough concern to oppose over. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Roads and railroads" section, there's the line "at fashionable watering places such as Baden-Baden" - is that in reference to the famous spas there? The average reader will probably not make that connection, so it would be better to state it explicitly. (And maybe link to Kurhaus (Baden-Baden), for an example).
I've clarified this, and added the link as you suggested. thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with some of the prose; some it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. For example: A common language may serve as the basis of a nation, but it takes more than language to unify several hundred polities. in the "Rise of German nationalism..." section and Despite the nomenclature of "Diet" and "Assembly", this institution should in no way be construed as a broadly, or popularly, elected group of representatives. in the "Problems of reorganization" section. Perhaps something along the lines of Cultural bonds like a common language serve as the basis of a nation, but the unification of several hundred political entities requires deft political and military maneuvering as well. (though I'm not entirely pleased with the second half of that sentence either) for the former, and Despite the nomenclature of "Diet" and "Assembly", this institution was not a group of broadly or popularly elected representatives and explain how the members of the body were selected (this is more along the lines of Show, don't tell).
Re: language of essay versus encyclopedia: first, those statements are cited to the sources, second, I have no problem changing the text to something like you suggest, but, as we know, the art of writing is never perfect. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re show don't tell: I thought that was degenerating into too much detail for the broad article on unification, and referred people to the full articles on these specific subjects.
Not sure if this applies, but at a recent FAC for an article I wrote (FAC here, see the bottom), Sandy commented that {{main}} was inappropriate for the article. I don't know if it's fine here (might want to ask Sandy specifically, since she's more familiar with it than I), but if it's not, you might want to consider using {{detail}} instead.
I have no trouble with "detail" instead of "main" ...previous reviewers made me change it to "main." !! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The line nationalist orators from across the conservative to radical spectrum of politics in the "Hambach Festival" section seems redundant; maybe just from across the political spectrum?
Again, previous reviewers wanted me to clarify what this mjeant.
Seems fine to me then. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the section about the 1848 revolutions, Frederick Wilhelm IV is quoted as describing the crown offered by the Frankfurt Parliament as being one made of "clay". This needs a source (even if it's sourced to the citation, you can double it with <ref name=></ref>. I can do it for you if you're unfamiliar with how it works).
I have no idea what you just wrote. :) As far as I can see, it has a source in the footnote. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of combining duplicate references, there are a few references, two to Sheehan, pp. 466–67 and two to Sheehan, pp. 610–613 that need to be merged with the above ref code. There may be more that I've missed.
I am opposed to using reference codes to give a b c d etc, because I think they are too confusing to read, especially with an article having over 100 references.
Also on the subject of footnotes, I generally prefer to separate citations from notes (like here). You can use <ref group=></ref> coupled with {{reflist|group=}} to do it. I usually use something like "Note" as the group name, which provides a link like Note 1 in the text.
Again, as I wrote to you earlier, and as I said in my note in the talk page, this is a personal preference thing for editors, and I prefer not to use notes as well as citations/footnotes in such a long article. Too much to-ing and fro-ing. Furthermore, I can expect that someone will add to this article years from now, and won't know the reference codes. Call me old fashioned, but I find it easier to read this way, and easier to write/add to this way. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, this is a preference choice; the guide suggests that one style be followed throughout, and I have done this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now, I'll review the rest of the article when I have more time. This might seem a little imposing, but all of the above things are pretty minor details, so I'm not a long way off from supporting. The article looks pretty good to me so far. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been addressed so far. Very quick work! Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. quick, yes, because this is more fun than the dissertation. But now, back to that grindstone! :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a couple minor things from me :)
I don't know if I missed this earlier, or if the citation got moved around since then, but the last sentence in the "First efforts at unification" section (the line In 1848, nationalists sought to remedy that problem.) doesn't have a citation. Is that supposed to be included in the footnote in the preceding sentence?
The paragraph about the Hohenzollern Candidature is unreferenced.
The line He to Berlin approached the Prussian king... seems to be one of those situations where you write something, revise it, revise it a third time, and by the fourth revision, forgot that the first few words don't match the rest (I know, 'cause I do it all the time) :)
The first paragraph in the "Beyond the political mechanism: forming a nation" section needs a citation.
that is all one paragraph. By moving theimage away from the heading, it splits it. I can repeat the citation, if that helps. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once these last few things are ironed out, I'll be happy to support. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - my minor concerns above have all been addressed (very promptly, I might add), and I see nothing that prevents the article from meeting the FA criteria. Excellent work, Auntieruth! Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MisterBee1966
The article seems very well written.
I will follow up more later. You already know that I weekly disapprove of the Notes section. I personally prefer separating citations and footnotes. Secondly I want to document that the title of the article would be better represented by "German Unity" or "Road to German Unity". Again you know this. Both are no show stoppers for my support. However an omission which I do consider vital is that no where do you mention Das Lied der Deutschen by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben. To this day it is a symbol of German unity and the German national anthem. It was abused and misinterpreted over time and I strongly feel that it should be built into this article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can agree to disagree on the notes thing. In terms of the title, I might have chosen a different one, but I'm "content" (if not thrilled) with this one. It is very "encyclopedic."
Das Lied der Deutschen -- good point, and it is added, plus another one on the Zollverein. I need a source on Das Lied, though. Do you have one? I could probably hunt down something at the library tomorrow, but if you've got it, we'll just add it (to Vormaerz). I could expand it slightly more, if necessary, but right now I have to walk the dogs. real life calls! Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In English, one almost always refers to "Unification of Germany" or "German Unification". "German Unity" would not refer to the process of becoming unified, it would refer to the impulse to do so, or continuing to remain so. "Unification" is certainly the correct word. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's at least very close. I'll make my specific comments on the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
link "Heinrich von Gagern", "Lake Constance", "Palatinate"
done
pfennig shouldn't this be capitalized?
it was not, but I can do that
put Kleindeutschland and Grossdeutschland in italics
done
Reichstag, provide English translation and link only once
ok.
Studies of the Jewish Question, why is this in italics?
It is the name of a book.
August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben his name appears first in section "Roads and railroads". Link in first occurance
....it is....
Heerenstrassen provide a translation
it's in the sentence.
Upps then it is misspelled! There is no German word Heerenstrasse it should be Heerstraße or if plural then Heerstraßen. I casually read this and thought you meant Herrenstrasse. Please correct the spelling.
done
References: Do you happen to have ISBN numbers of the bibliographies referenced in the article?
if I had them, I listed them
Try searching here WorldCat. Dummheit schützt vor Strafe nicht as one would say in German :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in process/done
Question: Does the textual information below pictures require citations?
If I thought it did, I added a citation.
I frequently got the feedback that anything that has a date or fact needs a citation. Surely something like "This depiction of Germania, also by Philipp Viet, was created to hide the organ of the Paul's Church in Frankfurt, during the meeting of the Parliament there, March 1848–49. In this image, Germania is standing, holding her sword upright. The sword was intended to symbolize the Word of God and to mark the renewal of the people and their triumphant spirit." requires a citation, at least for the last sentence.
okay, done.
Kulturkampf: italics
done
Sorry but I still find another one in section "Writing the story of the nation"
got it now. thanks.
Maybe have a look at the template {{cite book}}. It allows you to set a language tag on the references. It also assures that all the information is in the same order.
isbns added to bib
I'll check out that template for the next article.
language tags are missing. I believe that you have to add (in LANGAUGE) for instance (in German) to the reference if it's not in English.
Support All of my issues have been resolved. I may comment on your talk page. Well done and good luck with your nomination. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not the most thorough reviewer when it comes to the latest community decision on image placement and Manual of Style tweaks. However, I believe it meets all of the FA criteria, and I can confidently say I believe it to be one of Wikipedia's finest articles, written by someone intimately familiar with the topic and worthy of a gold star. Recognizance (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks like all of the several dozen small issues I raised have been addressed. Very diligent work, Auntieruth55. I suspect this may still need a "fine tooth comb" pass from someone who is more familiar than I with all current Wikipedia style guidelines, and someone may want to take a closer look at the footnotes, but it certainly satisfies me. - Jmabel | Talk 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article reads exceptionally well, the style is high quality and I found nothing of substance to criticise. I have a number of very minor suggested amendments and queries which I will follow up on the talk page, but nothing significant. Comments responded to sensibly - very happy. Well done to Auntie Ruth! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I reviewed this article for GA status, and while I was impressed at the time with its thoroughness, I am more impressed now with how much it has improved. The lead, in particular, provides a more detailed and clear, but still concise, introduction, and the article is visually easier on the eyes thanks to the many pictures on which much work has been done. This is a fine and careful article that meets the FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-researched, well-written and comprehensive. --Boson (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that. When I nominated, there were no dabs. then one magically appears. Oi. It's fixed. The link should be Bad Ems. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just driving by, I see Hohenlohe links to an article about a family, when a principality is meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually, I did mean the family, basically, since I could find no article on the principality itself. The closest we have is a stub on Hohenlohe-Langenburg, which is unsatisfactory in dealing with the complexities of the family's many properties. The present day Hohenlohe (district) has little geographic relationship to the princely family's territories, although some, perhaps much, of it was ruled by the family in the past; this family is particularly illustrative of the problems of understanding the transition from the old dynastic state to the "modern" territorial state. I've clarified the sentence, I hope, but the link remains the same. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - I noticed that there was an image review last time, so I went back to the version of the article that the reviewers were working off then. They had signed off on all the images then, so I have looked through only the new images. Those look good, and a quick look (not as detailed as I usually would) indicates that the older images are fine. So: image review shows no problems. NW(Talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This looks very good. The tone is just right and the author(s) are clearly experts in the field and write well. However, I do find quite a few issues in the writing from looking at the top, which suggest that an independent run-through of the prose throughout (not a long job at all) is in order:
"some glaring"—can the "some" be dropped? If possible, please do. I think the "also" can go, later in that sentence.
changed "some" to "several"
"Emerging modes of transportation made it easier not only to conduct business, but also facilitatedto facilitate recreational travel, leading to contact, comparison, and sometimes conflict between and among German-speakers from throughout Central Europe." The grammar. What kind of "comparison" was facilitated?
I've taken it out. Comparisons with each other. how much like me are you types of comparisons.
"However, the negotiators at Vienna did not take into account the Prussia's growing strength"—you might be happier with "However, the negotiators at Vienna took no account of the Prussia's growing strength".
fixed.
"Small Germany" might be in quotes first time it appears in the main text; it's "little Germany" in the caption: is that intentional?
I used them interchangeably.
The reader won't mind larger-than-average sentence lengths, but this one is stretching it: "They conclude that factors in addition to the strength of Bismarck's Realpolitik led a collection of early modern polities that included dynastic states, imperial cities, and ecclesiastical cities, and which ranged in size from such expansive polities as the Kingdom of Prussia to such compact entities as the comity of Schönburg-Glachau, to reorganize political, economic, military and diplomatic relationships in the nineteenth century." Possibly "... cities; these entities ranged in size ...", or a full-stop new sentence.
ya think? Fixed. :)
We sure do need that link for "irredentism", and it's a pity it can't be neatly glossed in parentheses as well (readers shouldn't have to divert to the link-target to learn the definition of a word—hands up who thought it was to do with tooth enamel); I'm unsure that "nationalism" needs a link.
previous reviewer thought it did. I'm happy to take it out, but will he go off the end if I do??? You don't like irridentism? It's exactly the right word.
Last sentence in lead: "The political and administrative unification in 1871 solved, at least temporarily, the problem of dualism by creating a Germany without Austria." You might consider this new grammatical theme: "By creating a Germany without Austria, the political and administrative unification in 1871 at least temporarily solved the problem of dualism." The last nested phrase could remain unchanged, but I though it was uncomfortable after a hanging "solved".
fixed
"small but complex territories"—complex in what respect? The "but" indicates that such complexity is not normally associated with small size. Then there's a parallel comparison with "well-defined" (which could be hyphenated).
fixed. "They ranged in size from the small, complex territorial arrangements of the princely Hohenlohe family branches to the sizable, well-defined territories as the Kingdom of Bavaria and the Kingdom of Prussia."
Does MoSNUM say to use numerals with centuries? "14th century".
either, I thought. I went through and made sure they were all written.
"With few exceptions, the Empire's Prince-electors had since the fourteenth century chosen successive heads"—I'd switch the locations of "with few exceptions" and "since the 14th century". Maybe.
German speaking states: no hyphen suddenly?
fixed
Some of those beautiful images are very very complex: can we please have their size enlarged? 300px would be good for a few ("Wartburg", the Confederation map, Germania, Völkers ...). The satirical commentary image is tiny: much bigger, please. You might need to tweak the location of one or two, to stop the squeezing of the text. The captions tend to be gigantic:enlarging the image size, trimming the text and relocating some of it into the main text are three ways of addresssing that.
re the size, and squeezing. They have all been moved to keep in line with MOS about image placement, and not being below or above a heading. I'd like to keep them relatively near the text they relate to. (Along the lines of show, don't tell....)
We'll see what they look like enlarged (they've been made smaller during one review or another), but some of the captions disappear when I enlarge the image. I'd like the captions to be explanatory, because if someone cannot/will not read the text (lengthy), they can get the gist of the article from the pictures. How do I enlarge the images to 300px without losing the captions?
I've asked Eubilides for help. But if you know....Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, are your issues addressed? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a caption you need to specify the "thumb" keyword. Perhaps you removed the "thumb" when you put in the size? Anyway, I put in that keyword to restore the captions. While I was in the neighborhood I changed the images to use "upright" rather than absolute pixel numbers like "225px", which have the unfortunate effect of shrinking the images for editors who've set their preferences to 300px for image widths. Eubulides (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Oh, and take a look at the German.WP attempt! Incidentally, it shows this en.WP article as being featured already .... ? [5]. I've left a note here.
I don't know why that is. I don't fully understand their system. It seems to apply haphazardly. very unlike the Germans I know. ;) And the article on unification is extremely "slender" (I like your word choice)... Perhaps it is less important to Germans than we think it is. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Tony(talk) 00:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment. Done; thanks.Some of the image captions need trimming. The excess verbiage can be moved into the main article text. It's visually odd to have an image box that devotes more screen space to the caption than to the image itself. Some of the images are over this line (at least in my browser) and too many of them are close to the line. (Please don't "fix" this by simply making the images larger or using a smaller font for the caption. :-)Eubulides (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and Done (captions shortened. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do you support this? or ....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The (few) parts of the article that I've read seem quite good and are of featured-article quality. However, I haven't had time to read the whole thing carefully, which I feel that I must do before supporting the article. I just now briefly looked at it and see that somebody went through and made the images pretty large; I shrank the images that were waaaaay too large and suggest that some of the others be trimmed down a bit in size. This is an encyclopedia article, not a coffee table art book. Eubulides (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want them smaller, Tony wants them larger. Perhaps I should lock you two in a room and you can come to some agreement? ;) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Tony and I agree. The specific images that he said should be bigger, I think should be bigger too. But the other images don't all need to be that big. An image needs to be large only if it contains important detail that would be lost at the default size. Eubulides (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okay, I think I've got it right, as you and Tony wish it now. I reduce a few, and moved the coat of arms to just below Germania, fixed the caption, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A review of WP:ITALICS is needed throughout. done unless the word is in another language, it's not italicized unless it is a title. Bourgeois is not
There's something wrong with the punctuation in this caption, (see WP:MOS#Captions):
The Thinker's club. the sign on the wall lists the rules, the first of which is, No Thinking fixed
There are punctuation problems in a few other captions. fixed
There are image placement issues (I fixed one as a sample). See WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images, images within sections not above them, but no left-aligned images under third-level headings.
I finally get it. I thought it couldn't be under the header but it could be in the section. Duh. fixed. Now, however, the images don't go left-right-left-right....that's okay?
Yes, sometimes left-right has to be sacrificed for WP:ACCESS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the language icons are after sources, some are before: should be consistent. (I prefer before, so a reader won't click on a link only to discover they can't read it.) done.
Be consistent on page ranges in citations and use of p. vs. pp. (most use pp. but some use p. for ranges, some have spaces, some don't, and the page range should either include two digits or not): replaced pp. with p throughoutAuntieruth55 (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^ Sheehan, p. 467–8. went through them all. they should be good now
^ Sheehan, p. 466–467.
Incomplete citations:
41. ^ Veit's Pauls Church Germania fixed. not sure where it went to....Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been updated to address the actionable issues that were raised since the previous FAC. The editors who expressed concerns were all notified, but had little or no additional comment. The article has also undergone an additional PR, and the content has been refined. The links were swept for dabs about a month ago and redirects were fixed. Alt tags have been added to all images. Hence I believe the article meets the FA criteria.—RJH (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I read the featured article criteria and believe that electron meets it. For example, it is neutral, doesn't ignore any major facts, and is written very well. Dogposter 23:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Materialscientist. Support - it is extremely difficult to pull such a general article through FA because everyone has his/her opinion on the matter, but abstracting from that, the quality of the article is at FA level.
I would translate "Recherches sur la théorie des quanta" in the article or better delete it.
"Lightning is an example of the phenomena produced by triboelectricity" - sounds as if triboelectricity is the major attribute of lightning. Please enlighten why this is true (reading Lightning, for example, gives somewhat different picture) or rephrase.
The rubbing of ice ice crystals against each other (one of the hypothesis explaining charge separation) is an example of triboelectricity. Ruslik_Zero 12:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but as you say, it is one hypothesis, whereas that image caption reads as if it a clear cause. I don't see why mentioning triboelectricity is necessary there. You can just say that lightning involves electrons (in some way you choose). Materialscientist (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the caption to clarify the role of electrons. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The captions still says that lightning is caused by triboelectricity. Do we need a potential editing war there? Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The caption is properly cited, so I thought that was suitable. If it is controversial, then we can always substitute the wording "may be caused by". The image is at that location because the neighboring text discusses triboelectricity. If you plan on starting an edit war, then appropriate wikipedia policy applies. ;-) Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "maybe" or references (but not edit warring) I could do myself ;-) No. I am pushing to delete triboelectricity there because (i) WP:NPOV (ii) The discussion on cause of lightning is such that the provided there (feeble) refs would not defend the claim (iii) it is unnecessary - there are so many more familiar and reliable examples of triboelectricity around, why do you need lightning for that - it is clear enough that it involves electrons.Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I just liked the dramatic imagery, so I thought would add some interest to what may otherwise be rather dry text. The placement next to the corresponding text seemed appropriate, per wikipedia guidelines.—RJH (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up upon your stubbornness, just because it is indeed a minor issue. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well I'm sorry we couldn't resolve this in a more amicable manner. Perhaps the role (and controversy) of triboelectricity could be explained on the lightning article itself, then we can revisit this later?—RJH (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Electronic conductivity of solids" could mention that electrons in solids are quasiparticles and have different properties from vacuum electrons.
"On the other hand, metals have an electronic band structure that allows for delocalized electrons." - sounds too abrupt, as if metals are opposed to semiconductors in terms of delocalizaton. In general, this is incorrect, as delocalization depends on the structure (say, energy width) of the conduction band, not on the number of electrons there (i.e. metal/semiconductor), but I guess proper phrasing can save this.
Ah, also click the "disambig links" in the box on the right of this page and fix those.Materialscientist (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, on a whim. I noticed the FAC after the fact, through the title Gadget. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Addendum: I mean the dab links, not anything else… 16:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just thinking loud: it is a long article, but, you already started "Interaction" section with magnetic field in it. Perhaps it is worth mentioning Zeeman effect there, just giving a link to the relevant article?Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was left it out in order to keep the topic primarily focused on the electron. I added it to the "See also" section as a link. The Zeeman effect is also discussed on the atom article.—RJH (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let us talk about your reverting my microscopy edits (no, I'm fine with that. Although I will use strong language below, I hope I am wrong and can learn from you)
"The scanning tunneling microscope .. can produce a three dimensional image of the object." - While operating STM (and STEM, TEM, etc) myself, I don't know how to get 3D images out of it. It only gives me a 2D (warped though) surface profile. Materialscientist (talk)
Sorry, my fault. I got the SEM and STM mixed up.—RJH (talk)
"The scanning transmission electron microscope combines features of both instrument types and is primarily used to analyze materials." - isn't "used to analyze materials" a weasel here? Never mind. More serious is that although it is tempting to think that STM + TEM ≈ STEM, STM operates on entirely different physics and does not belong to the class of electron microscopes. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That SEM and STEM resembles a TV set is a crude description, but the closest I have on how to explain SEM and STEM in a few words to a non-specialist. You have a better idea? Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"with a beam of electrons passing through a thin slice of material." - is another weasel, even for a specialist. At least a dozen of grades of "thin" are distinguished in microscopy. Even for a single type (say TEM) it may range from, say 50 to 500 nm depending on voltage. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some edits to try and resolve these issues.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I made some edits to try and resolve your edits :-)) Feel free to correct, but I'll explain why: the practice is such that most optical microscopes are used in reflection mode, whereas there are only few reflection TEMs in the world; TV camera has relation only to an SEM detector, not to the microscope itself. Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
".. while telescopes can detect electron plasma by its energy emission" Sorry for salting a wound (the lead), but there, this phrase does sound like electron plasma is exclusively detected by telescopes - No! Only some, dedicated telescopes can detect electron plasma which exists in the outer space. Electron plasma is routinely created on Earth and is analyzed by much simpler instruments.Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We must read the english language differently because my mind is not substituting words like "only", "some" or "exclusively" in that sentence. The statement as it stands is literally correct, but I have no problem with a refinement.—RJH (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argh .. Sure it is correct, but to me its like writing "crows can say 'Hallo'" in the lead of a crow article. I tweaked that sentence. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... question then. Is electron plasma only detected by dedicated instruments, or can the resulting emissions be picked up by general purpose radio telescopes that are looking in the appropriate band? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not reverting me on this. Get rest and reread the message above "dedicated instruments, or .. general purpose radio telescopes that are looking in the appropriate band" - what could be more dedicated than the latter? Just to convey my experience (in building my telescopes, talking to people around, etc). To 99.99% of people, telescope is a device for visual observation. Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment try to make the notes more uniform. Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples below.
We find this at ref 9
Anastopoulos, 2008, pp. 236–237
and have to go looking fr Anastopoulus, find him later. Yet, some other repeat refs link back to the full citation. Be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a comprehensive, well-written and engaging article on a particle that will define our epoch. The sources are predominantly respected peer-reviewed journals and I see no problems with the licensing of the (excellent) images. This is one of the best candidates I have reviewed this year. Graham ColmTalk 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very thorough and knowledgeable. Maxis ftw (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per last time, it is simply excellent. ceranthor 14:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a somewhat long article and has a somewhat long lead (more than a screenful on my laptop); I'll have to take a careful read at it before supporting or opposing. I suppose that it might be trimmed by moving stuff to sub-articles, and the lead should be trimmed by moving stuff to sections. (Do you think you really need to mention Hawking radiation in the lead? BTW, much of the stuff in it would apply to any particle, and most of it to any charged particle.) But this is a very broad topic so I suspect that even a 20% reduction might be impossible. --A. di M. 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I don't think this satisfies criterion 4. At 56.2 KB of proses, it is more than twice as big as the median featured article; only 73 out of 2519 FAs would be longer. For most readers, reading it will take far longer than their attention span. The "History" section is really long; I don't think most readers will be interested in that level of detail before even reading anything about present or non-temporal properties of the electron (besides the lead). I'd move it to a sub-article, and replace it with a summary of no more than a dozen paragraphs (plus one for the etymology). The first two paragraph of "Quantum properties" and most of "Motion and energy" would apply to pretty much any particle (at least, any charged fermion), but I don't think such detailed explanations are necessary here, any more than, say, in the Quark, Proton, Muon, etc. articles. One-paragraph mentions of such things with links to the articles where they are explained in more detail, such as Mass in special relativity etc., would be sufficient and less distracting. Likewise, one might move the "Plasma applications" section to a sub-article and replace it with a four-paragraph summary. OTOH, I don't see any problem with the quality of the material, only with the quantity. I've found no serious issue, and fixed all the trivial issues I could find (except for a few Easter egg links in the lead, as making them explicit without changing anything else would make the lead even more bulky than it already is). So I abstain from !voting. --A. di M. 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a big topic and thus I believe it justifies a longer article than normal. But if you eliminate the material from the "See also" onward, it is 8757 words, which is under the limit of 10,000. Yes there is some information that is redundant with other particles, but I believe this content is appropriate to provide necessary background and satisfy comprehensiveness. (It also makes it less necessary to keep hoping between articles just to find out about the electron.) The history section is already a summary of a much longer article, and I think it provides important background and context. I'm unclear about the easter egg stuff. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "Easter egg links" I mean links whose destination is not obvious until one hovers on it, such as no known substructure, bound, welding, lasers, etc. For example, in the last case, if one didn't hover on the link, they would think that the link takes to the general article on lasers and the reference to a particular type of lasers would be missed. Usually, it is better to write "is an elementary particle, meaning that it has no known substructure", "free electron lasers", etc., but this lead is already very long as it is, so I hesitate fixing them. As for the size issue, some info isn't "just about the electron". For articles on very general topics such as this one, it is better to assume that most readers will be laymen; as a consequence, not only they won't be interested in very advanced details, they would also get bored by them, skipping whole paragraphs in reading, and potentially missing more basic information. Stuff such as the fact that by swapping two fermions their wavefunction changes sign isn't really specific to electrons and won't interest about 85% of readers, so it's not a major issue if the remaining 15% will have to look it up in the Fermion article. (Also, WP:SIZE suggests that articles on technical topics should generally be shorter than those on more general topics.) I understand that we neither can nor should shrink the article to 25 KB of prose, but I think it is somewhat longish as it is now. (BTW, I would slightly shorten and restructure the lead on the model of that of Quark: one paragraph defining the electron in relation to stuff most laymen have heard about, such as atoms and chemical bounds; one on the placement of the electron in the context of the Standard Model; one on other properties of the electron, and one on history. I'll give it a try in a sandbox and publish a link here and on Talk:Electron when I'm done.) --A. di M. 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues here is that the article has grown in an effort to accommodate other reviews. Hence the lead is longer than it was in the previous review primarily because others complained about it not covering all of the sections. Likewise the previous review said the applications section wasn't sufficiently developed. Unfortunately I can't please everybody, and I have to say that I am fairly happy with the current level of development. In short, my preference is to stick with the current layout and length.—RJH (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I'm a big fan of summary style, but if everyone else disagrees... But the info in the lead could be re-arranged to have a more logical structure: see User:A. di M./Electron for an example. As it is now, it jumps between a topic and another without apparent reason ("fermion" introduced in third sentence, but its significance unexplained until end of second paragraph). In my example, the first paragraph is about the relevance of electrons to "everyday world", the second about classification, the third about interaction and creation/destruction, and the fourth about history. I had removed details which IMO are insignificant, such as what nuclei are composed of and how charged particles move in magnetic fields, but if you feel they're necessary, add them back. (Feel free to edit my sandbox, too.) --A. di M. 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been re-arranged many, many times, each according to the opinion of the editor or the reviewer. Again it's an area where I can't please everybody, and trying to do so has proven exasperating. I do think it is important to get through the key properties of the electron first before delving into interactions and other applications.—RJH (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is good, but to most readers the fact that the electron is a fermion or that it can annihilate with positrons are not key properties. (The former unless you mention the exclusion principle right there, and the latter unless they are reading Angels and Demons.) That electrons together with nuclei make up atoms and that, although contributing to very little of the mass, they are fundamental in many phenomena such as electric conduction is. You need to tell Aunt Tillie that the electrons are those small things surrounding nuclei in atoms as soon as possible. After the first paragraph, you can proceed to use a more logical structure. Now there is the second paragraph which discusses of two completely unrelated topics, and so does the fourth. (At the very least, you could add a para break after "... of British physicists" and after "... negative beta decay", and remove the ones after "... Pauli exclusion principle" and "... of chemical bonding". But that'd result in a ginormous third paragraph.) --A. di M. 09:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you write your version of the lead in a sandbox, so that we have something to compare? Ruslik_Zero 10:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a rough draft. (I've tweaked since yesterday to address the point of "properties before applications".) I'm not attached to a particular wording or choice of what to include, only showing an example of what my proposed structure would look like. --___A. di M. 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems fine to me after a quick glance. But other editors and reviewers have different priorities on the matter, and the current form seems to have attained some stability. I also think that a comparison with quark article may not be the best, in that quarks are different types of beasties that must be described in the context of the particles they inhabit, whereas electrons can stand by themselves. No matter. I'm sure it will be rearranged many more times in the future. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is quite good but has a few glitches that need fixing. Alt text is missing for Image:Orbital s1.png. The alt text beginning "A red sphere at lower left" is technically incorrect (the sphere is blue, not red) but also emphasizes unimportant color detail (red/blue) while not mentioning the more-important detail (+/−); please rephrease it to talk about the sign, not the color. Similarly, don't mention the irrelevant colors in "An orange photon strikes ...". The phrase "over Oradea, Romania" cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image and should be removed as per WP:ALT #What not to specify.Eubulides (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those should be fixed now. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Excellent article on a crucial subject. One thing that bothers me:
"In collisions electrons and positrons annihilate, producing a pair (or more) of gamma ray photons." Wording is a bit off to me, due to the verb annihilate. Consider "When collisions occur, electrons...". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Much better, but as a casual reader I'm left floundering in places; I've made some minor changes myself (revert if I'm not on the same wave length...) but there are some more issues to tackle:
Lead: "of gamma ray photons." Photons isn't linked here, and yet slightly further down it is, despite this being the first occurence. Is this due to the fact that gamma ray is also linked and this may cause confusion (i.e. "gamma ray photons" as a new thing). Is there no way this could be worded better (I'm no scientist, perhaps not) so as to link photon sooner rather than later?
This happened because the lead section keeps getting re-arranged. I moved the photon link up to the first occurrence.—RJH (talk)
The statement at the end of the first section on History: "At the end of the nineteenth century, the various scientific concepts [...]". After reading it I am left thinking "And? So what?": what was the unified theory? Are "the various scientific concepts" the ones already discussed or were there others? What was the result of this? If there was no result, is it worth mentioning this at all?
Yes, I was trying to keep it short, per summary style. I'll try to re-write it.—RJH (talk)
Discovery: "[...] study of electrical conductivity in rarified gases." As someone not in the know, a casual reader, what are rarified gases? I don't think I've missed an explanation of them.
I inserted an interwiki link to the wiktionary entry, and changed it to the more common spelling.—RJH (talk)
" ": "electrical potential". What is this? Certainly not the way I'm thinking of it, because it is being applied.
" ": "toward the positive plate". Assuming positively charged plate. If so, you haven't yet mentioned any charge, so for the first occurence I think it's essential.
Atomic theory: "the then-recently developed quantum mechanics". Reads a bit off to me. How about: "The (then-recently developed) field of quantum mechanics", or without the brackets/parentheses. Also quantum mechanics needs linking, doesn't it?
" ": "which had two possible values". If these two possible values were always the same (e.g. 6 or 8) I think we need be given them. Otherwise the distinction needs to be made, such as "which always had two distinct possible values".
Fixed. I think the values would be up and down, which follows after the development of spin.—RJH (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum mechanics: "and a trajectory that is subject to modification by external forces". This comprises part of quite a long and complex sentence, it would be nice to have an example at the end that may be understood and relevant (as in "by external forces (e.g. gravity)").
I inserted a comma to break up the text, then added an example at the end. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" ": "a refined version of the quantum electrodynamics theory was developed". When was this developed?
The linking appears inconsistent. At the end of History and beginning of Characteristics, the same phrase is repeated, "the Standard Model of particle physics". In the first instance only SM is linked, yet in the second both SM and pp are. This happens again in the next section. Other cases include "quantum mechanics" (brought up earlier); the "speed of light" was linked twice (despite the cases being comparitively near to each other) and yet in History, proton and neutron are not linked with distance between their previous occurence in the lead.
I cleaned up the Standard Model/particle physics links. The others seem fine to me.—RJH (talk)
Okay, I assume you're referring to the links and not my other points, I spent quite a bit of time on those. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just meant the links. :-) I hadn't had enough time to address the others yet. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
Okay, phew *wipes brow*. I wish I was in your shoes, I have too much time and too few suggestions for my FAC! Count yourself lucky I say. ;) MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilinking in the article is confusing me. I've just wikilinked "Synchrotron" and "Collimated beam", and yet a term more likely to be understood, "volt", is wikilinked just below. Am I the only one who wouldn't need to search for synchrotron?MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Synchrotron actually was already linked; I just missed the first occurrence. Yes I missed adding a link for collimated beam. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As long as mistakes have been solved by FA we can all make them I guess, I certainly do. But, just as Ealdgyth said to me, "you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of your observations.—RJH (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However petty they may be! No problem, it was a pleasure making them. Good luck with the rest of FAC. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding A. di M. I agree with A. di M. above. The article is too long, and some sections - like 'History' and 'Virtual particles' - seem to be given undue length. GeometryGirl (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately it is difficult to please everybody and this conflicts with previous reviews that wanted a longer article. I'll also have to disagree that the 'Virtual particle' section is given undue weight. That's an important and interesting section, at least to me. :-) —RJH (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support RJH here - the questioned sections have a length balanced with other sections. Regarding their topics, history is by all means important to non-specialists, and virtual particles to specialists, as they are at the heart of most theories. I myself do not understand length arguments (BTW, A. di M. seems to abandon them) - modern computers don't seem to bother with those. Neither do people - hardly anyone reads a WP article from top to bottom (unless (s)he is an FA/GA reviewer :). Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes that was kind of my thinking as well. Somebody who is already familiar with the history would likely skip it, whereas most readers would hopefully find it useful background for how scientists arrived at their current understanding of the electron. The virtual particle section seems important to me because it explains some of the more obscure, but still important, measurements of the electron. Since this is a "vital article", I think that section may also serve as a good lead in to redirect curious readers to the topic of virtual particles, where the subject can be more fully explored.—RJH (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—At present the article is being edit warred by an editor who is imposing a different citation standard based on a desire to impose uniform appearance. I am having difficultly dealing with this behavior so I'm officially abandoning this page to whatever fate it has in store. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overreacted here: changes made by Headbomb are minor and primarily stylistic. He did not remove any information or change the text. The majority of changes make sense to me. Please, reconsider your position. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Article completely fails to meet the the first principle of the manual of style. The citations are bloated with redundant urls when {{arxiv}} and {{bibcode}} templates should be used, author-linking logic is completely arbitary, and lots of other issues such as deadlinks and potentially questionable references in some places ... I hate people who oppose based on style and who don't do a thing about it, so I usually fix the problems as I see them to help them meet the standards, but this time I keep being reverted to inferior and inconsistant versions. Since this does not illustrate wikipedia's best work, I have no choice but to oppose. Which is a damn shame because the rest seems up to par (although I did not yet fully review the content), and RJH worked so hard on this.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Headbomb. I have checked links with this tool right after FA submission and now. No problems found. To RJHall. Try to get some rest and return to the review in a couple of days. It does look like you're near the edge. Sorry for this stupid advise, but this is what your message above says (abandoning FAC because of style comments), behind the lines. Best wishes. Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can not find this one. Probably, someone already removed it. Ruslik_Zero 11:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that there is no requirement to have author names either all be full first names or be initials, that isn't what "consistent" means for the MOS. And I found no dead links. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Feynman is usually "Richard" and Thomson is usually "J.J." there's little point in changing that. But I still go with either "Surname, Given_name" or "Given_name Surname" consistently in all refs, whichever way each given name is written (provided there are no Japanese, Icelanders, Hungarians or other people with funny naming conventions). In my experience the former is more common, but I think that's exclusively for alphabetization reasons, as co-authored papers are very often cited as "Doe, John and Jack Schmuck". (Didn't check the other details of this HB–RJH war and won't bother to, so I can't comment.) --___A. di M. 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've left detailed comments on the article talk page. I think that with some minor adjustments this article should pass FAC. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I will look into them. Ruslik_Zero 11:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I forgot to show my support for such an excellent article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it fulfils criteria. It is comprehensive and balanced — just about every source on the species has been read by the nominators and the prose subsequently thoroughly reviewed at GAN and also by two subsequent plant editors familiar with FA standards. It is adorned by some nice images too. So have at it. We feel it compares well with the other half-dozen banksia Featured Articles - co-nom by Hesperian (talk·contribs) and Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Will comment as I go through it tomorrow, but have run out of time tonight. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this took so long. There are some prose clunkers that could be fixed:
"it is usually a smaller, spreading shrub or small tree" repeated use of the word "small" could be reworked.
I tried " a shorter tree or spreading shrub" (not thrilled about adjective "shorter", but could be replaced again with "smaller" as I took out both "small"s. A shrub is by definition smaller than a tree. If "shorter tree" jars for anyone else let us know) Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A shrub is by definition smaller than a tree"—I don't think so. Trees have apical dominance, that's all. I've seen Persoonia trees growing alongside much larger Adenanthos bushes. Hesperian 05:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"very greatly different": either "very different" or "greatly different", but please not both. (done)
"presumed natural hybrids have been recorded." -> possibly "presumed natural hybrids of Firewood Banksia and Acorn Banksia have been recorded", or something along those lines?
"recent falls of the water table on the Swan Coastal Plain has seen" -> "recent falls... have seen".(done)
There is some inconsistency with the formatting of references; in the first paragraph of the Conservation section, some footnotes lead punctuation, while others follow.(d'oh! found and fixed two)
could you explain what "anthesis" and "senescing" are to uninformed readers? There are wikilinks, but no real explanation in the article itself.
ok, have a look at sentences 2 and 3 in para 2 of Description now, I think it works better. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"hence the species' standard author citation is Banksia prionotes Lindl" is this citing of the author's name like this necessary? Has this been done for other plant FAs? It seems over the top to the casual reader (or, at least, one casual reader).
I am inclined to disagree - this crops up alot in fungi where two different scientists have described and named an organism with the same name at different times (sometimes the same taxon and sometimes not). It is actually quite an important distinction to note, as I have worked more on various fungus and plant articles especially. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you update the links last retrieved in 2007, and see if more info has been added, or material has been changed? Not likely, but possible.
three 2007 links updated. One was expanded but nothing changed as such. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More later as I think of it. All in all, another really wonderful Banksia article. Thanks so much for your work. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Thanks so much for responding to my concerns, Cas. BTW, you removed the second instance of "senesce", but after it's been explained in the text, I feel you might as well keep it in. Same, too, with the word "small"; I only objected to the same word being repeated in the sentence, but now you've removed both instances; one could definitely go back in. Anyway, the article is looking very good. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is present (thanks), but has some problems:
Eight images lack alt text; see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at upper right of this review page. I suggest replacing <gallery> (which unfortunately does not support alt text) with {{Image gallery}} or with table syntax; see WP:PIC #Galleries.
Some phrases cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded, moved to caption, or removed. These include "hybrid", "on roadside", "of hookeriana", "of prionotes", "of B. prionotes" (twice), "European honey", "dwarf form in cultivation". Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 3.
When rewording the above, please avoid repeating the caption when possible. See example 4 of the same section.
On revisit I see that the above problems were all fixed, except for the gallery because "<gallery>" does not support alt text. I replaced that with {{Image gallery}}, so the alt text looks good now. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments The usual thorough coverage by experienced FA authors. I fixed two typos, please check. Now, on to the quibbles.
It can be much smaller maybe it grows less tall?
It is pollinated by and provides food for a wide array of vertebrate and invertebrate animals later it says only pollinated by birds, should this be It is pollinated by birds and provides food for a wide array of vertebrate and invertebrate animals? (good catch, fixed)
dentate (toothed) leaf margins made up of triangular lobes, and often an undulate (wavy) I'm not keen, either assume your readers know what dentate and undulate mean, and don't gloss, or assume ignorance and just use "toothed" and "wavy". (removed, and plainer synonyms left in)
No subspecies or variety of B. prionotes has been published, is "description of" missing from this sentence? (hmm, didn't think so (??) - we meant 'other's subspecies, i.e. only the main one has been described and no other forms identified since - do you think it is ambiguous?)
I understood what it meant, I just thought it was imprecise - you can publish a description of a ssp, I'm not sure you can publish the ssp itself unless you squash it on the page. This is FAC, hair-splitting is obligatory for reviewers. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changed now to "No further subspecies or varieties of B. prionotes have been described" Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subq. sect. ser. these abbreviations appear in the taxonomy without explanation, as far as I can see. I can guess the latter two, but could do with some clarification, maybe in a footnote?
(tricky - we have Section (botany) and Subgenus as pages but not one for 'series' - a link or three would be good but all available bluelinks go to the specific taxonomic pages on the sections and series. Need to think about how to do this.)Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "subq." with a "q" an abbreviation for subgenus (if it is)? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
same honeyeater species Do we know which?
answer is most of them - Hesp added that paper, but I have seen other lists of honeyeaters which visit hookeriana.Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the source: "Both species are pollinated by the same nectar-feeding birds (Meliphagidae), including the white-cheeked honeyeater (Phylidonyris nigra) and brown honeyeater (Lichmera indistincta) (Taylor & Hopper, 1988; personal observations). Even where populations are separated by several hundred metres, they are well within the daily feeding ranges of these birds (Collins & Rebelo, 1987)." But I'm reluctant to include information on pollinators in the Hybrids section, when it is already thoroughly covered in the Breeding system section. Do you feel that the particular species are important here? Hesperian 23:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I got the impression only one species was involved, in which case it might as well have been named, since that's incorrect, fine as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
(I think there was only the 'Waite Orange' one...?)Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return(I presume you meant a cluster of them in the taxo section - got 'em)Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 12 (Australian Plant Common Names...) is lacking a publisher(got it. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments A very thorough treatment of the subject, supported by a great cross section of images. There are a few relatively minor issues that I picked up when reading through:
1. Description
The seed Image does not correlate with the text description
I'm not sure how to handle this. The seed shown is definitely B. prionotes. But it seems the stripes have never been noticed in any publication. George (1981) says "outer surface convex, irregularly ridged, grey". George (1999) says "smooth inside, ridged outside", with no comment on colour. Thiele & Ladiges (1996), which can be useful for this kind of thing because of its thorough discussion of morphometric characters, has nothing to say about seed surface coloration. There's nothing in George (1984), George (1987), Collins et al. (2008), etcetera. Hesperian 12:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The same zig-zag pattern can be seen in the photo of seed of this species on page 81 of Sweedman (2006). Hesperian 14:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "matte blackish" should be omitted from the text, given it conflicts with the grey cited above.--Melburnian (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being quite familiar with the seeds the irregularities in texture heighten the apparent colour difference when interpreted by a 2-d image (i.e. I find they look more uniform in real life). I find they can often look quite different shades of black, and dark grey in varying light. Their texture really is quite odd. Not sure how this helps when we have to go on RSs. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo has been checked by Hesp and it looks like the seed description is limited by lack of information in the known literature. Melburnian (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Taxonomy
"A sheet with a prepared specimen of B. prionotes at the University of Cambridge Herbarium (CGE), labelled "Swan River, Drummond, 1839", has since been designated the lectotype" (reads as "A sheet...has since been designated the lectotype". A mounted specimen?)
I've rephrased a bit, but according to the primary source for the lectotypification, 'As lectotype of B. prionotes I have selected a sheet at CGE labelled "Swan River, Drummond, 1839" and annotated by Lindley "Banksia prionotes m".' Hesperian 12:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.1 Hybrids
2.1.1 Banksia prionotes × hookeriana
"the extra resources available results in larger plants with more flowers and a longer flowering season" (extra resources need to be defined)
Addressed. Disturbed areas have more runoff and less competition. Hesperian 12:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4.2 Nutrition and metabolism
"they also perform in situ nitrate reductase activities" (needs rewording in simpler language)
"in situ" abolished; nitrate reductase retained for now—it is linked, and I don't know enough organic chemistry to be confident of changing it without subtly changing the meaning and thus misrepresenting the source. Hesperian 12:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could be reworded to "they may also convert excess nitrate compounds to nitrites, mainly ammonium into amino acids such as asparagine and glutamine." (this is what a nitrate reductase does). Actually the more I think about it the more I like it, but the problem is an easter egg link then as in this example the verb "convert" above I'd link to nitrate reductase. Casliber (talk·contribs) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the recent history the version "When soils are high in nitrates, they may also perform some nitrate reductase activities, primarily the conversion of ammonium into amino acids such as asparagine and glutamine." reads well and avoids the easter egg. I think starting a second sentence gives a breather in the rapidfire mention of technical terms which was my main concern with the version that I reviewed.--Melburnian (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
"Many plants with cluster roots are so adapted to impoverished soils that they cannot survive in nutrient-rich soils. This is not the case, however, with B. prionotes, which thrives when nutrients are readily available. In one reported case, individuals located in areas that received nutrient-polluted surface runoff from adjacent agricultural land were on average around 13 times larger than individuals of the same age located in pristine bush." (need to explain the circumstances of the one reported case, and give a citatation for the second sentence to confirm it's not an extrapolation from the one case)
I've spent about an hour trawling through the sources, and I can't find anything to support the segue from specific case to general contrast. Presumably this was a novel synthesis. I've removed the lot, as the specific case is not really very interesting with the synthesis gone. Hesperian 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to remove the synthesis, but I think the reported case is still interesting. Will leave inclusion/exclusion up to you. Melburnian (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4.3 Breeding system
"caged inflorescences" (needs definition or link)
Changed to "inflorescences do not form follicles when birds are excluded". All the same, we probably need a stub on pollinator exclusion experiments; they are a basic tool of ecologists everywhere. Hesperian 13:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, just needs linking of your new stub. Melburnian (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Honeyeaters forage preferentially at florets that have opened recently" (awkward wording)
Rephrased... though come to think of it I may have made it even worse.... Hesperian 14:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I threw up "Honeyeaters prefer to forage at individual flowers which have only just opened, as these offer the most nectar" as an alternative as it gets the key points across. Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it is exploited commercially by the cut flower industry" (need to explain the activities involved in the exploitation)
changed to "wild populations are harvested commercially by the cut flower industry" - which is succinct. Is it too succinct? The fact that it is mentioned in a longer sentence on threats for me is enough (?) Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I am getting at there is whether this activity is permitted/regulated/licensed by the government and if so then what makes it threatening?--Melburnian (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the first bit can be found here. I expect the answer to the second can be found in Rye et al. (1980) Commercially exploited vascular plants native in Western Australia: census, atlas and preliminary assessment of conservation status; but it may prove a challenge to get hold of a copy. Hesperian 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The linked document answers my main question, and being 257 pages long would require a separate detailed article to address, a quick stub won't do the job. In that case I think go with Cas's wording above and leave it at that. Melburnian (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're happy... but now I'm wondering whether there is enough information to expand coverage of this a bit. The link above says it is covered by the standard license, and that "Green leaves must be left below the harvest cut for regeneration to occur." And this says "Large flowers limit export potential; demand falls when B. hookeriana is available." It might be time I tracked down a copy of this. Hesperian 13:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a separate article along the lines of "Bankias for cut-flower production" to support the species articles in this area, and as a worthwhile topic in itself. That manual looks like it would be well worth tracking down.Melburnian (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The species is not considered particularly vulnerable to these factors" (needs wording to contrast a single plant vs the species as a whole)
added 'as a whole' after species. (is that enough?) Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Engaging and well-written, this article satisfies all FA criteria, and it is beautifully illustrated. Graham ColmTalk 16:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very clearly written, well supported, and good coverage of the topic. It is a pleasure to read. Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, a dual thankyou from me and Hesp for all the supports :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support ncely written,no apparent probelms subject is well covered, nice photogrpahs :) Gnangarra 04:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The extensive number of images are pretty much all, luckily, uploaded by the two nominators. I have cleaned up the images; they look great! NW(Talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can this sub-heading be modified ?
Banksia prionotes × hookeriana
It repeats the article name, and contains a special character. (And, I have no idea what it means :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the traditional way that hybrids are described Species A x B. I changed to something which segues off the parent heading. How's that? Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally it was better before. Hesperian 05:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a fairly complete treatment of the subject, passed GA some time ago and is stable. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your images need to have Alt text per WP:ALTBurningview (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added Alt text describing each image. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks!) but needs some work:
Two images are missing alt text. Please see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right corner of this review article.
Some of its text duplicates what's in the captions and should be removed (please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 4). This includes "Stela D", "Map of the Southern Maya Area", "Stela D", "king K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat", "Zoomorph B", "Guatemalan 10 centavo coin", "The Great Plaza", "The Ballcourt Plaza", "Stela E", "Detail of Zoomorph B".
Some of its text contain details that cannot be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the images, and should be moved to caption or removed. This includes "Maya" (when describing the stela), "Stela D" (the non-expert won't know it's Stela D), "stela from Quiriguá",
The alt text for the map doesn't give useful info about what the map tells the sighted reader. It basically just says "here is a map of the location" without saying where the location is, or how it's related to jade sources.
Technical details about how images were prepared are best omitted, so please remove "black and white photo showing". See WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2.
OK, I'm getting to work on this. The two images without alt text are transcluded from templates, not quite sure how to put in the text...presumably on the template itself? Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. One of those images looks like it may be purely decorative, in which case a "|link=|" may be appropriate; see WP:ALT #When to specify. Eubulides (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I've put alt text in on the templates anyway - it can't hurt. I think I've dealt with all the other issues you've raised. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing all that; it's much better now. I noticed a few remaining problems, which are relatively minor. "Photo showing a", "Photo of", "Detail of", and "Detail" are all technical details about how the images were prepared and should be removed as per example 2 cited above. The "A tall, narrow monument..." phrase is punctuated as a sentence but doesn't appear to be a sentence. The alt text for File:Bonampak painting+contrast.jpg is repetitive and can easily be trimmed without losing info. Finally, the alt text for the purely decorative image File:Chichen Itza 2006 08 15.JPG doesn't hurt, but that image's link does hurt the visually impaired reader a bit, because the link causes a screen reader to waste time announcing that image's alt text and its link, thus slowing down what is supposed to be a navigation aid. So I think it'd help a bit to add "|link=" to that image; but it's not a big deal either way.Eubulides (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've sorted the remaining issues with the alt text... Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick work! It looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should "acropolis" be captitalized? Only in Athens, imo, though "Acropolis Plaza" might be ok.
"See also", apart from the list, includes articles that are or ought to be linked in the text.
There are many pictureless stretches & the good Commons photos of Stelae P & E should be added.
On my screen the infobox hides a little text in the 2nd section, plus the infobox photo seems washed-out & less attractive than others, apart from being very tall. Personally I'd have dumped the infobox entirely.
Otherwise a nice article & nearly there. Best of luck with the alt text! Johnbod (talk)
I've switched the image in the Infobox, which I'm a little reluctant to remove because it contains more detailed info on the UNESCO status of the site that isn't included in the main article text and that I wouldn't wish to include there. The new image is shorter, I've also moved the maps down into the Location section. Hopefully these changes will resolve the problem of the edit link being covered.
I've put an extra image in (Stela B in the infobox), that I hadn't used previously since it was watermarked the last time I saw it on Commons, this has now been sorted. I am reluctant to use the remaining photo of Stela E on Commons since it is a photo of a replica in Mexico City and not the original monument in Guatemala. It seems there are a lot more attribution-license photos on flickr these days, so I'll import a couple and put them in.
I've also dropped an extra 30-odd wikilinks into the text, though I'll have another look at it later to see if it needs any more. Most of the See also links have now been worked into the text. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a couple of extra images, fixed the acropolis capitalisation throughout, and put in some more wikilinks. I think that covers everything you suggested, except removing the infobox. As I say, I have changed the image so I hope it looks better now.Simon Burchell (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't say I like that lead pic either - a crop would improve it greatly, but whatever... Nice article. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've switched images for a close-up of one of the stelae.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
supportcomment. Hey Simon, superb job done here. Couple minor clarifications/suggestions:
One of the source works given in references section is the whole 6-volume set of Historia general de Guatemala, general ed. Jorge Luján Muñoz. Each vol has a different editor, & contains contributed chapters from numerous others. If some particular chapter or chapters (presumably from tomo 1, epoca precolumbina) has been consulted or can back up some of the statements here, I think we shld probably cite/ref the chapter(s) in the relevant volume(s) direct, rather than the whole set. Were there specific contribs in Historia general you'd used?
For internal consistency wld recommend spelling k'awil as k'awiil and yo'pat / yo'at as yopaat, even if Looper doesn't. That is, although sources may differ in how or whether they treat vowel dupl. and glottalisation, for the article itself one orthographical version of a term should be chosen. Maybe the different orthogs cld be briefly mentioned in a footnote, say. Alternatively you could follow Looper's or Martin & Grube's orthog, so long as it's consistent (you might have to then use redirect or pipe to link to some of our articles, eg K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat would be Yo'at or Yo'pat following Looper). This article's prob not the place to go into any niceties abt differences in opinion/interpretation of yo'at vs yopaat etc.
In the table listing the rulers, or maybe in the text somewhere, maybe you could add the known hel glyphs / numbered succession statements in the inscriptions, ie the dynastic sequence expression given for a ruler in the inscriptions.
But like I said, great work!--cjllwʘTALK 05:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CJ. The Historia general de Guatemala is a holdover from the old article before I started work on it, I don't have access to it and didn't consult it, and it isn't directly cited in the article text, so I can't give more specific details. If this is a problem, I'll simply remove it from the refs. I'll look at the other stuff as soon as I get a chance. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised you've already sorted the orthography - thanks for that.Simon Burchell (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added dynastic succession nos to the table. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK great, looks good, I added a little note just to explain those dynastic no's a little more. Re the historia general de Guatemala ref, I've removed it since it's a general work & don't think it contains anything on quirigua that you haven't already gotten from other sources.--cjllwʘTALK 05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment - I'll begin looking over it now and make any no-brainer straightforward prose improvements. Please revert me if I goof up and inadvertently change the meaning of any bits. I will post queries below. no deal-breakers left :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quiriguá is an ancient Maya archaeological site in... - I am not familiar with articles on the Maya, but should this not be "Mayan"? ok.
It's a widespread convention in Mayanist studies to use "Maya" as both a noun and adjective, reserving "Mayan" for the language. Not universal, but most contemporary sources tend to follow this distinction. We've elected to do so generally in our articles here on wiki as well, eg Maya civilization not Mayan civilization. The usage wld be consistent with that. --cjllwʘTALK 08:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the site lies on the southern periphery of the Mesoamerican area and the population was at least bi-ethnic,[14] with ethnic Maya in a minority. - sorry, I got lost here, what was teh majority? mesoamerican? ok, one can only be as comprehensive as the sources. I am happy.
The majority would be other non-Maya and non-Mesoamerican groups inhabiting the region. Quiriguá lies on the very edge of the Mesoamerican region, with the cultures further east consisting of chiefdoms belonging to the less complex Intermediate Area. The specific ethnicity of the non-Maya majority is not discussed in the sources, perhaps because they had little or no influence upon the expressions of power of the Maya elite as represented by the architecture and sculpture of the site. I've added an extre line to the Population section to clarify this. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Evidence suggests that) Quiriguá and Copán may have been founded by elite colonists from the great city of Tikal as a part of its expansion into the southeastern border area of the Maya region.. - if we lose the bracketed bit, are you worried it sounds too dogmatic? I do note there is a "may" there - is it enough to show speculative tone of sentence?
With the bracketed section left in, it does give the statement some extra solidity, i.e. that this is not pure speculation on the part of the archaeologists. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, maybe the 'may' is redundant (?) Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just double checking no meaning was lost with this edit
The implication from the sources is that this wasn't just any seasonal flood, that it was rather provoked by some disaster, perhaps a huricane or earthquake. I'm inclined to undo this one. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up, an interesting read and very nearly there. A couple of explanations or tweaks and you're home. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and for taking the time to go through this. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the population and economy section would be best after history?Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are both fairly short sections and I think they nicely set up the general context of the site before concentrating on the more detailed history of the site and its monuments etc. In my mind (at least) there is a logical progression to the sections. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a medium sized site...": this isn't especially helpful, what does "medium-sized" mean? It would be more useful to state how large the site actually is (also, it should by hyphenated).
I've added the approximate extent of the site. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's some inconsistent capitalisation: "...with the nearby Classic Period city..."; "During the Maya Classic period..."; "...the city during the Late Classic..."; "Tikal hiatus of the middle Classic".
The following extract is in passive voice: "the military victory by its king K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat". It's preferable to use the active voice. There are a few other occurrences.
I've changed this and one other instance of the passive voice. There are one or two places where the passive voice seems more appropriate than active voice. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although there's a geohack link at the top of the page, it might be useful to add a coordinate template to the opening sentence of the location section (template:coord); although the coordinates themselves would be meaning less to most readers, the link it provides to geohack allows readers to access maps of the area and in a more prominent position than in the top right hand corner of the page it's more likely to get noticed. Just a thought, it's not a deal-breaker.
I played with this for a bit, but in the end thought that it just wasn't necessary to link coords in two places. They are available from a prominent position at the top of the page and in other articles where they have been placed in the body of the text, someone has soon come along and removed them. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The population section should mention trends in population if possible, that includes increase/decrease and change in ethnic make-up (although this would be difficult to measure and I doubt a source will be easy to find).
Very little information is available on changes in the ethnic make-up of the site. All my sources concentrate on the Maya elite. Population trends are also not available, with data only provided for the apogee of the site. I've added a couple of sentences detailing the population expansion after the rebellion, and the abandonment of the site. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if the sources are limited there's nothing that can be done. The ethnicity would have been speculative at best anyway. I think the additional sentences generalising the population change is a good addition. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's something wrong with the following
The population density of the site has been estimated at 400 to 500 per square kilometer (1040 to 1300 per square mile) in the centre of the city during the Late Classic[15] with an estimated total population of 1200–1600;[16] surveys have revealed an average of 130 structures per square kilometer (338 per square mile) at the site, compared with 1449 structures/km² (3767 per square mile) in central Copán.[17] The low population density indicates that Quirigua served as the focus for a dispersed rural population.[9]
That would make the average population of of the houses in Copan about 1, which makes me think that either the density of structures has been misread, or the source has not differentiated between structures of different phases; if the latter is the case, the comparison is not useful.
Ignore my bad maths, I got my wires crossed here. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The economy section needs to mention the role of agriculture. Was Quirgua self-sufficient or did it rely on trade to supply food? Did it export crops, if so what route did it take, the same as the obsidian? What kind of crops were grown, was there meat in the diet? Was meat a part of their diet? Similar questions apply to livestock as well as crops.
The economy section does mention that cacao was grown locally as a cash crop. The article does explain that Quiriguá's reason for existence was that it sat on a trading crossroads linking various important Maya centres. As for Maya diet etc., that is beyond the scope of the article, (being covered in Maya cuisine, which isn't linked because it is not specifically relevant to Quiriguá). Simon Burchell (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While cacao was the cash crop, what was grown for sustinence? Was cacao used in the staple diet? The issue how the city sustained itself is important, so information on where it's food came from (as opposed to the diet) should be included. Nev1 (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've found a ref to maize as the main subsistence crop (normal among the Maya, but not specifically mentioned elsewhere for Quirigua), and its use in tribute payments to Copan. I've put this all into the Economy section. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, and although the issue has been struck, information on livestock would still be beneficial. Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Maya had no livestock to speak of and in general had a meat-poor diet until the introduction of cattle, sheep, goats, horses, pigs and chickens by Europeans in the 16th century. Domestic animals were limited to dogs and turkeys, with no specific references to either at Quiriguá. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A brief explanation of where the information comes from in the known rulers section would be useful. I was curious why some were known and others not, what sort of records were maintained or whether names are known through epigraphy.
I've added a note that the names come from hieroglyphic inscriptions at the site. Survival of names and dates depends purely on the state of preservation of the inscribed monuments. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Evidence suggests that Quiriguá and Copán were founded by elite colonists from the great city of Tikal": what's the evidence? What artefacts suggest colonists were elite?
I've now summarised the evidence at the beginning of the sentence. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The recorded history of Quiriguá starts in 426, in the Early Classic (c.200–c.600), according to hieroglyphic inscriptions at other sites": this needs to be rewritten. At the moment, it reads as if the hieroglyphic inscriptions state "the recorded history of Quirigua starts in 426", rather than what I presume is the actuality that the earliest record of Quirigua is in hieroglyphics at other sites dating. Is this what is meant: "The recorded history of Quiriguá starts in 426, during the Early Classic (c.200–c.600); according to hieroglyphicinscriptions at other sites, on 5 September 426, K'inich Yax K'uk' Mo' was enthroned as king of Copán"?
"From this it is evident that right from the beginning of its recorded history Quiriguá was subservient to its southern neighbour, and was founded to bring the lucrative trade route of the Motagua River under the control of Copán and, indirectly, of Tikal": I don't think the reasoning of the second part of the sentence quite follows. Was Quirigua founded with the installation of Tok Casper as king? If not, what evidence is there that Quirigua was subservient to Copan? What prompts the reasoning that the settlement was founded to exploit trade routes?
The dynastic history of the site, as mentioned, begins with Tok Casper being installed on the throne by the king of Copán, this in itself is a demonstration that Tok Casper was subservient. The Motagua River was a major trade route in the Classic Period. In the opinion of prominent Mayanists, the city was founded to exploit this route. I can do no more than reflect my sources and cite them. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 480, an early monument records the supervision of a ritual by the then overlord from Copán, demonstrating Quiriguá's continued status as a vassal of that city": the current wording implies that the monument on recorded details of the supervision in 480. It should be reworded to "An early monument records the supervision of a ritual in 480 by the then overlord from Copán, demonstrating Quiriguá's continued status as a vassal of that city."
On the first occurrence of "platform (3C-1)", the reason for (3C-1) should be explained as it is not clear and it means nothing to the reader. Is it necessary to use (3C-1) at all? I think it's excessively technical and qualifying the location of the platform should be enough to differentiate it from other platforms and would make the article more open to readers. The same goes for "hilltop Group A" (btw, more inconsistent capitalisation here); what are the other groups, how is group A defined? And Stela U.
These groups, structures and monuments are discussed individually further down, in the Site section. I think its useful to leave these designations in since they can then be cross-referenced if anyone wishes to do so. It would also help, if the article is further expanded, to know what structure etc. is being discussed. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's counter-intuitive to explain what 3C-1 refers to after its first mention. At the very least, it needs to be explained on its first occurrence (similar to how abbreviations in articles are dealt with), but I think think it's too technical and jargon-y. The designations would mean nothing to someone unfamiliar with the site. More user friendly descriptions could be used, such as clarifying the position of the platform etc, and while they would be more wordy they would be more accessible. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after some consideration I've pulled this out of the main text. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There is evidence that Quiriguá suffered an attack by unknown enemies in this period, as demonstrated by the apparently deliberate defacement of Stela U and Monument 26": is that all the evidence? No layers of burning or destruction, no weapons? It could have been an internal struggle. Who is thought to have attacked?
As stated, the enemies are unknown. The defacement of the monuments is in a manner characteristic of damage inflicted by invading warriors, I've expanded slightly to make this clear. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A revival can be identified by the dedication of the first new monument...": a rival to what? Platform 3C-1 as the centre of Quirigua? It isn't clear at the moment.
I think you misread this one, it is revival, not "rival". Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, sorry about that. Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not mentioned in the population section that Quiriguá's "total population never exceeded a few thousand"?
The population section states that Quiriguá had "an estimated total population of 1200–1600". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd recommend changing "a few" to something more specific as I at least was misled by the phrase. Nev1 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a bit clunky and back to front: "In 762 K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat supervised the accession of "Sunraiser Jaguar" to the throne of Xkuy, an as yet unidentified site. Xkuy had been attacked and burned by Uaxaclajuun Ub'aah K'awiil in 718, after the sacrifice of the king of Copán this city appears to have become a loyal vassal of Quiriguá". I'd recommend changing to something like "In 718, the city of Xkuy – an as yet undiscovered site – was attacked and burned by Quirigua under the leadership of King Uaxaclajuun Ub'aah K'awiil. After the king of Copan was sacrificed in 738, Xkuy seems to have become a vassal of Quirigua and in 762 K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat supervised the accession of "Sunraiser Jaguar" to the city's throne". Assuming that's correct though, it's not exactly clear from the current phrasing.
I only got about half way through the article, but I think it's likely that the rest of the article has serious issues. In conclusion, the article needs a copy edit to smooth out the prose, but I'm more concerned about the article needing more information. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't necessarily respond individually to each of the demands for more information above. However, I can only supply information that is in the available sources. The two main sources are Looper's Lightning Warrior, a detailed study of the sculpture of the site, and Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens by Martin & Grube. Neither of these are archaeological reports and they don't supply detailed information on artifacts recovered. However, all three authors (Simon Martin, Nikolai Grube and Matthew Looper) are specialists who are respected in the field of Maya investigations. If they say there is evidence, then I can be reasonably sure that there is, and say so in the article text - there can hardly be more reliable sources in the field of Maya investigations. It is also worth mentioning WP:Summary, and not going into unnecessary detail. The article, as written, provides a solid summary of the history and context of the site.
Some of the other points, use of passive voice, inconsistent capitalisation etc., are fair comments and I'll take a look at that fairly soon. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but when you state there's evidence, it can't then be withheld. Looper et al shouldn't do this, but if they withhold it, further sources are required. The report from the 1974–79 investigations (assuming it's been published, and there should be something) should be an integral source. Also, after skimming the modern history section, I can't see anything on measures taken to preserve the site, any threats, the protection given to it in law, who administers it, or whether there are any visitors to the site. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looper et al do, of course, cite their sources. I, however, do not have access to them and it is not reasonable to assume that I should. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nev1 makes a good point about current status of the site - tourism, protection. I do recall at Tikal there was discussion (for instance) about how much jungle to remove from monuments and in what condition they should be left in (some are overgrown, some in lawns etc.), so my support is conditional on that being addressed. I think this is readily doable :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in some details at the end of the Modern History section. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some more information on, for example, what criteria the site is inscribed under would be useful, and visitors (assuming it's open to the public, that isn't made clear) aren't mentioned, or the protection offered by being a WHS.
UNESCO provides funds for developing countries to preserve World Heritage Sites, does Quirigua receive any of this funding? Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UNESCO criteria are found in the infobox at the head of the page. I've expanded the WHS mention, with info from the UNESCO website re. one-off funding. I've also noted that the site is open daily, according the the Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an afterthought about the known rulers section, it seems a bit odd to have one sentence explaining it. Although it's explained later in the article, it might be useful, in the same section, to explain briefly about succession. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the footnote explaining succession into the article text as an intro to the table. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm much happier about the article and its comprehensiveness now and feel that it's much more accessible to the layman. Thanks for your patience. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images Eub seems to be dealing with alt text, so just checking permissions and such:
No ISBN available but I've added the OCLC no. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Guatemala 10 centavo.jpg just because the image was taken doesn't mean the photographer has the rights to the coin itself.
Not sure what you mean here. If you need me to change the license, I'll do so. There was some discussion of this image at GA review. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no clear info about whether it's PD like the US or not... to be safe I'd just remove it as it doesn't add too much to the article anyhow. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of my German battleship class articles. This has passed GA and MILHIST A-class review, and I think it's close to FA-quality. The comments and suggestions that will come during FAC will help me to iron out the last few problems the article may contain, so I look forward to seeing them. Thanks in advance to all who review the page. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - There is one problematic sentence in the lead. Otherwise, throughout the article, the following concerns.
The ships' hulls each contained 18 watertight compartments, and were equipped with a double bottom that ran for 88% of the length of the hull.[4] - General characteristics; rm "and were" and replace with each
It seems that many of the sentences begin with "the" in the beginning of the article, I'd encourage more variety. Another article you wrote does not have the same issue.
König's first salvos fell short of her target, and so she shifted her fire to the nearer Tiger. - Battle of Jutland; nearest Tiger, there are three cruisers
So, it's a conditional support until my small list of concerns is resolved. ceranthor 21:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to change the wording in the technical section of the article (what I assume you meant when you said the beginning of the article) - do you think it's better now? I also fixed the other two things you pointed out. Which sentence in the lead has issues? Thanks for your review, Ceranthor. Parsecboy (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full support. Glad to help out on an excellent article! ceranthor 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present but needs work. The alt text "A map showing the locations of German ships prior to scuttling" simply duplicates the caption, and worse, doesn't tell the visually impaired reader the overall pattern of these locations. Please reword it to avoid repetition, and to give useful info to the reader. The alt text "Schematics for this type of battleship" doesn't give useful information either: instead, it should briefly say what that image tells the reader (that the reader cannot already get from the caption). The alt text "The gun turrets of a battleship. A gray zeppelin flies overhead" pretty much just repeats its caption; please rephrase it to give useful info that's not in the caption. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions. Eubulides (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that most of the above problems were fixed; thanks. I tweaked the map's alt text to remove the remaining problems. Eubulides (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with the last image. I'm still pretty shaky on alt text :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Great article! --Anhamirak 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments yes, I too like this article very much. It's clear, well written, and engaging, and even the deluge of armament statistics, weight, etc., doesn't distract the reader. I have couple of comments, specifically, on this one paragraph: "German naval historian Erich Gröner, in his book German Warships 1815–1945, stated that the German navy considered the ships to be "very good sea-boats."[5] They suffered a slight loss of speed in a swell, and with the rudder hard over, the ships lost up to 66% speed and heeled over 8 degrees." Since this is an article about the Konig ships, not Erich Gröner, I suggest changing the opening sentence of this paragraph so that Gröner isn't the subject. Perhaps .."The König class ships suffered a slight loss of speed in a swell, etc. Despite this problem, the navy considered them to be good sea-boats. (and then cite your naval historian, but don't use him as the subject of a sentence in your text...or at the very least, "according to Erich Gröner, German navel historian.) Make sense? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, in the GA review for SMS Blücher, it was pointed out that I needed to attribute the claim that the ship was a good sea boat, though perhaps I misunderstood what the reviewer meant (since the wording before his suggestion was just "Blücher was considered to be a good sea boat"). Perhaps just adding "by the German navy" would have been sufficient? Parsecboy (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support With one comment. The Propulsion section has four very short paragraphs. Is there a way to combine these into two short paragraphs? From an appearance pov the section looks like it's only partially completed. --Brad (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was originally 2 paras, but someone else split it up since then. I've merged them back together. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am cautious about nominating this article because it has a long and delicate consensus to determine the language. Originally, the page went through an AfD and I started fixing it to improve it. There was also a dispute between two users on weight issues, and the page, as a compromised, gained a long detail of the complex dispute about the actual relationship between Byron and Giraud. The wording was carefully chosen as not to be biased. Although, as admitted, Haiduc would like it to be more towards his care, I think he is willing to accept what is currently there. Now, I do not think the language is -perfect-, and there may be copyediting concerns. However, I would like people to understand that there was a lot of examina\tion and discussion over just about every line over months and months. I will welcome -all- concerns and comments, and I will thoroughly discuss matters with Haiduc in order to ensure that changes would not disrupt the balance. I would also prefer to keep the balance over anything else. However, I do feel that the page is extremely thorough and well put together, as it represents just about -everything- on Giraud. So, I now present to you our dear Nicolo Giraud, the boy/young man who almost absolutely nothing is really known, for your consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is there any reason why this article lacks an infobox? Thanks, Majorlytalk 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are not required, and many editors dislike them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I at any point say they were required? I was simply asking, SandyGeorgia. Majorlytalk 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few reasons - I don't like them (see Sandy's statement above). However, there is also almost no information. It would seem aesthetically inappropriate to have a box where the only bit of information known is a probable birth year but not even one. All information is already contained in the lead, so it is unnecessary. The page is also devoted to the "character" Giraud, who appears in Byron's letters and is the subject of speculation by various critics. This "character" was later turned into an actual character in a poem that had similar effects as Byron's letters and adds a further interpretation to the possible relationship. It is possible that Giraud never actually existed because we have very little data on him. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the information. I agree, having read the article, a box would be pretty useless. Majorlytalk 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured such would come up. Because of the delicate nature of it, could someone who is a third party come up with suggestions? I'd rather not get it horribly wrong and screw something up. I've seen some discussions on alt and a lot of people tend to make mistakes (and knowing me, I would definitely be one of those people). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is not supposed to be that hard. Perhaps you could use the alt text from The Lucy poems as a model? Also please see WP:ALT #What to specify paragraph 3, which gives general advice about alt text for portraits. Eubulides (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information on when he was born, where he was born, where he lived, etc. The only information on Giraud is from Byron's letters. Giraud taught him Italian. Giraud lived with him. He sent Giraud to a monastery. The put a very large sum of money in his will for Giraud. There are a few letters from Giraud to Byron expressing how he missed Byron. Besides that, it is all speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is: it gives an approx year of birth, and place of birth. The problem is, it's presented as a biography, so the fact that his fate is unknown needs to be made a little clearer I think. Majorlytalk 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added "unknown" as a death date. The end of the first paragraph also makes it clear that "Little is known of Giraud other than his involvement with Byron". Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some things I am confused by:
"the name by which he is most commonly known, Nicolo, was apparently given to him by Byron" - why is this apparent? I dunno, it seems there should be some amount of certainty in what is being said. Maybe say "According to... this happened". It just sound better.
What's a major-domo?
What's "boyish"? Why not young male?
Should rumor not be rumour? Surely British spelling would be more appropriate in this article?
There's a lot of quotes used, maybe try and cut them down somewhat. I think it would be more appropriate to analyse and use quotes rather than copy them.
Removed apparently. I wikilinked majordomo - it is hard to explain what the term means, but it was the word used by Byron in his letters. I don't know about young male, because young male is very vague (it could mean someone up to 30, for instance). Boyish covers male teens, as teen would also imply female which would skew it to the wrong way. Fixed rumor. The quotes are also important to keep as a summary could be twisted any way and the words used by the critics are highly sensitive. There has also been problems with summaries of quotes as "misleading" or other complaints lodged. For instance, it would be difficult to really summarize Christensen claiming "was ever so vulgar as to set an exact market value on his sexual arrangements in Greece". Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this article becoming featured, though I'll keep watch on here in case anything else is brought up. Majorlytalk 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support featured status - article seems fine and dandy. Ironholds (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning tosupport.
"After Byron took Giraud to visit Charles Meryon, an English doctor (who recounts the visit in his memoirs, noting Byron's vivid interest in the boy), rumours were spread..." This reads as though we should expect a citation of Meryon's memoirs. Rather, there is no cite at all at the end of this (I would have said remarkable) sentence, and when we get to one, it is of a contemporary biographer. I think the key to this expectation is the present-tense, and direct, expression "who recounts..." Can an editor look at this? The same problem arises in a following sentence: "Accounts from Michael Bruce and Howe Browne, both witnesses..." Is there no scope to cite these various sources?
Under "relationship with Byron" we have a sentence introducing a quote, but the quote begins at the start of a sentence. I suggest the quote should begin "...one of those extraordinary friendships".
The Grebanier quote is grammatically problematic - it doesn't make sense. It isn't a fault of the WP editors, Grebanier is at fault. I wonder though whether this might mean it could be better paraphrased?
I made a few copyedits that editors may wish to check.
Excellent prose otherwise, and extremely thorough with its treatment of biographical sources (apart from the one issue noted above). hamiltonstone (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the first point - if you can hunt down the original manuscripts and find someone willing to allow you to look at it, then I think we could add excerpts. However, the information is only available through second hand, and I doubt that even many of the critics discussing it have actually ever seen the diaries, let alone know what they actually say. Google books has none. There is a published memoir by his son (of the same name), but not by the doctor. The other accounts are provided second hand by Thomas Moore, so they were not written down. The only quotes that can be drawn from Moore is "a miserable looking creature". p. 1123–1124 - "In speaking of Nicolo Gerard [...] corroborated the latter's account of the bad suspicions attached to the connexion they had both had as representation to B. on the subject, in consequence of which kindness he dismissed the boy with a large present of money & parted with him—This boy, a miserable looking creature was the son of the woman in whose house Lusieri lived"
The interpretation of what Moore presents is from Fiona MacCarthy's biography, which is currently seen as the definitive biography. Also, I could not find the Grebanier quote that you are referring to. By the way, it is better to rely on quotes instead of paraphrasing for these excerpts since the matter is highly controversial and paraphrasing is never exact. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote: "If, the poem says, our hero's affections were fastened upon Nicolo Giraud, the affair, after all, took place in a Turkish world; he was but following the custom of the country. Once he had seen a beautiful Ganymede of fifteen attending the Turkish Governor, a Grecian youth, publicly known as the Governor's 'catamite.' Was it criminal to do what the Governor was doing?" - the quote occurs in the second last para of the WP entry. I am all in favour of relying on quotes, but not when their grammar is crap. But i will leave that to you and other reviewers. If MacCarthy's bio is the source for all the early stuff, then I'd tweak the start of the para to bring this to the reader's attention. Before the first sentence ("After Byron took Giraud to visit Charles Meryon..."), insert a sentence along these lines: "Fiona MacCarthy assembled early accounts of Byron's relationship with Giraud for her 2002 biography, Byron: Life and Legend. She reports that after Byron... (etc)" hamiltonstone (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the quote in the book - grammar and all. By the way, over 7 biographers are used for the first section, so it is not just MacCarthy. I don't really understand why there is a problem with stating that he made a mention in his memoirs. Nor do I think I can say that MacCarthy assembled earlier accounts. She could have made stuff up, or she could have drawn from many sources. What is cited to her is uncontroversial and in most of the biographies on Byron and presented in the same way. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that is the quote. As i said in the first place, the fault lies in the original. My point is we shouldn't reproduce poor prose in a WP article that aims for FAC. Paraphrase it, use ellipsis and square bracket text - there are options. But don't retain bad prose just because it is someone else's. As for the MacCarthy thing: likewise, there isn't a problem with the WP text you've written; I thought there was an issue with the referencing of it. But per WP:POINT, I'm going to drop it. If no-one else complains, I certainly won't. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tweak, that's better. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments All dealt with to my satisfaction. --MalleusFatuorum 14:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Giraud was said to be the brother-in-law of Giovanni Battista Lusier ...". By whom was he said to be?
"In January 1809, Byron met the 15-year-old Giraud in Athens during his travels, and the two were friends until Byron resumed his travels in March." This implies that the two stopped being friends once Byron resumed his travels, which does not seem consistent with the later story.
"The two spent their days studying, swimming, and taking in the landscape". I'm not sure what "taking in the landscape" means, doesn't seem idiomatic.
"After Byron took Giraud to visit Charles Meryon, an English doctor (who recounts the visit in his memoirs, noting Byron's vivid interest in the boy), rumours were spread by a servant ...". A servant of who's? Byron or the doctor?
"Accounts from Michael Bruce and Howe Browne, both witnesses of Byron's interactions with Giraud, provided confirmation of the relationship to Byron's early biographer Thomas Moore, although in disparaging terms." This seems unclear. The confirmation was in disparaging terms?
"By November they were joined by Lusieri, a French Consul, and a group of German academics." Was Lusieri a French Consul, or was the French Consul someone else? Why is "Consul" capitalised?
1. "By whom was he said to be?" - Everyone? There would be the same problem if the word was "thought to be". However, the sources don't really say who originated the claim - did he? Did Byron? Did some biographer? I don't even know if the kid actually existed. MacCarthy just takes him as the brother in law without any question. Others don't.
2. Changed.
3. "I'm not sure what "taking in the landscape" means, doesn't seem idiomatic." - Sitting around and looking? Maybe it is an American think (another use is "taking in the view") : )
4. Fixed - Byron's.
5. See above for the original presentation of Moore. MacCarthy (who the summary is from) says: "two witnesses later questioned by Tom Moore about Byron's relationship, gave disparaging accounts, both probably self-serving."
6. The consul was Louis-François-Sébastien Fauvel. He does not appear to have a Wiki page on en or on fr. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Giraud was said to be the brother-in-law of Giovanni Battista Lusieri, a Roman painter and broker for Lord Elgin. However, Demetrius Zograffo, Byron's guide in Greece, informed Byron that the 60-year-old Lusieri was unmarried, and was courting two women each of whom believed that Lusieri was to marry her. Lusieri certainly had a close relationship with Giraud, so it is possible that the two were related in another way, perhaps as father and son."
I'm confused here. Is it saying that Giraud was most likely the brother of one of the two women being courted? What does "was said" mean?
"In a letter from 23 August 1810 to John Hobhouse written at the Capuchin monastery of Mendele near Athens where he was residing,"
The letter was written or received on 23 August 1810?
"After Byron took Giraud to visit Charles Meryon, an English doctor (who recounts the visit in his memoirs, noting Byron's vivid interest in the boy), rumours were spread by Byron's servant that the consultation concerned an anal rupture."
Perhaps "...to visit the English doctor Charles Meryon—who recounted the visit in his memoirs after noting Byron's vivid interest in the boy—rumours ..." would be better? Also, any possible link for anal rupture?
Otherwise, I didn't see anything that caught my eye on my read-through. It looks like it is a very extensively researched article, and I commend all who have worked on it. Cheers, —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently using my public account (I'm at the library) - "was said" means that people claimed him as the child but there is no evidence of his birth or parentage. The information on "courting" implies that he was not married so could not be an "in law". I don't know how else to reword it that wouldn't cross into original research. The letter is dated that date. I made it more clear. I don't know about dashes being better than parentheses, but I have no concern either way. Coriolanus (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And ed, a link for anal rupture? lol. I don't even want to look. But seriously, the phrase was thrown about 200 years ago, so it was probably not a condition that would have an equivalent now or be something that would have much actual background besides what is invoked in the imagination when the two works are combined. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would "believed" work better? Otherwise, I see your point, so I'll drop mine.
:) well, you never know. It wasn't just dashes; I rearranged the sentence a wee bit. Either way, my thoughts were only very minor and subject to my opinion; it now has my full support. Cheers Ottava, —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my comments have been addressed. This is a very impressive work. --MalleusFatuorum 14:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by NuclearWarfare(Temporary oppose; will strike as soon as problems are fixed)
File:Thomas Moore.jpg - The source here needs fixing. There is little doubt in my mind that this is in the public domain, but http://www.lib.utexas.edu/ as a source could be improved upon. Also, the author field has to be filled in.
File:George Colman the Younger.jpg - I'm not really sure about the source here. Is "George Colman, the Younger, 1762-1836." a book, or a simple rephrasing of the title? Could you please clarify? Thanks. NW(Talk) 14:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Colman the Younger is the Wikipedia page name. Regardless, the source and description were mixed up. I'm having a problem tracking down who made the Moore image - it was originally a painting by an individual I cannot find and then it was turned into an etching it seems. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This book has a similar image that could be used to replace the Moore image, with an attribution to the book. This shows a pencil sketch of the portrait. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Moore image with one I could definitely establish a date and authorship for here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, all images look good. NW(Talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it fully meets the featured article criteria. It failed its last FAC solely because of prose issues. The article has now been copyedited to correct the indicating issues and others found by the copy editor. Therefore, it should now meet that criteria. As noted in the last FAC, the article is currently a GA, and it is fully comprehensive, containing all relevant and available information found in reliable sources, and all content within the article is cited. The article properly follows the suggested structure from the Film MoS with only minor modifications, as is allowed, to account for the semi-documentary nature of the work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Image needs alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments language, writing: Very good. A few problems with wordiness. For example, while Yossarian steps aside and leaves the group. Yossarian leaves the group...? Some one holds the camera and holds the camera steady....that sort of thing. It's highly readable, with paced sentence structure. A few sentences might be a bit long (24-30 words) for the younger teens who might look for this, but they should be able to read them. There are also some verb disagreements: . Some of its scenes were shot at a wildlife park in the United Kingdom, while others are reenactments of events, created using cameratricks and trained film animals. Some events were shot...while others are (should be were)....etc.
*Content There are several things I like about this article. First, it covers the warts and all, the critique was fairly consistent after the film came out, especially regarding the young meercat that died of snakebite. This article covers the problems of filming wild animals, the simplistic script. It seems well sourced, not overly cited nor under cited, and not overly wikified, which I find distracting. Coverage is more than adequate,too, for the subject.Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Yossarian "steps aside" is included to clarify that he did not fight/challenge Zaphod's taking over leadership, where one might normally expect him to have to be driven off he was the standing dominant male. It could be changed to Yossarian leaves the group without a fight, but I think the current one is a little better sounding. "Were/are" is accurate tense in this situation. The scenes "were shot" - an action that happened in the past. They "are reenactments" in a descriptive sense - they exist so they "are" reenactments. Beyond these two items, do you feel the article meets the featured article criteria? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Yossarian "steps aside" ...how about Zaphod joins the group to be her mate, as dominant male, unchallenged by Yossarian, who returns to life of the roving male. Yes, actually, I do think it meets, generally, the writing and especially the content criteria. I would make the verbs agree, although the "are" reenactments, they "were" reenactments for the purposes of the film, and they "are" only in the existential sense. If you follow my meaning there...clear as mud I expect, but...so I should say support :) I'm a fan of the kids at the Manor, in case you hadn't guessed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT I like the way the editor dealt with the various critiques the movie raised, I've spot checked the sources, reviewed grammar and style, and it looks like a nicely written, interesting article. It meets, in my mind, the requirements for the Featured Article status, so I support it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. EDIT: Struck. SteveT • C Don't worry about that !vote too much; I don't think there's anything here that can't be cleared up. I suppose the first thing to comment on is the size; are you sure you've included everything you can? Take a look at these results to see if there's anything else to add; the first hit, for example, seems to include a little bit more about the impact Flower's death had on the production. The other main point I have concerns the lead paragraph; it doesn't make clear what The Story Begins is exactly. I guess what I'm looking for is some shorthand way of saying it's a dramatized (scripted) prequel to the events that occurred before the real life documentary series (that's what it is, right?) This only becomes clear in the second paragraph. On the writing, I recommend another quick pass to see what you can make more concise. Too many words to say something simple means the reader gets bogged down in a sentence that's already imparted its full meaning before getting to the end of it (you get the idea). Examples follow, along with other miscellaneous issues:
Lead
"Shot over the span of two years"
"It documents the life of Flower, the former leader of a meerkat group known as the Whiskers, from her birth to her becoming the group's leader"—here, the information about Flower's leadership is presented twice. A little rejigging would make that unnecessary, e.g. "... to her becoming the leader of a meerkat group known as the Whiskers" while eliminating the first instance of the phrase.
"the film uses a full-sized featured film crew and features footage of untrained, unknown meerkat "actors" used to represent the meerkats in the story."—is there such thing as a "full size" feature film crew? There isn't enough context here; the crew of a major production would be much larger than that of an indie film. And should that be "featured film"? Not sure that "unknown" provides enough context to use it in the lead; unknown to whom?
"The film's narration received mix reviews"
"some reviewers criticized it for not offering anything new to viewers of the television series"—one reviewer.
"and noted that the film was not completely accurate"—attributed to "critics", when it was the view of one, the Friends of the Kalahari Meerkat Project.
"but the actual script was considered too simple for adult viewers"—considered by whom? Switching to the active voice would resolve this, but it still leaves the odd statement "too simple for adult viewers"—as if they wouldn't understand it.
Production
"Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins is a prequel biography to the documentary Meerkat Manor series"—the last four words don't work in that order. Consider "documentary series".
"Caroline Hawkins wrote the script, basing it on the notes taken by Tim Clutton-Brock."—no indication who Tim Clutton-Brook is and why he's important.
"In a 'Making of' feature, Hawkins notes that"—probably unnecessary to say that it's in the "Making of".
"The film was directed by Chris Barker and Mike Slee, and Whoopi Goldberg, a known Meerkat Manor fan, provided the narration."—I think that would read more smoothly if you replaced "[comma] and" with a semi-colon, or split the statements entirely if you don't think there's enough of a link.
"For the film, a typically sized feature film crew was utilized,"—see the comments above about what constitutes "full size". Any reason why the less ornamental "used" wouldn't work just as well at the end there?
"with the crew working independently from the crew of the television series."—using "with" as a connector between two statements is a little clumsy, especially with the gerund. Consider a semi-colon (e.g. "... film crew was used; the crew worked independently from ...")
Hmm. Thinking about that last statement, could it read as if the television crew worked a little on the film too? (I assume they didn't.)
"Breaking from the series pure documentary format"—possessive apostrophe on "series".
"the film does not include any footage of the meerkats being depicted in the film"—the gerund means that should be "meerkats' being" (you wouldn't say "me being", but "my being"), but if you think that sounds odd, recast the sentence to avoid either. Not sure if "in the film" is necessary given the first words of the statement.
"Flower herself is depicted by"
"In order to create the scenes needed for the film, the camera crew sought out meerkats of the approximate age needed, then continuously filmed them until the meerkatsthey displayed the appropriate behaviors needed for the scene."—removing half the words seems not to compromise readers' understanding of the idea.
"the cinematographers had to be more careful in their movements to avoid scaring the animals."—more careful than what? It could also be rendered more concisely as: "the cinematographers had to move carefully to avoid scaring the animals."
"Though the park normally has flight restrictions, prohibiting low flying aircraft, the production crew was able to get permission to use a helicopter for low-filming flights for three days."—if low flying craft are the only types of flights the park restricts, this could be made more concise: "Though the park prohibits low-flying aircraft, the production crew got permission to film for three days from a low-flying helicopter." Even that could be made more concise, perhaps by doubling up on the use of "low-flying", eliminating one.
"They mounted a new kind of camera to the front underside of the helicopter that was capable of filming without being affected by the shaking of the helicopter."—makes it sound as if they used a helicopter, not a camera, that was capable of filming without being affected by the shaking of the helicopter.
"With the backlash Animal Planet received for allowing the meerkats to die from snakebites"—introduced without preamble. Is this something Animal Planet was criticised for in the TV series?
"They questioned whether viewers would understand that the meerkats were wild animals and so they could not interfere."—I know that non-interference is the established stance for wildlife documentarians, but do you think it's known to everyone who might read this? For some it might beg the question, "why couldn't they interfere?"
"Robin Smith, the film and series' main cinematographer, rode hanging partiallyhung partway out of the truck to hold on to the camera and hold it steady, giving the visual impression of a truck bearing down on a meerkat, without a meerkat actually being harmed."—the use of "giving the impression of", and the fact that you've already said that all the other meerkat deaths were re-enactments, makes the last statement implicit. Also, "truck bearing down" should use the possessive (see "meerkat's being" example, above) or be recast if the result sounds odd.
"due to Flower's death before the film was finished"—ambiguous, could mean within the plot of the film. Better to make it clear by saying "before filming completed" or similar.
"the ending of the film needed to be "bigger" than originally planned"—is there any indication what he means by "bigger"? Or does it simply refer to the addition of a coda?
Distribution
"was first premiered"
Was "Wildscreen Festival Bristol" its official name that year, or should that be "in Bristol"?
Reception
"Variety magazine's Ronnie Scheib"—probably OK to dispense with "magazine".
"felt the script itself was written more for kids"—redundant word; plus, do you think that "kids" is too informal a term?
"Both critics praised the film's cinematography and for maintaining the in-depth coverage of the meerkats that the television series is known for."—the syntax is off, around "and for maintaining", which doesn't attach to any of the preceding statements.
"felt the film was accessible to both newcomers to the series and current fans"
"Tribeca Film Festival reviewer Genna Terranova felt [lots of nice things]"—is there a neutrality question here, given this is a "review" by someone who works for the organisation that showed the film? Does the organisation's website contain any negative reviews of the films it screens?
And that's all the weather. All the best, SteveT • C 22:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review! I think I've addressed everything except going through those Google UK sources (darn you Google News for not combining those in one search!) and the Tribeca Review. In quick scanning, I'm not seeing anything negative from them on any of their spotlight films (though I'd guess they wouldn't be spotlights if they disliked them ;-) ). I can see the neutrality issue, though, so it can be removed without much impact. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Tribeca review and added some content from the new sources from that Google News link. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, especially given your speedy response. Most of these issues seem to have been taken care of, so I've struck the oppose; I'll have another in-depth look tomorrow, but I've a feeling that all it will need is a minor prose massage (including to remedy a couple of tense inconsistencies I spotted). Nice work, SteveT • C 22:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I still think there's a bit of a problem over saying in the lead that "critics" praised the film for its cinematography, etc. Two critics praised the cinematography, and I'm not sure that's enough to go with the sweeping nature of that term. Similarly, that the narration "received mixed reviews" is cited to the same two critics. It's technically accurate, but do you think that what it implies is greater than what the "Reception" section actually says? Consider "mostly applauded, but some critics" to have the same concern. There's no pressure to alter it right away; a good solution might need a little contemplation first. If you do think of something, great; if not, I'll sleep on it and see if an idea presents itself tomorrow. SteveT • C 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think all of the reviewers praised the cinematography, I just didn't quote them all. I'll go back through all the reviews and double check. I really can't think of any other way to summarize its reception section, as required by lead, without repeating it though. Re your edit summary question - group is used in both the series and by the researchers, not "clan" so I have changed that back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the "clan" vs. "group" thing—though someone should really take the makers to task on use of the appropriate term. :-) If most of the reviewers praised the cinematography, etc. that's fair enough, though that should probably be made clear in the article body. One last, very minor inconsistency in the lead for now then: the opening statement says the film was "created by" Animal Planet and Oxford Scientific Films, whereas the body merely says Oxford Scientific Films. SteveT • C 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, technically it was Discovery Films rather than Animal Planet itself, so fixed that. Did some more tweaking on the issue of the lead and the reception...how does that work? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but to save time, I made some further tweaks myself instead of listing them here. See the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales behind each, and feel free to disagree with any I've made! There are only a few minor points I couldn't resolve during copy-editing:
"[She] chooses the Lazuli-roving male Yossarian as her mate."—what does "Lazuli-roving" mean?
"Viale kills the resulting pups and temporarily banishes Flower from the group."—the timeline is slightly unclear. The section immediately goes on to explain that Viale is killed on a road before Flower kills a snake and becomes leader. Did Flower returned before Viale's death, or only afterwards when she became leader?
"the cinematographers had to move carefully to avoid scaring the animals."—while technically correct, as a cinematographer can be used as a synonym for "camera operator", isn't the term more generally used to refer to the director of photography? It might be better to remove the ambiguity by using the more targeted "camera operators" or similar.
"With the backlash Animal Planet received"—does the Making of... documentary say whether this was a fan, critical or animal rights group backlash?
"During filming of the third series of Meerkat Manor in 2007, the real Flower was killed by a snake bite before filming was completed."—filming of the series or the film? If it's the series, then the statement is unnecessary, as the sentence already says "during filming". Actually, that brings up a good point: the article doesn't say when the film was shot; 2007 is implied, but not explicitly stated.
I might take another look at the lead a bit later, but the above pretty much covers everything else I've spotted. All the best, SteveT • C 09:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoroughness! Its always amazing to me how what seems like a small wording change makes a big difference in how a sentence reads. :) I did make two minor changes to those. The pup birth scenes were noted to be in color because in the series they have all been a kind of blue-gray scale (see its main article for a picture) due to their only being seen through underground cameras. In the film and by going to captive meerkats, they were able to shoot with normal cameras above ground in a birthing box or the like. I also changed the group name back to Friends of the Kalahari Meerkat Project. It is a separate legal entity (and they have gotten picky about it before), that is a sponsoring group of the researchers but should not be said to be the researchers. I tweaked the wording to make that clearer. For the questions above:
"Lazuli-roving" = roving male from the Lazuli group. I've reworded it.
Flower is allowed to return before Viale is killed, as I recall.
Normally, yes, but AP has been using cinematographer to refer to all of its film crew, at least with the series. With the film having the larger crew, they may have used more general camera operators as well...rechecking one of the interviews, they do use cameraman as well, so that term should be fine to (or camera operator to be more politically correct :-) )
It was all viewer/fan backlash. Critics seemed to scoff at the fans for being upset, and animal rights group have filed no complaints. :)
Both She died in January 2007. The FKMP article notes the two year time, from 2006-2008, on the film.
OK, the last concern I have is with the "Reception" section; having read a couple of the reviews, our representation of the coverage seems a little light. Scheib of Variety, for example, goes into a lot more detail than the section's two-line summary leads one to believe, and pays special regard to the way in which the film simplified the Project's research notes. Do you think there's scope for a minor expansion of the section? SteveT • C 11:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it could be. I think I did such a short section there out of concern I'd give his review undue weight. Will work on that this evening if not sooner. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - I am beginning a look-over now. I will change any minor straightforward fixes and note others below. Please revert any sentence I inadvertently change the meaning of. one hyphen thingy to fix but that is a no-brainer. Over the line.Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though the park normally prohibits low flying aircraft, the production crew was given permission to film for three days using a low-flying helicopter. - got low flying with and without connecting hyphens. I think our MOS suggests without...
While the majority of the meerkats filmed - normally I'd covert to the more succinct "While most of the meerkats filmed.." - but musing on whether that changes the meaning. ok, happy with explanation.
I am a little surprised that there was only little criticism of the contrived nature of the documentary mentioned - I would have thought this was more noteworthy...or does it acutally occur alot in these sort of documentaries? If so, this is an important piece of information worth including for context. Meh, if you've looked and it ain't there, then it ain't there I guess.
Overall, very nearly there. I am intrigued by any answers to the last point above and think this should pass this time round.Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually surprised by it as well, though it may have received less due to the general series already being well known for being a soap opera-style documentary, so perhaps it was just considered part for the course for the franchise as a whole? For majority versus most, I'm inclined to stay with majority because the only fully tamed ones mentioned as being used were for the birthing scenes in the zoo, while there are probably few non-habituated ones left in the research area except newcomers and passers through. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Maybe a little shorter than the usual film article, nevertheless it seems comprehensive, with all the reliable sources mined. I've taken a look through the last FAC and the prose issues that were raised over there seem to have been fixed, in addition to the concerns I listed above. The only non-free image has an appropriate license and its rationale matches that of other poster or DVD covers in featured articles. If a free image of one of the filming locations could be sourced, that might useful—though not essential. Nice work, SteveT • C 08:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, there are no free ones because the research project is very strict about access to area outside of their own researchers, and it seems like even the students do not post pictures anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing issues - Source "2" is this. Source "3" is this. Source "5" is this. Source "16" is this.
1. Source "2" does not verify this sentence except for the statement "two years" - "Meerkat Manor normally films episodes using a crew of only two or three people to avoid disturbing the meerkats; the film was shot over two years and employed a much larger crew".
2. Source "2" does not verify this statement - "The producers ultimately included the scene, but the meerkat's cries for help as it lay dying were edited out"
3. Source "2" does not verify this statement - "ensuring the meerkats were not deliberately put in danger"
4. Source "3" does not verify this statement - "Breaking from the series' pure documentary format, the film does not include footage of the project meerkats depicted in the story. Instead, wild meerkat "actors" represented Flower and her family; Flower was depicted by approximately eight female meerkats. The camera crew sought out appropriately aged meerkats for each scene, then filmed them until they behaved in ways the script required."
5. Source "5" does not verify this statement - "Whoopi Goldberg, a known Meerkat Manor fan"
7. Wiki - "While he found Goldberg's narration to be higher quality than in most documentaries of this type, he thought it grew monotonous as the film moved on."
7. Source differs factually - "Goldberg's narration, though a cut above the usual cutesy animal pic voiceover, pales after a while."
8. Source "16" does not verify this statement - "as of 2009, Animal Planet International has not announced an air date for the American-made Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins. "
9. The source ("16") is in French yet it was translated without marking it as a translation: "French critic Vincent Julé gave the film a rating of two out of five, stating that it was "boring and tedious" for fans of the series, and that he found its "fictionalization" of Flower's story to be regrettable"
9. A more appropriate translation of sans intérêt et ennuyeuse is "lacking interest and boring" or annoying. The source also mentions "Paul Newman's voice". Newman is not mentioned on the article at all, which means that the source is either wrong or it is talking about something else than the specific movie in question.
- Sources were spot checked and the above is an incomplete analysis. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 1 is clearly sourced from three sources. Other sources source that part of the statement. 2 & 3 fixed. 4 is also clearly sourced from three sources which together source entire statement. Will check 5, must be from another source and got moved around during CE. Don't understand 7? Will check rest later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OR:Synthesis says not to take information from two sources and merge it together. If a source only provides half of a statement, mark it appropriately or do not use it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no OR nor synthesis going on. OR does not say source a sentence from multiple sources. The sources are marked appropriately. Many of your other problems seem to be similar issues, which are not issues. The content is validly an dproperly sourced, nor is there any requirement at all to mark a foreign source as translated. Obviously it was translated to give an English sumamry. #8 isn't sourced to source 16, its just a statement and can be removed (proving a negative). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OR Synthesis says that you cannot take two statements to say what a source does not say. In that sentence, the one source is cited but only covers half of the information. Therefore, it cannot be used as a citation for the whole sentence. If you have one source that says it all, then citing other sources is inappropriate. So either split the sentence up and cite each part separately or use only the source that covers all of the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT BEING USED AS A SOURCE FOR THE WHOLE SENTENCE! Putting all sources at the end of the sentence is common, allowed, and does NOT make it OR. Its the recommended way of dealing with multiple cites being used in a sentence and it is perfectly valid method, unless you plan on deleting every last FA out there which all do the same thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot put a source at the end of a sentence unless it covers a whole sentence. It is that simple. A source denotes that it covers -all- information that precedes it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can and no it does not. Stacked sources at the end of a sentence show that the whole sentence is sourced from those sources. This is basic readability and one of first things an artile is ping from in prepping for FA/FL: having refs in the middle of a sentence.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tightrope between plagiarism and straying from a source's meaning can be tricky, as number 7 above highlights, would someone consider the meaning unchanged from "pales" to "monotonous" in the context provided. I'd say it was pretty borderline and am inclined to let it pass. I am trying to think of an alternative without success. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of examples where we've had two references at the end of a sentence as we couldn't place them in the middle. If one has "Bird X has been recorded from location Y and Z" and a different ref for each. I have had this issue in several biology articles. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the issues raised above:
Issues 1–5 on the face of it seem less about the accuracy the article in comparison to the sources, and more about perceived incorrect citation positions—and that's a completely legitimate concern, even if a lot of editors I know are happy to do it for enhanced readability. A swift resolution would be to simply move the citations adjacent to the facts being referenced. A less swift resolution would be to garner community consensus one way or the other on whether planting all the citations at the end of a sentence or paragraph is acceptable, but that's outside the scope of this page. In the meantime, it might be a good idea to at least try a couple of statements to see how it looks.
Issue 6, the deadlink to this piece shouldn't be an issue if the article also appeared in the Sun-Times' print edition; simply update the template accordingly.
Issue 7 concerns slightly inaccurate paraphrasing. The first part is generally OK, as "higher quality than in most documentaries of this type" seems an adequate paraphrase of "a cut above the usual cutesy animal pic voiceover" (though it might be worth changing "documentaries" to "films"). The second part, "Goldberg's narration ... grew monotonous as the film moved on", doesn't quite match the source's "Goldberg's narration ... pales after a while." As Casliber says, maybe it's borderline, but there are alternatives (diminished, made less of an impact, etc.)
Issue 8 is proving a negative, so maybe it just needs moving to make clear that it's not cited to that source. The better option would be to find a page somewhere that explicitly says this.
Issue 9, I agree that "uninteresting and boring" is a slightly better translation. However, the Paul Newman mention has tipped me off: this review is about a completely different film, The Meerkats, so it needs to be killed. Interestingly, it appears that The Weinstein Company may have bought The Story Begins simply to kill it to avoid competition for the Newman-narrated pic, so if a reliable source for that could be found, it might be something useful to include.
Nothing here is irresolvable, IMO. Oh, and see if this article is of any use too; it has some interesting tidbits about the film's development. All the best, SteveT • C 10:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is community consensus re citations at the end. Was just discussed recently in one of the citing areas (I think the WP:CITE talk page, but would have to look to be sure and short on time). Its been tried before and it is ugly and reduces readability for no profit in terms of accuracy. Fixed #7 to use a direct quote instead. Removed #9 (and that is a rather interesting way to avoid competition...) #8 I've removed since a non-existent thing can not be sourced and the only place its been noted that it hasn't been announced is in fan forums. If the Sun Times one appeared in the print edition, I'm not aware of it, and unfortunately the link was not archived. *sigh* Will have to remove all that it cites or find replacements. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 12:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AnmaFinotera - my source reviews aren't going to have opposes connected to them. I am only analyzing the sources as they are. So, don't worry. Those like Steve can interpret if they think there is a problem enough to warrant an oppose or, if there aren't, to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found the Sun Times one in LexisNexis and it did indeed appear in the print version too, so I've fixed that citation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A very good article with only the most minor of issues for me.
Is there any way you could get another picture in there? It's not a major concern, and you've probably already looked, but I think it would be effective towards the end of the article.
In Reception: Does Common Sense Media need to be wiki-linked in the text? As a publisher parameter too, for ref 22, I would consider linking CSM to its home page (Common Sense Media) appropriate.
In Reception: "calling it a "captivating journey" that did not avoid depicting the harsh realities of the meerkats' lives". Personally the text outside of quotes feels as if it should be in them, due to the way it's worded. I'm trying to think of an alternative. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I linked CSM because I wasn't sure if it might be notable enough to eventually have its own article, but for now I've removed the links. I changed the sentence to make it a quote to avoid it being too close a paraphrase. The only available pictures would be non-free ones, which could not really be justified by the text as no one really critically analyzed any particular scene. Could maybe throw in a shot from the making of, but none of the techniques were very innovative.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Okay thought something similar might be the case for images. My small issues have been resolved, so I give my support for an excellent article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-comment: The length of the nomination page here suggests that this was underprepared. And it's on the short side, too, which makes me wonder whether it hasn't been completely rewritten using scarce reviewer time. Tony(talk) 02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it was underprepared at all. It is already a GA, and this is its second FAC. After the first, which only pointed grammar issues, the article was worked on and a copyeditor went through it as well. None of the concerns above came up in the first review, and obviously despite the CE, there were still some minor grammar problems. A very simple diff shows that the article has NOT been "completely rewritten". The only semi-major rewrites were to the lead, the removal of one sourced statement as it was felt to not meet FAC requirements and not to be neutral, and the addition of one call out quote in light of reviewer concerns. It was not "underprepared" and its length can not be helped. There is not that much out there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should "Animal Planet" be linked in the first sentence?
I suggest the last two sentences of the first paragraph be switched; The last is on the subject of the "actors", as is the sentence third-to-last.
"The film"/"the film" is used in the first four sentences of the second paragraph, and overall too often in the article. Look for replacements.
Synopsis:
"During an attack..." Is "during" the right word?
Are there really no references available for the plot?
Production:
"...the highly rated documentary series Meerkat Manor." I would link "Meerkat Manor", as it hasn't been linked since the first sentence of the article.
"...script using the notes taken by the Kalahari Meerkat Project researchers..." It seems that both "the"s in this sentence can be removed.
"...the park normally prohibits low flying aircraft..." I think "low flying" should be hyphenated as it is later in the sentence.
"Full color scenes depicting..." "Full color" should be hyphenated.
"With the viewer backlash Animal Planet..." "With" -> "Because of" or something similar
"...professional handlers were also employed..." Take out "also"
"...and the coda added." I think "coda" should be changed for clarity.
Distribution:
"...released to Region 1 DVD in..." Shouldn't that be "released to Region 1 on DVD"?
The last paragraph uses "felt" three times; I suggest changing the second use to "thought". Mm40 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summaries do not require references - the film itself is the reference. Lead reworded to reduce use of film. Not sure what other words there are - film/it/movie/Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins - four options there is going to be some repetition. Links to AP and MM added. Hyphens added. Region 1 DVD is an accurate label - it is a type of DVD. Minor wording tweaks done. Left coda, but linked it. Link to Cinema Audio Society Awards added (weird that the awards have an article but not CAS itself). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job; I could find no other issues, so I'm supporting this article. Congratulations. Mm40 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Previously failed FAC in April due to a single user's general opposition to the doctrine of fair use. This article has since had another helpful peer review and some extra copyedits to be sure that it will look very nice nestled in with the rest of Wikipedia's best work. Enjoy. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest, the FAC failure in April was probably due to lack of supports (one only), rather than to one editor's interpretation of fair use. I did the peer review before that FAC, and I see the article has been reviewed again by Ruhrfisch, which is always good news. But, going back to my old review, Ealdgyth added a comment that hardly any of your online references had access dates. That still appears to be the case, and I would advise that you rectify this before the lady comes a-visiting. In general, a speedy read-through indicates a good quality article. I'm going to read it carefully, for nitpicks, in the next couple of days, and hope then to upgrade to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the web-only refs have access dates. Hard-copy published sources with online convenience links don't require these as the content will not change. Thanks for your comments so far, I look forward to your return in a couple of days! Bradley0110 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support:': I have read through, and the article is mostly fine. Here are the quibbles:-
Lead
"breakthrough" television role is followed quite soon by "breakthrough" film role. Could this repetition be avoided by saying "his first significant film role" or something similar?
"gained Nesbitt a Best Actor nomination twice" → "twice gained Nesbitt a Best Actor nomination"
Acting career: "He played the Dukes" in As You Like It Should this be "Duke" (I can only recall one)?
Cold Feet and early films
"In 1996, Nesbitt got an audition for Adam Williams..." Suggest rephrase: "In 1996, Nesbitt was auditioned for the part of Adam Williams,..."
What is "Barry's Amusements"?
Perhaps some description of Kirk Jones? "...film director Kirk Jones"?
*Bloody Sunday
"Critical reception differed." I take it you mean critical comments varied, some good, some not so good. But you only state that Nesbitt received awards and nominations. So what was the adverse criticism?
**Who is Aileen Blaney? I think that the verbatim quote from Blainey is too long, and could be paraphrased.
Murphy's Law
"These new dramatic elements to the series..." Plural, but you have only given one element.
"Reimagined"? Is there such a word?
Dramatic roles in 2004-05
"Nesbitt enjoyed working with Allen, and complimented his directing style." Do you compliment a "style", or do you compliment someone for their style?
Although "11 years" is OK Wiki-wise, I think "eleven years" would look better here.
Other projects: This sentence is not quite right: "As a film awards presenter, he hosted the IFTA Awards ceremony for three consecutive years between 2005 and 2007, the British Independent Film Awards since 2005, and the 2nd National Movie Awards in 2008." Subtle change of tense in the middle. I believe that changing "since" to "from" would resolve it.
Personal life: almost too trivial to mention, but the link should be on the first rather than the second mention of Manchester United.
I don't think the above will cause problems, and I'll be happy to give full support when they are fixed. An excellent BLP. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WereSpielChequers already got a couple of those minor errors. Re AYLI, yes, he doubled-up to play both dukes. Barry's Amusements is already mentioned in "Early life" but I've added a reminder on its second mention. Re "critcal reception differed", I meant it differed from the popular reaction (BAFTA didn't throw eggs at him!) so I've clarified this. I've cut down the Blaney quote and added an explanatory note of who she is. All the other minor corrections have been cleaned up. Thanks again for your comments! Bradley0110 (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: You have resolved all my points except one, which you might look at again. "Critical reception differed from popular opinion" still doesn't tell us what this difference was. The sense I get is that critical reception was more favourable than popular opinion; if that is the case, could you say that? I also did a slight tweak, and perhaps a few others would improve the article even further, but overall I believe it matches the FA criteria. Good work, worth the effort. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely rephrased the sentence now. Thanks very much for all your help. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportQuery Nice read but would you mind checking "British soldiers returning home from a six-year tour in Basra" - it could of course be poetic license in the program mentioned, but in real life my understanding was that tours lasted 6 months. Also since this is FAC I feel I ought to raise this - you have a photo of him facing out of the page and I thought that MOS preferred them facing in - which would encourage that photo to be aligned left. Please tell me if I'm over pedantic on that but I thought I'd start the discussion on the matter. PS I've also done some tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 13:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re Occupation, you're right. It's just been phrased that way in the article since the series was announced last year. I've rephrased it now that it has been broadcast and the character arcs clarified. As for the photo, I'll just play the "MOS:IMAGES is just a guideline" card that recommends the images face into the text. Since it's a 3/4 profile, I don't think it's too much of a problem to have him facing "out" of the article (compare with the photo in the Stephen Moyer article), at least until a good left-facing image comes along. Thanks for your copyedits and comments! Bradley0110 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome ϢereSpielChequers 13:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will pile on here as well. This is a bit where conflicting guidelines come into play: MOS:IMAGES states Infoboxes are to be on the right, yet states right-facing images are to be on the left. Since the image resides in the Infobox, it is fine to go with the Infobox guideline. Jappalang (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: single Infobox image is appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support: This is really informative with all the content needed. I think it may need a minor copyedit still by another editor to ensure that it is polished for FA. It is a big shame about fair use but I've at least uploaded a few images which are useable to add something...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 11:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed the V Festival image since the quality really is too poor to improve the article. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - I have just started a lookover and tweaking some straightforward things as I go - please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. Looking good so far. I will post queries below. No deal-breakers stood out, made some minor changes. Good work. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Most of the sources seem to be used properly. Just a few minor things:
1. Wiki "He completed his primary education at Blagh primary school"
1. Source "James had been educated at Lisnamurrican and Blagh primary schools before going to Coleraine Academical Institution"
2. "began a degree in French at the University of Ulster's Jordanstown" I could not find "French" in the source. This source mentions the French studies, but it says at Belfast and implies that he didn't stay long.
3. Wiki "His father suggested that he should move to England if he wanted to continue acting, so Nesbitt enrolled at the Central School of Speech and Drama (CSSD) in London"
3. Source "He soon dropped out, deciding instead to head for London and the Central School of Speech and Drama." I don't see any mention of his father.
4. Wiki "supporting roles on television in episodes of Boon, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, Covington Cross, Lovejoy, and Between the Lines. In 1993, he appeared in Love Lies Bleeding, an instalment of the BBC anthology series Screenplay and his first appearance in a production directed by Michael Winterbottom; he later appeared in Go Now (1995), Jude (1996) and Welcome to Sarajevo (1997)." I could not find "Boon", "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles", "Covington Cross", etc, in the source.
5. Wiki "cross-dressing Unionist politician Walter Adair"
5. Source (this is somewhat okay as the language is hard to change) "cross-dressing Unionist politician"
6. Wiki "He played Jimmy Hands, an inept bank robber who masterminds an escape from a prison by staging a musical as a distraction"
6. Source differs by not mentioning a musical while using some similar phrasing for the rest - "Nesbitt plays Jimmy Hands, an inept robber who plans a jailbreak with his motley band of co-prisoners"
7. "Nesbitt is a patron of Wave, a charity set up to support those traumatised by the Troubles. The charity faced closure due to funding problems before Nesbitt encouraged celebrities and artists to become involved." I cannot find "the Troubles" directly referred to (it can be inferred) and I cannot find that the charity was failing or faced closure in the source.
- There are a lot of sources and I was only able to spot check about 1/3rd of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ottava Rima
1. I don't understand the concern.
2. I have added a citation supporting the French degree. Jordanstown is the suburb of Belfast where Nesbitt's university campus was located (the location is supported by Starrett).
3. I've added an extra citation to support his father suggesting the move.
4. The other TV appearances are supported by the primary sources (the credits of the shows themselves) and can be verified by the professionally maintained BFI filmogaphy in the external links section. The statement itself that he appeared in supporting TV roles is uncontroversial, so should not require a secondary citation.
5. I thought the same; "cross-dressing Unionist politician" is a nice succinct description.
6. The musical is a part of the film so does not require a secondary reference. I've rephrased the other part of the sentence (I think the use of "inept" was the problem).
7. "Wave's key worker Alan McBride [...] explained that Wave was having to lay people off and in danger of folding through lack of funds" (appears a couple of paragraphs below the second subheading). I thought the inference was enough but can add an extra citation if it's a problem.
Thanks for your comments. I'll have a look through the rest of the article and check phrasing isn't too similar to sources or if some don't match up. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is to point out that the source mentions two schools and only one is mentioned in the wiki article. If you want to rework fine some, you could say "cross-dressing member of the ___ party" or "cross-dressing politician of the ___ party". Also, I see the folding now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The opening sentences refer to his first school (Lisnamurrican). As for the rephrasing, I like your suggestions but I haven't seen the film so don't know whether the character is a politician who supports the union, or if he is a political representative of a unionist party (DUP, etc). The Unionism in Ireland link encompasses both. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all outstanding citations and attributions, have cut down several direct quotes, and have reformulated sentences that are too similar to the original source. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Can't speak to the reference issues, though they look to be well in hand; prose seems good (i've made a couple of minor tweaks), and coverage seems thorough, particularly in identifying and coherently integrating critical reviews of tv and films etc. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations need to have a citation at the end of the sentence in which they are contained. For example, in the first paragraph of the Early life and education section, there are several sentences that contain quotes; at a slightly later point, two citations are used. It is impossible for the reader to know which of the citations covers each quote. Karanacs (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the ambigulously-cited quotations. The "When I first came to drama school I was a Paddy the minute I walked in. And I remember going to drama school and them all saying to me, 'Aww, yeah, Brits out', and I was like 'It's a wee bit more complicated than that, you know.'" quote is covered by both citations. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Fungus is a core topic, and on average, receives several thousand page views per day. It is also the flagship article for the Fungi Wikiproject. Co-nominator Malljaja and I have been working on it for several months, and I think it's up now up to standard. Looking forward to seeing the article improve even more with the help of your collective input. Sasata (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is mostly very good, but it's missing for the infobox image File:Fungi collage.jpg; please see Template:Taxobox/doc for how to fix that. For File:Ergotamine3.png the alt text "Chemical structure" isn't informative; in similar situations I've simply used the systematic (IUPAC) name, which you can get from Ergotamine, as being better than nothing. One other thing: for File:Ascocarp2.png the alt text should describe the locations in words, rather than teasing the visually-impaired reader by saying that the image shows the locations. Eubulides (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, have made the changes suggested. Sasata (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast! Thanks; it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments It would be awesome to get this to FA and it looks close - I wish I didn't have more pressing priorities so I could help more. So for now I'll leave you with some thoughts about the Human use section:
First paragraph: I'm not sure what purpose this paragraph serves, being a mixture of unrepeated information and an incomplete summary of the Human use section. I would suggest antibiotics would surely be worth its own subheading, being one of humanity's greatest discoveries last century. At present, the article states that fungi produce antibiotics, but does not clarify whether current industrial production relies on fungi (I believe it does), as opposed to using sythetic methods.
Have started a section on Antibiotics to address this point. Let me know what you think. Sasata (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cultured foods: At the moment there's an ambiguity which seems to (incorrectly) imply A. oryzae is used for tempeh production. It's probably worth mentioning A. oryzae is also used for sake production, an enormous industry in Japan. If you can find a good source, it would also be nice to have a sentence describing the "domestication" of fungi - fungi like A. oryzae and Aspergillus sojae seem as different from their wildrelatives as poodles are from wolves.
I've corrected this and included separate refs for each A oryzae and Rhizopus. The issue of domestication is an interesting one, though perhaps not without controversy, since domestication of fungi probably occurred via a process that consisted of unwittingly choosing fungal species or strains that gave a preferred outcome in food production. That's different from that of say, dogs and horses, where selection was more direct and probably less fortuitous. I've inserted a section on the relatedness of the "domesticated" Aspergilli vs their closely related wild and toxin-producing relatives, without getting into too much detail here. Malljaja (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other: Ideally it would be nice to have a sentence or two describing what it is about fungi that make them ideal for the industrial production of all those metabolites and enzymes. Off the top of my head: simple nutritional requirements permit the use of low-cost materials or even waste products as growth substrates; cheap and simple separation by filtration of myclelial flocs or pellets from the growth media (cf. bacteria); efficient secretion pathways permit high yields of proteins; as eukaryotes, fungi can do post-translational modifications of proteins (e.g. glycosylation) that bacteria cannot; gene splicing techniques permit the production of heterologous proteins (eg. bovine chymosin) and the rational enhancement of yields; biological production in general produces optically pure compounds (not racemates), which is important in e.g. lactic acid.
I've included a small section mentioning the enormity of natural products produced by the fungi in the "Human uses" lead. With regards to heterologous expression, I've given a specific example from a recent outstanding paper in which they describe the assembly of a novel benzylisoquinoline pathway (which provides the backbone for drugs like codeine and morphine) in baker's yeast. Metabolic engineering is a "hot" topic and too big an apple to get a good bite in a general entry like this—so I've only included what I think is a representative example, which also illustrates the direction of this, ie, away from filamentous fungi, which are more messy to grow, to the easy-to-grow unicellular yeasts. Malljaja (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Model organisms: The article is incomplete without some mention of the tremendous contribution the study of model fungi has made to our understanding of basic biology. The one gene-one enzyme hypothesis came from the study of Neurospora crassa, which is also used for studying circadian rhythms – who knew a mold could have its own 24-hour clock? Aspergillus nidulans is surely worth a mention, and S. cerevisiae must be the most-studied eukaryotic cell on the planet.
Excellent point! Much of eukaryotic cell biology, molecular biology, and genetics that I have learnt early on was from experimental work with S cerevisiae. So, I've created a section "Biological model organisms" that now houses your suggested reference. It still needs some comprehensive refs, which I'll fill in once I get to my books/finished slogging through pubmed. I've also included some recent models for human and plant pathogenicity, which may be relevant. Malljaja (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for your comments, you make some good points. I'll think about this and integrate your suggestions into the article shortly. Sasata (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spectacular work Sasata and Malljaja! I'm amazed how much has been accomplished in 24 hours.
I hope to have addressed these with the recently added info on the relationships of antibiotics with quorum sensing and as chemical defence. Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cultured foods: I like the new additions. Malljaja, I think there's a bit more to domestication than you imply above – there's good evidence that A. oryzae, at least, has evolved over the course of its domestication (eg see the section on starch-degrading enzymes in Nature 438:1157). I think the level of detail in the article at present is good.
Thanks, for the nudging and suggesting to include it as example for domestication. Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Others/lead: I understand what you mean about metabolic engineering being too big to cover, but I think there should at least be some acknowledgement somewhere that filamentous fungi can also be genetically manipulated. At the moment it almost reads as though yeasts, specifically, have just become amenable to manipulation. Is it really true that the direction at the moment is away from filamentous fungi? :'-( If there's genuine consensus in the field, so be it, but I'd be wary about putting too much weight on one review... I think researchers tend to talk up their favourite group of organisms, as I'm sure I do with by admittedly-somewhat-messy-but-nevertheless-easy-to-grow Aspergilli. "Facile" seems a bit obtuse here – could "more facile and faster" be replaced by "more efficient"?
I've inserted a short sentence on genetic engineering of fungi and included a landmark methods paper as citation. You're right that I over-emphasized the shift from yeast species, yet it is remarkable that yeast can be engineered to make such fairly complex molecules, considering that S cerevisiae hardly makes any natural products in nature (if one doesn't count ethanol ;-)). So, while Aspergillus and other industrially used filamentous fungi are probably still going to be used for secondary metabolite production, they've now got some serious competition. I've replaced "more facile and faster" w/ "efficient".Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Model organisms: This is exactly what I wanted to see :-). I think all the species could be wikilinked, even when it means duplicating links – it looks odd having some linked and others not, and none are linked nearby.
SupportComments - for now. Clearly this is an important core article and it has been on my Watchlist for months. It is long and takes a long time to read. There is so much information here about this diverse Kingdom that I feel many casual readers will drown in the detail. It is difficult to avoid comparing the article with Bacteria, Archaea and Virus, all of which are FA, and faced the similar challenge of condensing huge subjects into digestible, not-overly technical encyclopaedic contributions. I shall be interested to read any comments from reviewers from a non-scientific background, especially those regarding the article's accessibility to lay readers. I feel that this may be the major obstacle to reaching a consensus here. A few comments on the prose:
Here, "More recently, fungi are being used as sources for antibiotics used in medicine and for various enzymes," - the "are being" sounds wrong. How about something like, "Since (when?) fungi have been used as sources.."?
Now "More recently, fungi have been used as sources for antibiotics in medicine..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this sentence, "Fungi are also deployed as biological agents to control weeds and pests." I think "deployed" is too strong a word" a simple "used" would suffice, and is "also" needed?
Changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, "The fruiting structures of a few species are used recreationally or in traditional ceremonies as a source of psychotropic compounds." It doesn't actually say that they are eaten. It is assumed that the readers already know this.
Have changed "are used" to "are consumed". Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This part, "Fungi can cause deterioration of manufactured materials and buildings, and represent significant pathogens of humans and other animals, and losses due to fungal diseases of crops (e.g., rice blast disease) or food spoilage can have a large impact on human food supplies and local economies." needs to be split because the structure of the sentence is illogical. The problem starts with the "can cause" which has to connect with "represent" and "can have".
Now "Fungi can deteriorate manufactured materials and buildings, become significant pathogens of humans and other animals. Losses due to fungal diseases..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, "Fungi typically grow as hyphae, which extend at their tips, containing an organized assembly of vesicles" - I think this would be better: "Fungi typically grow as hyphae—which extend at their tips—that contain an organized assembly of vesicles"
Agree, have changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Diploid" is linked at its second occurrence.
Now linked at first occurrence as well. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't like "hypersaline areas" - and suggest something like "environments with high salt concentrations".
Changed to " Mating experiments between fungal isolates..", and moved the Mating in fungi piped link to here.
Here, "Species may possess vegetative incompatibility systems that allow mating only between individuals of opposite mating type", is the surreal "vegetative incompatibilty" needed?
Not for the average reader, have removed the esoteric term. Now "Some species may allow mating only between individuals..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something missing here, "These sporangiospores are means of rapid dispersal of the fungus".
Fixed this sentence. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this clause, "suggesting that they were the dominant life form at this time—nearly 100% of the fossil record available from this period", the emdash doesn't work well as a connector.
Now "...dominant life form at this time, representing nearly 100%..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, "Similarly, females of several wood wasp species (genus Sirex) inject their eggs in addition to spores of the wood-rotting fungus Amylostereum areolatum; the growth of the fungus provides ideal nutritional conditions for the development of the wasp larvae" - I think we have to spell out what the eggs are injected into.
Right, now "... inject their eggs together with spores of the wood-rotting fungus Amylostereum areolatum into the sapwood of pine trees;" Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is repetiton in the Human use section: "other fungal species are used in the production of soy sauce and tempeh" and later "Mycelial fungi, such as the shoyu koji mold (Aspergillus oryzae), are used to brew Shoyu (soy sauce), and to prepare tempeh", for example.
Here, "Most notable species include those of the genus Agaricus,[143][144] Ganoderma,[145] and Cordyceps,[146] which are being used in the treatment of several diseases", I am interested in why we have "being" and not a simple "which are used". To me the use of being implies some sort of trial or experimental usage.
This sentence was added by another editor. Have changed to your suggested wording (after confirming in source). Sasata (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, for now, does "cheeses" really need linking?Graham ColmTalk 12:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, unlinked. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments:
The section about the giant Armillaria ostoyae colony seems misplaced under Evolution – perhaps move to Morphology or Growth and physiology?
It's now in the proper section, Morphology. Sasata (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After "Currently, seven phyla are proposed:", it's not immediately obvious that each of the seven subsequent paragraphs refers to one of these phyla. Changing the following paragraph to begin with "The microsporidia..." might help, or consider re-ordering. I personally think seven bullet points would be ideal, though I know some editors don't like bulleted lists in FAs.
I've made the bold change of adding bullet points, as I agree that highlighting the phyla names in some way makes the section easier to read. It means both images will have to be on the right. That said, anyone that's offended by this stylistic change is free to alter the layout. Sasata (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great work developing this article. I think you have both done an excellent job! One minor point would be that the article currently links to sapwood, which is a disambiguation page. Perhaps you could link to the specific article? Regardless, again, great work. ---kilbad (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, looking at the Checklinks, I believe links/URLs are not to be added within citations in which a journal subscription is needed to view the full text. ---kilbad (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, didn't know that. Have removed the two subscription-based urls. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue, the only reason why the tool separates those links is because some were returning a 400 error. — Dispenser 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's great to see how far this article has come in a short time, and is certainly one we should have at FA quality. There are still some deficiencies in the content and style of the text. I've made some style revisions myself, and will be making more. I will point out just one specific section lacking content, that on Evolution. "Evolution" means "change", and this section does little to cover the change of fungi through time. It does have a number of facts about early appearances, and does mention a few changes, such as the transition to land and the fact that early fungi had flagellated cells. However, where is information about:
the origin of the Asco- and/or Basidiomycota?
the earliest sporocarp fossil?
the earliest lichenization events?
what changes accompanied the transition to land?
what is the nature of most fungal fossils? (what parts, what scale, and what form of fossilization)
There is quite a lot of missing information in this very important section, and more than a few well-known papers that were not referenced. Taylor & Taylor's The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants is the gold standard among paleobotany texts, and has an entire chapter on Fungi, Bacteria, and Lichens. I recommend a thorough look there and at some of the papers cited therein. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll work on this section, I can get a hold of the text you suggest pretty quickly. Thanks for the comments, and the copyediting. Sasata (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded this section to address at least some of the points you mention above. Am reluctant to expand much more, and think further information would be better placed in the daughter article (which is not much more than a stub now, unfortunately, but easily has enough associated literature to be featured as well.) Sasata (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see whether I can help. The section currently is very choppy and lacks context for readers. There isn;t even an explanation of the form in which most fungal fossils are preserved. Consider that most people think of "fossil" as a dinosaur bone or cast of a trilobite, but this isn't at all what is usually meant by a fossil of a fungus. At the very least, there should be a full paragraph with an explanation of what a fungus fossil is like, how they are found and studied, and the limitations of interpreting such fossils. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After consulting T&T, I've now added the additional information you requested. I disagree that a whole paragraph should be devoted to describing fungal fossils, seems to me that that level of detail is better suited to the daughter article; for this section I've given one sentence plus hints later (i.e. mention of spores and hyphae further down). Let me know if you think the content is sufficient, and hopefully Malljaja will tighten my prose :) I'm also tempted to put a picture in that section, as it's 4 paragraphs long now, but barring finding a pic of a fossilized spore or something, am not sure what could go in there. Maybe EM of a spore like this]? Sasata (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content looks much better now. It still needs a bit of refinement, which is much easier for me to help with than initial article hunting (since I don't currently live near a major research library). The first paragraph is pretty much what I wanted to see in terms of describing what a fungal fossil is (a microscopic permineralization) and how it is studied. The first paragraph thus provides the context necessary for understanding the rest of the section. As for images, you might contact one of the people who took one of the pictures here, as they were willing to grant permission in the past. I unfortunately have no slides that I have full rights to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review – Most of this is pretty good, though there were some issues that I cleaned up. However, I do require your assistance in the following case(s):
File:Wn8-05-2.JPG – Please fill in the description, and see if you can get the image renamed.
Every other image looks good. NW(Talk) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the nominators should be held responsible for these problems. The only potential concerns here are sources, free license or fair use. Graham ColmTalk 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, I got to make use of my otherwise useless 4 years of high school German. Have done as requested with the images, except for the file renaming, I'll have to find someone else to help with that. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the file for rename, but have forgotten that moving of files is currently disabled on Commons. Ah well; it will be fixed eventually.
Everything with images looks great now. NW(Talk) 04:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments this article looks much better than when I last looked a few months ago - the prose is full of information so will be critical to make it as accessible to the general populace without introducing amibguity. I will make straightforward changes (please revert ones which inadvertently change meaning) and note other queries below. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some have lost the ability to form reproductive structures, and propagate solely by vegetative growth. Yeasts, molds, and mushrooms are examples of fungi. - I note these as the way they are juzaposed makes it look like the three examples in the latter are somehow related to the former. Some juggling of sentences will help with this.
...wine, beer, and soy sauce. - I would have thought bread was a more widespread example than soy sauce... (3 most common/global maybe best here?)
More recently, fungi have been used as sources.. - could be more exact and specify from the time that penicillin was discovered.
However, only limited and incomplete information exists on the true biodiversity.. - be nice to use only one adjective here surely (?)
All of these excellent points have been addressed in recent edits. Please advise if further tweaks are necessary. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have initiated a line-by-line prose review on the article's talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your comments; I've responded here. Malljaja (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Thanks Sasata and Malljaja for acting on so many of my comments. The recent additions to antibiotics and to the human uses intro are great. A couple more suggestions:
I think the lead should clarify the distinction between yeasts, molds and mushrooms. Probably the third and last sentences of the first paragraph should be merged and expanded. I suspect many readers would assume molds and yeasts are separate groups – that these terms only refer to morphologies should be made explicit early.
I've merged the two sentences into, "Commonly known fungi include yeasts, molds, and mushrooms, which are general descriptions based on appearance and growth form that are often applied to groups of unrelated species." I hope this better captures how common name usage is often unrelated to scientific groupings. Malljaja (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Characteristics: "Fungal hyphae may have multiple nuclei within each hyphal compartment, and many budding yeasts are diploid." I'd suggest eliminating the second part (diploidy is not unique to fungi), and merging the first part into the first bullet point under "Unique features". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 185 (BBC...) is lacking a last access date
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments—I've replaced most of the web-linked sources with references from journals, and checked and included an access date (I left this one in for easy access). I agree that the treesforlife site is not a reliable source (while interesting, the author does not give any sources), so I've exchanged this one with a journal citation as well. Malljaja (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link to sporocarp. Sasata (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead needs reorganizing. A basic article like this should be accessible to a high school student, but already the first two sentences use words like "eukaryotic", "monophyletic", and "phylogenetically". The reader has to work way down through a series of obscure words to get to the main things she wants to know, which are that (1) fungi consist of yeast, molds, mushrooms, and related organisms, and (2) fungi form a separate kingdom, distinct from plants and animals. It's okay to become more technical later, but a high school student should be able to get an overview of the topic without being hammered. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I thought the lead was pretty accessible already. I somewhat agree with rewording or removing "monophyletic" and "phylogenetically", but in my experience, most people know what "eukaryotic" means before high school. Would like to hear other opinions on how accessible the lead is, and perhaps some other specific examples of things that should be reworded or simplified. Thanks for your input. Sasata (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, I think the lead is accessible. This topic can be jargon-y/technical, but I think overall the editors have made the subject accessible for general readers without loosing meaning in the process. ---kilbad (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-arranged the lead following your suggestion, ie, I moved the sentence containing the words in question downward. I removed "phylogenetically", since this may also prompt the misconception to those not familiar with the term that the fungi differ from other organisms only by some exotic character. I concur with Sasata that most high school students should be well acquainted with "eukaryotic". Looking at an FA such as Genetics, I note that it also contains some technical language (e.g., heredity) that are not part of common vernacular. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that the nominators ask Tim Vickers for his opinion of the Lead? He is skilled at pitching these important sections at the just the right level. Graham ColmTalk 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graham! I've just left Tim a message to that effect. Malljaja (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on the prose - the article needs to be more accessible to the lay reader. I am a graduate student in the humanities with a strong interest in the sciences (I read popular science books for fun), but at times I was puzzled reading this article. I am one of those people who had their last science class ten years ago and doesn't use scientific terms every day. Let me show you what happens when I try to read the article (this is only a sample):
A fungus (pronounced /ˈfʌŋɡəs/) is a eukaryotic (some specific kind of cell I remember learning about long ago - didn't click) organism that is a member of the kingdom Fungi (pronounced /ˈfʌndʒaɪ/ or /ˈfʌŋɡaɪ/).[3] Fungi are heterotrophic (clicked - "eat food to make energy" is how I interpreted that word) organisms that possess a chitinous (clicked - I still don't understand) cell wall, and most species grow as multicellular filaments called hyphae (clicked - long cells that grow?) that form a mycelium (clicked - "vegetative part of a fungus" - I don't understand that, really); some species grow as single cells. Fungi reproduce sexually or asexually via spores, which are often produced on specialized structures or in fruiting bodies (clicked - my initial guess that this was similar to regular fruit seems incorrect). Some fungi have lost the ability to form reproductive structures, and propagate solely by vegetative growth. Commonly known fungi include yeasts, molds, and mushrooms, which are general descriptions based on appearance and growth form that are often applied to groups of unrelated species. The fungi are a monophyletic (clicked - still don't understand term) group, also called the Eumycota (true fungi or Eumycetes), that is distinct from the structurally similar slime molds (myxomycetes) and water molds (oomycetes). The discipline of biology devoted to the study of fungi is known as mycology, which is often regarded as a branch of botany, but fungi are genetically more closely related to animals than to plants.
The problem with relying so extensively on links, as you can see, is that the leads of the linked articles are generally extremely poor, and therefore I was just as puzzled after I read the linked leads as before. Moreover, I had to click a lot during my reading. I persevered, but most readers will not. I am willing to put my ignorance on display here (!) and help the editors figure out solutions to these problems, if they so desire. Awadewit (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a bird author I can sympathise with the difficulties of writing the lead - balancing size with precisison. It is easier to keep the lead down to size when you use accurate terms, but these terms can be difficult to navigate for the uninitiated. With regards to the above comments, I would suggest that the lead explains what hyphae (multicelular filaments) are, and most people could take a stab at what a fruiting body means, even if they aren't right about the details. It might be good to say that form the main body or mycelium or something to that effect, and I would certainly explain what monophyly means - perhaps The fungi are an evolutionary discrete group (monophyletic) or something along those lines. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To try to make this a bit more concrete, here is a sketch of a rewrite of the first paragraph -- the rest of the lead is more readable. No doubt I've screwed up something or other here, but the point is to give an illustration of how to get ideas across without either being vague or bombarding the reader with too much terminology:
A fungus (pronounced/ˈfʌŋɡəs/) is a member of a large group of organisms that includes yeast, molds, and mushrooms. Although they were once considered to be plants, modern biologists classify the Fungi (pronounced/ˈfʌndʒaɪ/ or /ˈfʌŋɡaɪ/) as a separate kingdom, on the same level as the kingdoms of plants and animals. Fungal cells have cell walls, but unlike the cell walls of plants which are made of cellulose, the cell walls of fungi are made of chitin, the material that makes up the shells of insects. Fungi can be unicellular or multicellular. They reproduce via spores, which are often produced on specialized structures or in fruiting bodies, such as the head of a mushroom. In evolutionary terms, the fungi form a monophyletic group called the Eumycota (true fungi or Eumycetes), that is distinct from the structurally similar slime molds (myxomycetes) and water molds (oomycetes). The discipline of biology devoted to the study of fungi is known as mycology, which is often regarded as a branch of botany, even though genetic studies have shown that fungi are actually more closely related to animals than to plants.
Does that help at all? Looie496 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - that is an enormous help (and you are right that the rest of the lead is better). Again, if the editors are willing, I can point out other such sections in the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggested changes Looie496, I think they are an excellent template for improving accessibility of the lead and other sections. Before we do so, I'd like to voice some concerns that I hope will inform the debate on how to proceed with this. Awadewit, many thanks for your input, but I do not agree with your assertion "...that the leads of the linked articles are generally extremely poor..." I've just visited ~10 of the first entries linked from the lead, such as eukaryote, hypha, mycelium, and while they may not be at GA level, to characterize them as "extremely poor" is misleading, as they describe the terms sufficiently well within the first few sentences. To get an idea of the level of technical language in FA articles dealing with some "arcane" areas, such as, for example, Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector, White dwarf, and Proteasome, I find that these all require some level of prior knowledge, repeated reading, and perusing of linked articles to fully grasp the topics discussed. I trust that a lay reader genuinely interested in learning more about fungi (which are an extremely complex group of organisms) would also take that leap. Moreover, I'd be wary of calibrating the lead entirely to a presumptive lay audience, seeing that many readers of this entry may be students or even experts of other fields of biology who may not bother to go beyond the lead if they find it to be too simplistic. So these are my thoughts on this admittedly somewhat thorny issue. Many thanks again for both your input, and I hope we can reach a good consensus for further improvement of this entry. Malljaja (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo Malljaja's sentiments about "aiming too low", but I do like Looie496's revised lead. Awadewit, thanks for your opinion, it is very valuable, and I was waiting for a "non-science type" to chime in about accessibility. If you could kindly make a list of sentences in the article (perhaps on the talk page) you think need rewording or simplifying, then we can deal with them on a case by case basis. Sasata (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do that. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the revised lead is good, except I don't think it is necessary t spell out what chitin is, that is one thing I think a link does much better. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too want to praise Looie496's lead, and say that for the first time, it actually registered in my mind what "chitin" is. For the non-expert like me, even if the links are relatively informative, it gets exhausting clicking ever few words, as Awadewit has pointed out, and there is only so much information one retains after so much clicking in just a few sentences. Even after reading many fungi articles, this is the first time I have realized that they belong to a third kingdom, not animal nor vegetable, and that their cell walls are made of the same substance as insect shells. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One small problem with Looie's new lead: currently it says Although they were once considered to be plants, modern biologists... As far as I know, modern biologists were never considered to be plants! :) Please be sure to fix that misplaced modifier... MeegsC | Talk 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch — now fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My issues with the prose have now been addressed. I think an evolutionary timeline would be a nice addition whenever the authors have time to make one. I cannot speak to this article's comprehensiveness or accuracy, but I do feel that it is well-written and accessible. I've been spouting interesting fungus facts ever since I started reviewing this article, so I think the authors have also done an excellent job of presenting the information in a way that engages readers. Awadewit (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments This is a mammoth undertaking, well done for taking it on. I have no background in mycology, but I found the article interesting and readable. Although the text is a little dense in places, I think it must be accepted that an article like this has to use technical terms or become submerged in glosses or misleading substitutions. Now the nitpicks:
please check for padding words, notably “however”. Is it always needed? Worst offender is Moreover, both plants and fungi possess a cell wall, a feature absent in the Animal Kingdom. However, the fungi are now considered a separate kingdom, distinct from both plants and animals, from which they appear to have diverged around one billion years ago. Perhaps better as Both plants and fungi possess a cell wall, a feature absent in the Animal Kingdom, although the fungi are now considered a separate kingdom, distinct from both plants and animals, from which they appear to have diverged around one billion years ago.
I've removed multiple instances of "however", including the example you gave. I left the two-sentence structure to avoid an overly long sentence. Does this now read better? Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peach caption. I would prefer Mold covering a decaying peach. The frames were taken approximately 12 hours apart over a period of six days.
Well-known types of fungi are the edible and the poisonous mushrooms. Many species are commercially raised, but others must be harvested from the wild. This is nonsensical. Well-known types? Are there any that are not edible or poisonous. The second sentence is obviously dealing with edible forms, but the first suggests that it should refer to poisonous as well. I would split this section in two, Edible species and Poisonous species
Done; I also re-worked some parts of this section, which have not been rigorously edited previously. I retained edible and poisonous species in one section to avoid too many subsections, but am open to slicing of the two topics if further requested. Many thanks for your support and your very helpful comments and suggestions. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly OK with me Well-known fungi are the edible mushrooms. might be better as Some edible mushrooms are well-known examples of fungi. but no big deal, I leave it to your judgement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Edible mushrooms are well-known examples of fungi." I left out the ubiquitous "Some", because some[sic] editors take issue with that. Thanks again. Malljaja (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The line one of the lead kind of suggests that yeast, molds and mushrooms are something different from Fungi but in fact they are also fungi. So, shouldn't it be changed to 'A fungus is any member...' rather than 'A fungus is a member...'. I am not happy with line one and it seems it should belong to 'Simple English' wiki rather than here. - DSachan (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To elevate the first sentence above simple English Wiki and accommodate your suggested changes, I've borrowed a phrasing as used in line one of the Bacteria entry. Does this improve the lead now? Many thanks for your comments and valuable input. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A picture of a plant pathogen would be nice. There's a nice mix of different sorts of fungi (rather than just mushrooms) but there doesn't seem to be a pathogen. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a pic of the cool rust fungus Aecidium magellanicum. If there's no objections to its inclusion, I'll add alt text in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been thinking this for ages - we could really do with a diagram of a typical fungal cell as we currently have for plant and animal cells. I think that this would really improve the article. Smartse (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the article there's several pictures that show a variety of fungal cell types: 1) a chytrid cell in the taxobox; 2) light microscopy of fungal hyphae growing in A. thaiana; 3) phase contrast microscopy of Morchella elata asci 4) microscopic view of arbuscular mycorrhizae 5) microscopic view of hyphae of the endophytic fungus Neotyphodium coenophialum 6) DIC microscopy of S. cerevisiae. Is there something specific you wanted to see? I checked the plant and animal articles and am not sure which pics there represent the "typical" cells of those kingdoms. Sasata (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to be reviewed for WP:OVERLINKing ... I found words like animal linked. See WP:LAYOUT, is all of that "See also" needed, or can those terms be linked within the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in biology "animal" is a technical term, with a precise meaning that doesn't correspond exactly to its ordinary-language meaning. In distinguishing the kingdoms of plants, animals, and fungi, linking to an explanation of the technical definition could be quite valid. Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SandyGeorgia. I agree that the linking issue is one that deserves serious attention to balance the need for providing quick links to relevant information with that of non-distracted readability. Following your suggestion, I've moved most links from the "SA" section into the text, and I'll soon endeavour on cleaning up/re-ordering links as much as possible. As Looie pointed out, some of the links here direct the reader to technical descriptions, which they may wish to peruse. I'll have a look at this to see which ones are really needed, and which ones may be merely distraction. Many thanks for your input. Malljaja (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unusual article for bluelink review and unusually dense in concepts which benefit from bluelinkage. I have taken out a few which are somewhat tangential or general, but left most in. Agree with Looie about a specific concept of plants and animals as kingdoms necessitating leaving their bluelinks. Tricky. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources analysis - There are multiple paragraphs without any citation, which is problematic. Three paragraphs without any citations. Seven paragraphs lacking citations for their final sentences. Multiple sections have extremely tiny paragraphs, which makes it seem like there might be a weight concern.
1. Wiki - "Fungi are used extensively to produce industrial chemicals like citric, gluconic, lactic, and malic acids, antibiotics, and even to make stonewashed jeans"
1. Source to this - The source lacks the word "citric", "gluconic", "lactic", "malic", "acid", etc.
2. I am concerned about sourcing. I would like someone to compare the language on the page on the paragraph beginning "The Ascomycota, commonly known as sac fungi" with this source (I lack current access). The grouping of technical terms seems like a place that would need to be checked thoroughly. Why? The article is only about one specific item and the paragraph lists many types.
3. This is one of three sources that is used to source this "Phylogenetic analysis has demonstrated conclusively that the Microsporidia, unicellular parasites of animals and protists, are fairly recent and highly derived endobiotic fungi (living within the tissue of another species)," I do not feel confident in the source verifying that information. I believe that it is cited to the sentence inappropriately. (the only lines that come close is the the section starting with "Early phylogenetic studies, using sequences of microsporidial 18S rDNA [50], EF-1α and EF-2 [51,52] also seemed consistent with a very early divergence of this taxon." and ending with "The results we have obtained show definitively that Microsporidia occupy a phylogenetic position outside Kingdom Fungi." This would mean that they are -not- Fungi at all).
4. Also cited for the above paragraph is this, but the source contradicts any certainty in the sentence: "but the nature of the microsporidian–fungal relationship has yet to be determined"
- There are other problems, but the sources are difficult to attain and the technical terms used are giving me a headache. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OR, thanks for joining the fungus party! I have made a series of edits which I hope will address some of your concerns. Specifically, I read through the article again and added several references to support sentences that might have been considered "weaselly", or reworded them to sound less so. I've added some citations to end-of-paragraph sentences, and the ones that remain uncited are those I think are non-contentious, or common-knowledge (IMO); please let me know of any specific instances where you disagree. Re: (1) the source was given to support the latter part of that sentence; I have now added another source for the production of acids (didn't think it was necessary to give a source for fungi making antibiotics). Re: (2) I've added more citations to the paragraph on the ascomycota. Re: (3) and (4) Very nice analysis, I overlooked this previously. I have now refactored that statement to clarify the uncertainty about the phylogenetic placement of the Microsporidia, and rearranged the citations to that effect. Please let us know about anything else you think needs improvement. Sasata (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the FA director: All my comments above have been resolved nicely. Just clarifying as the threads above have become a little interwoven and messy. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is so special about Fungi in California that warrants an external link but can't be included in the article (See WP:EL). Also, is the {{main}} template used correctly everywhere? Main is used when this article is a summary of that article; otherwise, seealso or further or another template should be used. Citations go after punctuation except for dashes (see WP:FN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Fungi in California link was non-essential, so I removed it. I've replaced all of the "Main" templates with either "See also" or wikilinks. I couldn't find any other misplaced puncs; I assume you fixed the one offender. Sasata (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because either I have FAcountitis, or I genuinely believe this is among Wikipedia's best work. That's up to you to decide.
In all seriousness, I've been copyediting this article bit-by-bit for a few months with the intention of eventually nominating it, so here we are. Hurricanehink (talk·contribs) wrote most of the initial content, and I've re-organized it, cleaned it up, updated the references, and improved the overall prose. That this article has been steadily improving for three years through loose and informal collaborative effort is why I believe Wikipedia is such a worthwhile project, but enough of this rant. Happy reading! –Juliancolton | Talk 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, forgot about that. Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the alt text is present , but it needs a bit of work. "Track map of hurricane" should describe where the hurricane went, since that's the key point of the image. Likewise for "Satellite image of tropical storm making landfall." (landfall where?). The "Map of rainfall totals from hurricane." should say where the rain fell, and should not bother with unimportant details like "bright blue" or the map background. "A peninsula is depicted at the center." is less helpful than mentioning "Florida" directly: more readers will know what Florida is, than will know what a peninsula is. Can you please take another crack at it? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, this seems to contradict that. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that here, we are talking about maps of the southeastern U.S. where we can expect a typical reader to know where Florida is and where the point of the image is to say "the hurricane went over northern Florida and into southern Georgia" (or whatever); whereas there, we were talking about relatively obscure islands whose visual appearance is not known to most readers and where the point of the image was to show them what the islands looked like. Admittedly this is a judgment call and reasonable editors can differ in boundary cases; but the general rule of thumb is: what would work better as a description read aloud over a telephone to a non-expert reader? Eubulides (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see; thanks for the clarification. Should be fixed now. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks good now. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] all refer to the Tornado Project. Also, as far as I know, they get their info directly from the Storm Prediction Center. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the last out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you considered the Tornado Project to be a reliable source at this FAC, for what it's worth. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The MH seems rather short.Jason Rees (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no advisories archived for Bob. Advisory archives for the ATL start in 1991. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Some notes: I would prefer if this was cited "and as such it was re-used during the 1991 season.". The fourth paragraph of "Carolinas, Mid-Atlantic, and New England" starts to list items with little connection. You could fix it by mixing up the language a bit (such as changing "Rough seas capsized a few boats along the Potomac River" to "Along the Potomac River, rough seas capsized a few boats", and you could remove the period and put "while ____ happened" to connect to the next sentence). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with a bit of copyediting. Thanks for the review and support! –Juliancolton | Talk 22:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I trust the editors' assessment above of the quality of the referencing. I do not find this FAC reaches sufficiently high standards of writing or breadth. The writing is not engaging (let alone "brilliant") and feels rather narrow and unpolished: while in places the language is vivid, in most places the article is a lifeless recital of facts, with a rather Boys' Own feel when talking of the effects of the hurricane, e.g., "In Virginia, the storm spawned three tornadoes, one of which destroyed two houses," but little that gave this reader a general sense of what was going on. Possibilities for improvement:
Broader account of the effects of the hurricane: non-meteorological photographs, quotes from eyewitness accounts of the hurricance, more substance in the account of the evacuation.
Better writing, communicating more of the sense of a narrative. We have too many unfortunate sentences, such as "Bob began moving eastward, striking southwestern Florida as a minimal tropical storm": the verb striking connects the two parts of the sentences, and jars against both, if you "begin moving", you are not "striking"; one says something like "then struck" , or starts the sentence with just "moved"; then, "striking" sounds dramatic, at odds with "minimal"; last, what is a "nimimal tropical storm"? Is it a technical term? Is it one I should hav e ever encountered before reading this article?
Even with all this fixed, I am not sure that I would find this article all that more rewarding to read: the article conveys the sense that the hurricance was not very interesting in the context of the much more interesting hurricanes that it shared a season with. I recommend listing at GA User:Chalst (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2009
It was a fairly boring and straightforward storm, certainly not a Camille or Katrina. This, combined with the fact that 1985 was quite a long time ago, makes me extremely doubtful I'd be able to find "non-meteorological photos" and such. Perhaps I could justify a fair-use rationale, but it wouldn't add much in my opinion. The article's not meant to convey a special feeling or describe people's experiences; its purpose is to provide general information about the hurricane itself, boring as it may seem. That said, I'm not sure I understand your concerns with the prose. Some examples of problematic writing would be greatly appreciated, but again, asking that it communicates more of the sense of a narrative is an unactionable objection. It's an encyclopedic article, not a narrative.
And for what it's worth, it is already a GA. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And "minimal tropical storm" seems more-or-less self-explanatory... –Juliancolton | Talk 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to withdraw my oppose, not because I've changed my mind, but because I won't have enough time to discuss the criticism, and I think it is unfair to make oppose !votes without evaluating efforts made to meet the criticism. — Charles Stewart(talk) 12:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but please don't hesitate to re-review the article should you find the time. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added Hurricanehink to the FA nom list, as you said he wrote a great deal of the prose. Feel free to remove it if I made a mistake of some kind. NW(Talk) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since Juliancolton is on vacation for the time being, he has asked me to take care of this nomination during his absence. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Thanks for the help CB. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose is not actionable. Please review the article in accordance with WP:WIAFA. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's actionable by expanding the article, and using more sources. This article simply isn't long enough. Now if an expert in the subject comes and tells me that the article covers the matter exhaustively (and reading the article makes this look unlikely) and that all the sources used constitute most of the sources available and they are used exhaustively, then fair enough. It would pass b, but no reason it should have a star (Taran is an article that passes b too; Galam Cennalath is not far off either). Otherwise the FA system and its criteria can be gamed to chunk up a huge list of stars, which is not the spirit of the system. And spirit trumps the letter. As for the letter, we have WP:IAR for this purpose. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blindly asking for more info without any evidence that the article is not comprehensive is not in the least bit helpful, I'm afraid. The length of an article is irrelevant to its quality (indeed, we have several hundred FAs that are shorter than this, including Tropical Depression Ten (2005) and Tropical Storm Erick (2007). When is an article "long enough" to be featured? I'm sorry, but I don't think there is anything I can do to reasonably satisfy your objection. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because, with all due respect, you've not provided any evidence to suggest that the article is not comprehensive, and requires more info. I believe all valuable, encyclopedic info has been exhausted. I'd be happy to continue searching if you can point out any areas that are lacking. What's missing? Have you found any major details that are currently omitted? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And FWIW, I'd likely support Taran of the Picts at FAC. If it's comprehensive, there's no reason to oppose based on its length. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope you wouldn't support with op. cit. in the citations ;-) —Ed(Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's pretty clear the article can be expanded using more (more coverage of local effects) and better sources (journals, and so on). I am seasoned enough in editing articles with few sources to know exactly how much one can get out of it. So length is a good indicator of comprehensiveness, which does vaguely bring in one FA criterion. FAs should be there for those articles ... and that I believe is what most Wikipedians probably expect from the process, irrespective of any current "gameable" flaw in the wording. I'm not as familiar with FAs now as I was 2 years ago, but then this article would not have passed. Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jordanhill railway station/archive1 (3 years ago), which failed largely (though not entirely) due to its length. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the article "can be expanded using more ... and better sources". It seems that all available sources have been used, and no additional ones have been pointed out. If there are more sources that can (but haven't) been used, then they should be mentioned. "too short" is not an actionable oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) See this comment from SandyGeorgia. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, look through the FAC talk archives for numerous discussions on "short FAs". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't buy that. It's actionable by expanding it. This "not actionable" argument resembles an attempted exploit. But we are not computers, thank you. ;) It's obvious from reading it that the article could go into lots more detail in various places, in the science, in the local effects, and so on. A google scholar search is enough to tell its source use is far from comprehensive let alone exhaustive [21], and goodness knows what a search on a geoscience bibliographic database would show (if someone can recommend one, that'd be great). Anyways, if it is the case that the closer won't use discretion to enforce the spirit of the FA process, then they can take my oppose as a fail on comprehensiveness. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources all relate to Hurricane Bob of 1991, a much more significant storm. This is the Hurricane Bob of 1985. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I think the objector has the initial burden of pointing out exactly where the gaps are at present, if they exist, in at least some detail, and it may help him to point out where he thinks gaps could be filled (I think you have to show both gaps, and that they are capable of being filled." Once that is done, the burden shifts to the nominator, to prove him wrong or fill the gaps as desired. Right now, I don't see that Deacon has met the initial burden, and thus there is nothing to act on.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is now, as I have pointed out usable sources that have not been integrated into the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance it seems the NYT article more-or-less duplicates existing info, but I'd appreciate if you could send me a copy of the Globe & Mail one. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone checked Google news for the month of the hurricane in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked there (link) before I nominated the article, and whilst I could add a few more footnotes, there's really no more useful info as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT does mostly repeat, but there are a few details that could be used (time of coming ashore in South Carolina, tides, etc.) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Julian's touched all the bases (or the equivalent cricket analogy), this is just a tempest in a teapot, then!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think I was a bit hasty in opposing. There's no point in sending you the Globe & Mail article, as it doesn't say much except "The storm was classified as a hurricane at 5:30 p.m. yesterday when sustained winds within it exceeded 120 kilometres an hour." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← I was able to scrape a couple more sentences out of an offline source. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems up to snuff for me, not lacking anywhere for the time of the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hurricane Bob was a minimal hurricane that affected the" I've never heard of a "minimal" hurricane, what is that? Perhaps "weak"? I don't know though; you're the expert.
"Bob began moving eastward, striking southwestern Florida as a minimal tropical storm." And here's the "minimal" word again.
"Damage was minimal in South Carolina where the hurricane made its final landfall." Comma after "Carolina".
"Throughout its path, Hurricane Bob inflicted $20 million in damages" "Throughout its path" is unnecessary.
"located 105 miles (165 km) northeast of where the storm made landfall"
"Much of North Carolina also received over 1 inch (25 mm) of rain, amounting to as much as 7 inches (180 mm) in Beaufort County"-->Much of North Carolina also received over 1 inch (25 mm) of rain; as much as 7 inches (180 mm) fell in Beaufort County Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 is Greek to anyone who doesn't understand meteorology. Wasn't there some article that explained how to interpret HURDAT? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"An area of low pressure formed developed into a tropical depression" Missing word between "formed" and "developed"? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The remnants of a tropical wave entered the southeastern Gulf of Mexico on July 20." The source says "eastern". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"while located 200 miles (320 km) west-northwest of Naples, Florida." Not in the source. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the tropical depression drifted southeastward" "southeast" will do.
"turned to the northeast and later to the east." "to the" can be removed (both occurences) without affecting the sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"entering the Atlantic Ocean near Vero Beach early on July 24 ." The source does not say anything about entering the ocean at that point. Also, there's a rogue space before the period.
The source says it was moving northward at Vero Beach and then subsequently mentions it making another landfall in South Carolina; so while it does not explicitly say this, the source still supports it. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and made landfall near Beaufort, South Carolina early on July 25 while maintaining winds of 75 mph (120 km/h)." The source does not say anything about the wind speed at the time of landfall.
"Bob quickly weakened over land, decaying into a tropical storm three hours after landfall." I don't know where you got "three hours" from.
This isn't the shortest FAC nomination ever, but neither is it the longest. Neverthless I believe it to be as complete an account as is now possible of the 17th-century trial of three women accused of witchcraft, apparently because they were not Catholics. Please be kind to Jane Southworth, Jennet Bierley, and Ellen Bierley, as kind as their judge was. --MalleusFatuorum 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderfully eccentric, and of course there were no problems as far as I could see. ceranthor 11:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SteveT • C. Looks good for the most part, though I come bearing nit-picks:
Lead
I'm not wild about the opening sentence. In trying to tell us too much it leaves a couple of ambiguities. As it's not explicitly stated at this point that one trial took place for the three together, the statement "in a series of witch trials that are among the most famous in English history" makes it sound as if they were tried separately, and that these trials are what we're calling "among the most famous" (rather than Lancashire trials as a whole). At the very least, changing "in a series of" to "as part of a series of" might help.
I've rewritten the lead's opening to try and make it clearer that the three women were tried together, one trial in a series of trials. --MalleusFatuorum 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that again, it's not totally clear that the Samlesbury witches' trial was distinct from those called the "Pendle witch trials", partly because the linked Pendle witches article is more a summary of the "Lancashire witch trials" (indeed, it has that term as its alternate title), of which the Samlesbury witches' incident is a part.
That Lancashire witch trials is redirected to Pendle witch trials is a historical accident to do with the original authors of those articles. Do you think it's worth a disambiguation page? There's also the interesting case of the Padiham witch, who was tried at the same assizes. --MalleusFatuorum 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a more targeted redirect might help? I think that Lancashire witch trials could redirect to Pendle witch trials#Trials—which is enough of an overview of the wider context in which the Pendle trials took place—and the bolding removed from "Lancashire witch trials" in that article's lead, as it suggests that the phrase is synonymous with "Pendle witch trials". The lead of this article is probably fine if the ambiguity leading from "in a series of" can be resolved. Perhaps: "... tried at LancasterAssizes in England on 19 August 1612 [as part of/during] a series of witch trials that are among the most famous in English history ..." Suggestion only; you're likely able to come up with something better. SteveT • C 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to go with your suggestions if that will solve the problem of ambiguity you've identified, so I've slightly rewritten the lead along the lines you suggest. In the longer run—i.e., not during this FAC—I think the best solution would be to write a proper Lancashire witch trials article, as there were more than just the trials of 1612; confusingly, the trials of 1634 are also often known as the Lancashire witch trials. --MalleusFatuorum 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"all three of the Samlesbury witches were acquitted."—have there been any discussions on whether to call them "women" or "witches"? Seeing as they got off, and y'know, because witchcraft doesn't exist, would it be more accurate to say "the three Samlesbury women were acquitted"?
I've had this discussion on the article's talk page, but it's a good point nevertheless. I've referred to them here though as the "Samlesbury witches" because that's what Potts calls them. Elsewhere I've called them, for example "the women from Samlesbury". --MalleusFatuorum 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... were accused of maleficium, or causing harm by witchcraft."—very, very slight ambiguity, as someone unfamiliar with the term might think that "causing harm by witchcraft" was a separate charge, despite the comma. Resolved by using an emdash? ("... were accused of maleficium—causing harm by witchcraft.")
Altered as per your suggestion. --MalleusFatuorum 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The trial of the Samlesbury witches has been described by some historians as 'largely a piece of anti-Catholic propaganda'"—some historians, or just one (Hasted)? What I mean is, are these Hasted's words or is she quoting the historical consensus?
I've rewritten a little to make it clearer what's meant. It's certainly a widely held view that the witchcraft trials of the 16th and 17th centuries had their roots in the religious turmoil of the period, but that specific statement I quoted was of course expressed by Hasted, not by "some historians". Hopefully it's better now.
Background
"[James'] keen interest in witchcraft"—comes across as too positive, almost enthusiastic, seeing as the next statement tells us he was actually suspicious of it. Unless it started out as such, perhaps it would be better to describe it as a "strong" or "intense" interest.
James was keenly interested in witchcraft, as evidenced by his book, and he was keen to stamp it out, hence his introduction of the death penalty. But by 1612 he had apparently become a little more sceptical of some of the evidence produced in witchcraft trials. --MalleusFatuorum 03:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got that; I just thought that saying "keen" made it sound as if he started out enthusiastic about witchcraft (before becoming fearful of it), but if you don't think so, then fair enough. SteveT • C 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "though" after "By the time of the Lancashire witch trials" is doing much; the sentence seems to work just as well without it.
Probably is redundant, I agree, so I've removed it.
I think "though" is needed there, as it suggests that James' attitude may have evolved.
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure. Changed this to "James was, however, sceptical of the evidence presented in witch trials, even to the extent of personally exposing discrepancies in the testimonies presented against some accused witches." --MalleusFatuorum 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... each justice of the peace (JP) in Lancashire was ordered to compile a list of the recusants in their area—those who refused to attend the English Church and to take communion, a criminal offence at that time."—do you think that by the time we reach "a criminal offence at that time" the focus is lost enough that a reader might have to look twice to see that we're not saying that taking communion was a criminal offence?
You may well be right. The "communion" thing doesn't seem all that relevant anyway, so I've changed it just to say "refused to attend the services of the Church of England". --MalleusFatuorum 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trial
The date of the trial is given in the lead, but not here.
"Bromley ordered the release of five before the trial began, after they had been given a warning about their future conduct."—given a warning by whom? If it was Bromley, it might as well say so.
The source doesn't say who issued the warning, although it almost certainly was Bromley. --MalleusFatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus were these poore Innocent creatures, by the great care and paines of this honourable Judge, delivered from the danger of this Conspiracie; this bloudie practise of the Priest laid open."—whose words are these? Potts'? The statement is planted at the end of the section without attribution. Was that deliberate?
They are Potts' words, I'll make that clear. --MalleusFatuorum 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster
I've moved all of The Discoverie stuff to a new article with just a short summary left in this one. --MalleusFatuorum 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modern interpretation
"It may be that JP Robert Holden was at least partially motivated in his investigations by a desire to 'smoke out its Jesuit chaplain', Christopher Southworth."—that Southworth (aka Thompson) was Samlesbury Hall's chaplain is stated more unequivocally here than in the "Examinations" section, which hedges its bets a little.
Good point. It's not absolutely certain that Christopher Southworth was the chaplain, although it's pretty likely that he was. The source is clear that Christopher Southworth was the chaplain, so I rephrase that a little. --MalleusFatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The English experience of witchcraft was somewhat different from the European one. It has been estimated that between the early-15th and mid-18th centuries about 40,000 witches were executed in Europe, as compared to fewer than 500 in England during the same period."—the comparison (500 to 40,000) is presented as an example of how things differed in England compared to Europe, but I'm not sure that works without population statistics for context.
It's a bit like comparing one American state with the USA; Europe is a much larger area with a much larger population, but I'll see if I can look out some comparative population figures for those readers who may not be sure where or what Europe is. --MalleusFatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that while most readers unfamiliar with the subject or the period can expect to know the rough sizes of England and Europe, I don't think the comparative population sizes in those centuries is something most can even guess, and so the execution figures alone don't give enough support to the English experience being much different. The conclusion could be drawn that the figure is about right—Europe executed 80 times more witches, but it's about 80 times the size too (ignoring historical border changes for a moment). Population sizes would lend much better support. It needn't be covered in the main text; perhaps a footnote would suffice. SteveT • C 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to think long and hard about this one, and as a result I've somewhat rewritten the offending passage. I think on reflection the 40,000 figure is focusing on the wrong aspect of the point I was trying to make; the important issues are the different systems of jurisprudence, the lack of any real witchhunting zeal (in general), and the different beliefs held in England and on the European continent (or Protestant vs Catholic views) at that time as to what wichcraft involved. Hopefully that's clearer now. --MalleusFatuorum 17:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That approach is a lot better; it cuts to the chase now and tells us outright what the numbers were originally only weakly implying. SteveT • C 10:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"about 40,000 witches were executed"—same comment as the one I had about the lead really, that "witches" is being used as shorthand for "people accused/convicted of witchcraft". Fine if you want to do that, but it might sound odd to some.
I understand the point you're making, but they were tried and found guilty of witchcraft, so they were legally considered to be witches, even though we might well not consider them to be witches today. In another article I tried to make the point that witchcraft is a crime that makes no sense to a modern reader anyway, but I was forced to remove that as being too pov. --MalleusFatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
More a general comment than anything that can be resolved, but it's a shame the aftermath only covers the clerk and the judges, and doesn't tell us what happened to the Samlesbury women and what the consequences were for the Southworths after their deception was uncovered. I guess if the sources don't say, there's nothing to be done about it.
As you suggest, there's nothing more recorded about the women, and because they were acquitted Samlesbury hasn't used them build a tourist industry like nearby Pendle has. --MalleusFatuorum 17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's all the weather. SteveT • C 12:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent and clear account of a fascinating episode in English history, well-presented and well-referenced. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - from what I could determine from the sources, everything appears to check out (although it was not a 100% complete check as, well, that is really hard to do over a weekend without having to travel). The article is encyclopedic, informative, and meets the requirements from what I can tell. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review - 1. Someone may be concerned with the uncited "the most famous in English history" in the lead, but I am not. 2. Phrasing - "These Lancashire witch trials were unusual for England at that time in two respects: the official publication of the proceedings by the clerk to the court, Thomas Potts, in his The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster; and in the number of the accused found guilty and hanged." You say "two respects" but you don't say respects. This is fixed by saying "in that they were officially described in a publication of the proceedings..." 3. Phrasing - "The charges against the women from Samlesbury included child murder and cannibalism, in contrast to the others being tried at the same assizes, who were accused of maleficium—causing harm by witchcraft". End the sentence at cannibalism. Start the next one - "In contrast, the others being tried at the same assizes were accused of ..." 4. "had come to the throne" - "came". 5. "and by the early 1590s" comma before "by" to separate out the parenthetical clause. 6. "a law was passed calling for the death penalty to be imposed" Why not "imposing the death penalty". "calling for" and "imposed" together makes it seem like there is no power within the law. 7. "where it was proven that harm had been caused through the use of magic, or corpses had been exhumed for magical purposes" - "where" "it was" "had been" "caused through" creates a rhetorical "wishy-washiness". How about "in cases where the use of magic or corpses had been exhumed for magical purposes was proven"? 8. "By the time of the Lancashire witch trials though, " not "Though by the time..."? 9. "attitude seems to have become more sceptical" - use of "seems" would not fit the tensing. 10. ", even to the extent of becoming personally involved" The comma is unnecessary and you would need a noun before "becoming". 11. "lawless region, an area" - semicolon would be more appropriate here. 12. "of Queen Mary, and the accession " the comma separates two connected phrases and divides a clause inappropriately. Remove the comma. 13. "priests had been forced into hiding" - "were". 14. "In early 1612" - this sentence should be moved to end the previous paragraph. 15. "had split the Southworth" just "split" is fine. 16. "recusant, and had been arrested" - the comma is inappropriate and separates two linked concepts of the same clause. 17. "did convert" - "converted". 18. "his father do not seem to have been amicable" - an odd phrasing. Use a negative word for "amicable" instead of "do not" and make sure it is in past tense ("seemed" or "appeared"). 19. "as Sir John was said" by whom? 20. "avoid it, and was reported" remove the comma and say by whom.
- Half way through and there doesn't appear to be sourcing issues so far. I will take a closer look when I have a chance. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
I've added a citation, as someone is bound to want one now that you've mentioned it.
I don't agree with your analysis of "two respects", and I think the present phrasing is preferable.
Altered as per your suggestion.
Altered as per your suggestion.
Altered as per your suggestion.
Some rewriting along the lines suggested.
Fixed (hopefully) in the above rewrite.
This is similar to a point that Steve made above, and thinking about this more I think you're probably both right. I've rewritten that sentence to say "James was, however, sceptical of the evidence presented in witch trials, even to the extent of personally exposing discrepancies in the testimonies presented against some accused witches.". The problem before, I think was the residual confusion over whether James became sceptical, or whether he was always sceptical. Given his involvement in some of the 16-century Scottish witch trials I think it's fair to say that he was always sceptical. Not of witchcraft, but of the standard of evidence needed to prove it.
As above.
As above.
I've made a slight copyedit there, but my understanding is that what follows a semicolon should be a complete sentence.
Agreed, I've removed the comma.
I think "had been forced into hiding is correct" here.
Agreed, I've moved it.
OK, I'll give you that one, I've removed the "had".
Agreed, comma removed.
I chose "did convert" quite deliberately, as a counterpoint to his father's refusal, and I think it works in that role.
I like the "did not seem to have been amicable", and I don't find it at all strange phrasing.
By John Singleton, in his witness statement. I'll make that clearer.
Sorry, I phrased the second one wrong. What I mean is that the first "respect" is a lengthy description but without any real statement. Two respects, so the first is a respect. Read this and see if it reads like a respect to you - "the official publication of the proceedings by the clerk to the court, Thomas Potts, in his The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster". It just is a long way of say "published work". There is no mention of what makes that a respect or differs that from previous cases. Simply putting the idea that "this event was officially documented unlike any of the other trials" would turn the lengthy noun into a "respect". Does that clarify the matter? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't agree. The "respect" is "the publication of the work", i.e., that it was published, as that was very usual for the time. --MalleusFatuorum 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you have to say that it is a useful source of information or something else. Think of it this way - "Malleus's appreciation of cake is unusual in two respects: a book Malleus wrote; and...". Now, do you understand what what is "unusual" about "a book Malleus wrote"? That is how I feel about the above sentence as phrased. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that proves to be a general opinion then I'll have to go along with it I suppose, but for the moment I think my version works perfectly well. --MalleusFatuorum 21:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you can take or leave my comments as you will. :) Now, after my eyes stop bleeding I will attempt to review the rest of the page or do something constructive. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review part 2
1. Comma needed - "On 21 March 1612 Alizon Device," A comma needs to denote the parenthetical clause after "March". Otherwise, 21 March 1612 Alizon Device reads as one long noun phrase. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Comma needed - "and a few minutes later Law suffered" The phrase "a few minutes later" is a parenthetical clause and should be denoted with commas or the phrase could be moved to after "suffered a stroke" if you don't want as many commas. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Comma needed - "Based on the evidence and confessions he obtained Nowell committed Alizon" A comma needs to follow "obtained" to denote the parenthetical clause. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Comma needed - "and on 15 April 1612 JP Robert Holden" See number "2" above for denoting the parenthetical or moving it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Phrasing/clause confusion - "The trial was held on 19 August 1612 before Sir Edward Bromley,[23] a judge seeking promotion to a circuit nearer London, and so may have been keen to impress King James, the head of the judiciary." Graphically, the sentence would read Subject-Descriptive (1st parenthetical statement, 2nd parenthetical statement compounded (3rd parenthetical statement)). As you can see, it is a little confusing. Instead, add a period after "Bromley" and rewrite - "As a judge seeking promotion to a circuit closer to London, he may have been keep to impress King James, the head of the judiciary." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Vagueness - "before the trial began, after a warning about their future conduct." The "before" and then "after" causes confusion and the use of "future conduct" is vague. Try "before the trial began with a warning against future misconduct." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Phrasing - "chief prosecution witness" Not the "prosecution's chief witness"? "chief" seems to most appropriately characterize "witness" and not "prosecution", especially with "prosecution" serving as an adjective in its current state. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Word choice - "Grace was the first to give evidence." Not "testify"? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Comma needed - "In her statement she" Denote the parenthetical clause with a comma following "statement". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10 Phrasing - "She claimed they transported" Why not "that they"? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Phrasing - "by her hair, and tried to persuade her" Was the persuasion accomplished on the hayrick as suggested by the phrasing? If not, try "by her hair and then tried to persuade". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Word choice - "had taken her to the house" and "they had stolen" - "took her" and "they stole". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Phrasing - "suck its blood" is "suck" the best word or would "drink" be more appropriate? Suck invokes a vampiric image that would not arise until 200 years after. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Comma use - "Grace alleged the child died the following night, and that after its burial at Samlesbury Church Ellen and Jennet" The commas are denoting the wrong clauses. Instead, remove the comma after "night", add one after "that", and add one after "Church". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Phrasing - "some of it" is "it" appropriate for a dead child? Try "body" or "corpse", which would also invoke the horror that accompanied the original testimony. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Context - "Grace alleged" - When - "after"? "also" if placement isn't known? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Word choice - "attended sabbats held every" Try "witches' sabbats" instead to clarify to the audience without forcing them to dig if they do not understand the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Phrasing - "was the next to give evidence." - "provide evidence" or "testify" would seem to be more technically pleasing than "give". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Clause confusion - "He confirmed that his child had died of unknown causes at about one-year-old, and added that Grace Sowerbutts had been discovered lying as if dead in his father's barn on about 15 April, and did not recover until the following day" Try - "He confirmed that his child, about one-year-old, had died of unknown causes. He added that Grace Sowerbutts was discovered lying as if dead in his father's barn on about 15 April and did not recover until the following day." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Tense - "records that" Everything else in the article appears to be in a type of past tense except for Potts related verbs. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Clause confusion - "However, before passing sentence, Bromley asked the women what answer" You begin with two parenthetical clauses. Try "However, Bromley asked the women, before passing sentence, what..." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Clause confusion - "aka Thompson, a Jesuit priest who was in hiding in the Samlesbury area;[34] Southworth was the chaplain at Samlesbury Hall,[35] and Jane Southworth's uncle by marriage." A very complex way of phrasing and allows for clause confusion. End the previous sentence and start with "Also known as Thomas", he was a Jesuit priest hiding in Salmesbury area while serving as the chaplain at Samlesbury Hall and was Jane Southworth's uncle by marriage." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Tense - "it had been under secret government surveillance" "was" instead of "has been" would clarify the phrase. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Phrasing - "only one real mass witchhunt" That is a long list of descriptives. Is "real" necessary? Or does "real" modify the modifier "mass"? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Phrasing - "accounted for more than 20% of the fewer than 500 witches" "more than" "fewer than" is rhetorically confusing. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-That should be everything Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
There is no "parenthetical clause after 'March'".
I think "and a few minutes later Law suffered" is fine as it is.
Added the comma as suggested.
Don't agree, as per 1.
Altered to "and who may therefore have been keen to impress King James".
"before the trial began with a warning against future misconduct" doesn't work, as the trial didn't begin with a warning against future conduct. Rewritten as "Before the trial began, Bromley ordered the release of five of the eight defendants from Samlesbury, with a warning about their future conduct."
I'd suggest that "prosecution witness" is a compound noun, and that "chief prosecution witness" is perfectly idiomatic phrasing.
I think "give evidence" is more accurate than "testify", because in 17th-century English courts witnesses didn't usually give evidence, the statement they'd made to the magistrates earlier were simply read out. Potts' account of the trial isn't entirely accurate from a jurisprudence perspective, so whether Grace "testified" or not isn't clear. Probably she didn't.
Don't agree that a comma is needed here, or even desirable.
Changed to "that they".
Transporting her by the hair to the top of a hayrick and persuading her to drown herself were two separate incidents, which I've clarified.
I think "had taken her to the house" and "had stolen" is correct, as the alternative "took" leaves open the possibility that they did so repeatedly.
"Suck" is the word that Grace uses in her statement: "... and afterwards did take a pen and put it in at the said place, and did suck there a good space".
Moved comma as suggested.
I think "it" for body/baby is appropriate here. Grace in her statement also uses the word "it", for "child".
Just another one of the allegations in Grace's statement. I've changed it to "also alleged".
Changed to "witches' sabbats".
Giving evidence is a perfectly normal description: "I swear by almighty God that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
Altered as per suggestion.
Rewritten as: "On being asked by the judge what answer they could make to the charges laid against them ...".
I think "Potts reports" is OK, as it's not Potts himself I'm referring to, it's his book, which still reports the facts as they're presented.
I think the present text is more accurate than your suggested alternative. Christopher wasn't just in hiding "while" he was chaplain at Samlesbury Hall, he was a member of the Southworth family who lived at Samlesbury Hall, so may well have been in hiding there whether or not he was its chaplain.
Changed "had been" to "was", as suggested.
I've changed "only one real mass witchhunt" to "only one really mass witchhunt". The exact phrase used by the source is "one really mass witch-craze".
Changed to "That one incident alone accounted for more than 20% of the number of witches it is estimated were executed in England between the early 15th and mid-18th century, fewer than 500."
No, the "March" is part of the clause - i.e. "On 21 March 1612". A parenthetical clause is a dependent phrase that is added to clarify or modify, but can be removed and the rest of the sentence still reads as a complete sentence (i.e. it is not essential to the independent clause). Not denoting the parenthetical clauses would cause grammatical confusion, especially when you have nouns (the month, per this example) along side of subjects and objects. Also, the "evidence" is not the important part - the "give" sounds inappropriate. "Provide" sounds like a more appropriate word. Provide implies that it was made available and it was taken, whereas the "gives" has a more active role that would place her more in a rhetorical position of a prosecutor or a judge than as a witness. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your analysis. "On 21 March, 1612" woul dbe comma madness. There is no ambiguity that needs to be resolved by introducing commas. --MalleusFatuorum 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comma would go after the date. You wouldn't divide the date. >.< Let me break it down for you pictorially so you can understand what I am saying: "On 21 March 1612 Alizon Device, who lived just outside the Lancashire village of Fence, near Pendle Hill,[18] encountered John Law, a pedlar from Halifax."
The subject is "Alizon Device". The verb is "encountered". The object is "John Law". That is the sentence. The phrase "On 21 March 1612", "who lived just outside the Lancashire village of Fence", and "a pedlar from Halifax" are dependent clauses since they lack the proper Noun/Verb phrase structure. Dependent clauses that modify/clarify the main independent clause are parenthetical statements. You denote them with commas as to not confuse the parenthetical with the Subject/Object of the sentence. Thus, the noun phrase "21 March 1612" must be separated out with commas or it will be confused with the noun phrase "Alizon Device". As a picture, it would be N + N, descriptive, V O, descriptive. Even when you read the line aloud, you instinctively add a pause after the first noun phrase so it does not run into the subject/noun phrase that follows. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel strongly about this Ottava then please go ahead and change the sentence as you see fit; it works perfectly well for me as it is. --MalleusFatuorum 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm not going to oppose anyone over any of these nor force anyone to take them. :P You just said you didn't understand what the reason is. The English teacher in me demands that I explain it until you get what was being said. Rules can be broken and are quite often. However, there is normally a rationale for the rule. :) The above is done to separate out dependent clauses and ensure that there isn't grammatical confusing. After all, English is not an inflective language that marks its subjects and objects. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Ottava, and to be clear I don't dispute the accuracy of your technical analysis, nor am I properly qualified to understand it, but my view on comma useage has always been "if in doubt, leave it out", and I just don't see any plausible confusion here that needs to be resolved by the addition of a comma. Anyway, thanks for all the work you've put into this review, much appreciated. --MalleusFatuorum 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I would have supported before I started listing things. :P The above allows me to prove that I have actually looked at the article instead of people assuming that I support your articles simply because we've worked together quite a bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone who believed that you and I might be in cahoots over an article review doesn't really know either of us very well. --MalleusFatuorum 22:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Well, I have to make you suffer - it isn't fair you get five supports in five days. :P My article on one of the greatest poems ever written is stagnant at just two supports and no other reviews because it lacks the appeal of witchery. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd be really nitpicking, the improvements I noted were so minor. Good read, I think we're over the line here (or in the pentagram or whatever :)) Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was an interesting and well told, if somewhat depressing read. Only one real niggle - and which also involved the Pendle witches. What? Who? Its a bit tacked on and unclearly phrased. Other than that; good, yep. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Pendle witches are significant because of the ordering of the trials, and also because they're far better known than the Samlesbury witches. I'll have a think about how the wording in the lead could be made clearer. --MalleusFatuorum 15:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a non sequitur at present, was one in a series of witch trials....English history...which also included those of the more well-known.... I'd reword, but I'm not sure what you are getting at. Otherwise the page is lovely. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it's a non-sequitor, but all it's trying to say is that the trial of the Samlesbury witches was one in a series in which the Pendle witches were also tried. Perhaps we're missing a Lancashire witchcraft trials article. --MalleusFatuorum 16:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to beat such a minor stick, but the sentence, to me, reads: a series of trials that were of a series which (1) were among the most famous in English history (2) and included those of the more well-known Pendle witches. Inclusive. This is very easily fixed'; I dont like back forth on such a minor issue when otherwise the article is stong; very good work here. Ceoil (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The nominator has tackled or successfully rebutted all the issues I spotted, and it meets everything at WP:FACR as far as I can tell, so I'm more than happy to support its promotion. Looking at the little that's been written about these women, this article is probably the finest single resource available anywhere, and is an interesting read to boot. Nice work, SteveT • C 10:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominating this article as it seems to meet the criteria. Best known for his classic comeback to an ill-conceived order from higher command during the Battle of Rabaul in 1942, John Lerew was also notable for his contributions to flying safety in the Air Force and to the world of civil aviation. Recently listed GA-Class, also A-Class on the MILHIST project and others. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great article about an interesting airman and meets the FA criteria. I would suggest that you go through the article again to tweak material which has been written in a passive voice though. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate - tweaked a couple but left others where I think it helped to mix up the expression a bit. More than happy for you to point out or modify any other instances you think should be altered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks for those mods, Nick - another pair of eyes never hurts...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is present and is of good quality (thanks) but has some problems:
Alt text for one tiny image is missing (see "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page). It's a purely decorative image, so I suggest adding "|link=" as per WP:ALT #When to specify.
Two images have exactly the same alt text "Single-engined military monoplane in flight". I suggest adding a brief summary to the alt text of visual details where these images differ. Likewise for the twin-engined.
The first portrait should have alt text that tells us a bit more what he looked like; currently the visually impaired reader will be clueless about appearance. The 2nd portrait's alt text can assume the reader has seen the first portrait's alt text, but should give a significant detail or two as to how this portrait differs. (Is it the stripes on his sleeves? Inquiring minds want to know....)
Heh, tks mate, as with Nick's prodding earlier, making one re-think a few things that seemed cut-and-dried is a big part of what a review's about - see what you think now. BTW, you were right the first time about the last image, essentially same info as the first so used "link=". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that fixed the problem with the 1st portrait and the airplanes. The tiny little image still needs a link=, I expect. And the 2nd portrait is missing alt text entirely; I expect it really needs alt text rather than a link= as it cannot be purely decorative, surely. To see all this, it might help to visit the "alt text" link in the toolbox at the upper right corner of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, we were talking at cross-purposes there. I missed entirely the little flag image you were referring to; when you said something was missing alt text entirely I thought you meant the last portrait, which was missing alt text after my first pass at it before FAC, due to a syntax error on my part. Anyway, there is in fact one minor diff between the two portaits in the type of uniform and placement of the Group Captain's stripes, so put that in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The resulting alt text looks good. Thanks for doing this so quickly. Eubulides (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prose looks good on a preliminary scan through, Ian. I'll return and edit if necessary. I enlarged some of the pics, given their level of visual detail and the change in the guideline at MoS. Can you check whether they're too big? They were, IMO, decidly too small. Tony(talk) 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I've inserted spaces after the page abbr. "p./pp." Tony(talk) 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for ce/review Tony. I share your pref for larger-than-thumbnail images where appropriate so have no prob with these bigger renditions of the pics but am happy to hear other opinions. I'm aware of the discussion going on at FAC talk page on this subject, though I hadn't bought in as yet... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - an excellent article, I have only three minor comments that shouldn't hold up my support of the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and the original name Le Roux" - is there a word missing here?
I'm not a fan of using an article subject's christian name, as in "John was" - If you can't use the surname for disambiguation reasons then I recommend using the whole name, i.e. "John Lerew was".
"his crew were believed killed" - do you mean just at the time, or that they are still considered to have died in the crash today?
Tks Jacky - actioned all suggestions (crew was only "believed killed" at the time but this was confirmed subsequently so "died" is simpler here...). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Pretty much there.
I've done some light copyediting (there wasn't much to do). Besides removing a few extraneous words, I increased the use of pronouns, mostly at the expense of Lerew's name, which I found somewhat overused. Feel free to revert anything you find unhelpful.
"Lerew held various base commands including RAAF Station Townsville, Nowra in New South Wales..." I can't make out exactly what this means. Was RAAF Station Townsville in Nowra? If so, isn't it redundant to say that it was in NSW? If you feel the need to indicate that Nowra is in NSW, wouldn't "Nowra, New South Wales" be a more conventional way of doing so?
Just wanted to clearly distinguish the three bases: Townsville; Nowra; Batchelor. Happy to take suggestions...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked a little - could forego the "in" if you think that looks better while still indicating three bases/locations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Promoted Group Captain..." Should the word "to" be in there, or is this a standard way of describing these things in military parlance?
Believe this is acceptable militarise, unless anyone wishes to correct me on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Lerew received credit for a number of ICAO's resolutions over the next decade..." "Resolution" strikes me as an odd choice of words here. Would "accomplishments" be better, or am I missing something?
I think "resolutions" could be argued but agree "accomplishments" is more straightforward and have altered accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support once these decidedly minor points are addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for your review/ce Steve. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My concerns, to the extent that they existed, have been addressed to my satisfaction. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The description, categories, and author for commons:File:Wirraway (AWM AC0141).jpg all need to be fixed. Other than that, the images could probably be categorized a bit more, but nothing really that major. Do you think you could take care of that? Thanks, NW(Talk) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for review mate - all updated now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The biography of an Australian First World War Victoria Cross recipient, the article has been passed as both GA and A-Class by WikiProject Military history. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation: you have a very pronounced tendency for a certain sentence structure in which the subject appears only following a participle phrase at the beginning of the sentence (see, for example, the second paragraph of the lead as you submitted it: "Born in the Victorian town of Highton, Newland joined...", "Returning to Australia, he continued...", "Transferring to the militia in 1907, Newland gained...", "Following the outbreak of the First World War, he was appointed...", "Wounded in the days following the landing, Newland was evacuated..."). There's nothing wrong with this sentence structure, but it can grow a little repetitive. I've mixed things up a bit in this article, but it's something you may want to be aware of in subsequent articles.
Another thing to be aware of: you underuse pronouns (in this article, in favour of Newland's name and the name of his units). Again, I've culled a few of these, so I think this article is fine, but you may want to be aware of this in the future.
One more thing to keep on eye on in your future writing: you use quite a few extraneous verbs. Rather than writing "managed to enter", just write "entered". Instead of "were able to secure", try "secured". Generally speaking, saying the same thing with fewer words is an improvement.
In response to the above, this is one of my slightly older articles, and I have been debating whether to take it to FAC or not since I worked on it some months ago. The above were major traits of my writing that have been picked up on before, and I think I have since developed my writing somewhat to reduce these issues. Abraham, B.S. (talk)
There are a few terms that I wasn't sure about, owing to my lack of familiarity with military issues. I've left these as is, but if you could confirm that "strongpoint" and "frontline" are acceptable military terms, despite being underlined in red in my browser window.
Yep, to the extent of my knowledge they are. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...which was to the left of Newland's A Company." "to the left" seems to me to be a very odd way of putting this. Is it standard in military articles to adopt this terminology in preference to "to the west of" (or whatever)?
I made a mistake here; it was actually the right. I would prefer to state the direction in terms west, etc, but the source only states "to the right of". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that references 8, 9, 13, and 18 are all for the same source. Am I mistaken?
They are all from the same publisher and are similar in composition, but are different sources. They are the official recommendations for each of Newland's decorations. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images verifiably in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and copyedit, mate; it is much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - My concerns are resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very nice article. I can't see anything that needs changing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prose reads well, pictures are tasteful and not overbearing (although a trifle repetitive - is there another picture of the subject which can replace one of the captaincy portraits), well sourced. Nice job. -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the the review, mate. That is one of the pain in the butt things about such notable/decorated military personnel; one can usually only find portraits on the subject than anything. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Reliability and formatting of the sources looks good. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very good work in my opinion (although I got the last review wrong, so who knows...) Anyway, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the the review, mate. I do not think ones review can ever be really wrong; just their interpretation of the criteria may be off. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All four images look wonderful; good job. NW(Talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, thanks for the review mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers what was both the most successful and last attack by a Japanese submarine off the Australian coast during World War II. It recently passed a Military History wikiproject A-class review and has since been improved thanks primarily to comments from Abraham, B.S. and Joe N. As such, I believe that it now meets the featured article criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 1a.
I had to fix the date range, which in "Background" was squashy. (It's fine in the infobox.) Please see the advice in the MilHist style guide. Date ranges are important for MilHist.
Have we gone to a new wording for daughter article links at the tops of sections? "For more details on this topic, see Axis naval activity in Australian waters." I can't recall the standard text, but this seems wordy. At least remove "on this topic"?
I've replaced this with {{main}}, which is probably better here given the length of the article's name Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"outdated doctrine"—sounds very political; will the reader finish the article with even a brief idea of what the doctrine was, and why it was outdated (at the time)? And was this an Australian trait? Are we comparing with other English-speaking countries? Also, consider "poor training" rather than "a lack of training" (but you may think the current wording is more accurate).
I've clarified this to explain that the Australian military hadn't been keeping up with improvements to anti-submarine tactics in other areas. The main training problem was a lack of opportunities to train rather than the actual quality of the training which was provided (though it was a bit behind the times).
"on 5 June. On 7 June"—I relocated, but watch such reps.
In trying to avoid a high density of "she"s, I substituted the name of the ship once; please check whether I messed up.
Looks fine, thanks
See what you think of my commas; to my liking, there were slightly too few.
Seems good to me - I seem to use less commas than most editors
Sometimes the dodgy "noun plus -ing" construction is so easy to improve: "The Australian failure to sink the submarine was due to a lack of practice and to insufficient ships being available for an adequate search scheme." See this?
I've just made a run through the article and removed some of the 'ing's Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Alt text is present but has some problems.
Alt text and caption have duplicated material; by and large they should have little in common (see WP:ALT #Difference from captions).
Alt text contains phrases that cannot be immediately verified by someone who is looking only at the images and is not an expert in the subject: "Japanese", "I-168", "I-174", "I-174 was from the same class as I-168.", "Australian Bathurst class corvette HMAS Deloraine", "USS LST-469", "August 1943", "the location of the attack on Convoy GP55". This material should be rewritten or removed or moved to caption. See WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 3.
Thank you for those comments - I've just updated the alt text so that it's hopefully consistent with the guideline. Example 3 is very useful! Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Links all work on the link checker, and the source reliability looks okay. The only question I have is whether an access date should be added to the Combinedfleet.com reference in the bibliography. Otherwise, the formatting also looks good. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've just added an access date for that link Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine article, Nick, well sourced (nice to see Wilson's thesis there, I've found it useful for some of my articles as well). Just a few queries/comments, mainly to do with expression, none of which significantly affect my support:
Intro:
which travelled between Sydney and Brisbane - I think we'd generally use "that travelled" rather than "which travelled"; occurs in Background and Attack also...
is three Landing Ships, Tank acceptable, rather than three Landing Ship, Tank? Just curious...
Background:
greatly expanded the number of aircraft - "greatly increased" might be more more logical
tactics which had proven most successful in other theatres of the war - apart from the "which/that" thing, this kind of makes me expect "such as..." at the end, i.e. briefly, what might they have done but didn't?
Attack:
three ships in the centre columns and two in those at the edges - does this mean it was effectively one ship per column or is that too simple?
where she was presumed to have attacked from - would prefer from where she was presumed to have attacked
While the corvettes believed that they had sunk I-174, she was only lightly damaged and withdrew to the east - "had withdrawn" seems to agree more with "the corvettes believed"
Aftermath: 80 nautical miles (150 km) box - wouldn't a box be nautical miles square?
Thanks for those excellent comments Ian. I've added them all except for the one on tactics (the sources are annoying vague about how the Australian military was behind the times - it's simply asserted that the tactics were not those being used elsewhere) and I-174's withdrawal, as she withdrew at the same time that the corvettes gave up hunting her in the belief that she'd been sunk. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, we're always constrained by the wording in our sources; just took care of a few more instances of the above style tweaks as well... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian - much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: well done in my opinion. I just have one minor point: should the in line citations be in numerical order where you have multiple citations beside each other? There is one instance where they are not in numerical order. It is in the first paragraph in the Aftermath section (citation # 22 appears before # 17). I've not changed it myself in case I am mistaken about the need for this. It is a nitpick, but that is basically because I couldn't find anything else to say...;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a second instance of non-numerical order refs. It is in the last paragraph of the Attack section (citation # 15 before # 11). This was caused by me, though, because I found a ref that hadn't been consolidated. I've not re-ordered the numbers, though, as I'm still not sure if it is a requirement. Sorry if I've created more work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't know that it's a requirement but I think it's neater - certainly no-one's ever had a go at me for doing it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those comments. I also don't think that multiple refs need to be in numeric order, but it certainly does look neater. I've just tidied this up. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review(Oppose, for now). When you fix the below problems, could you post a note on my talk page? Thanks
File:I-68.jpg needs a lot more source information. Could you track down the source link (The ID# is NH 73053 if that helps) and add {{information}} to the page, filling in as many parameters as possible?
Done. The U.S. Navy web page where the photo was taken from states that "To the best of our knowledge, the pictures referenced here are all in the Public Domain, and can therefore be freely downloaded and used for any purpose" Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for your work. Images look great now. NW(Talk) 14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Done; thanks. Alt text is in fairly good shape but needs a few improvements. The proper names should be removed from the lead image's alt text (and perhaps moved into the caption), as they aren't immediately obvious to a non-expert who is merely looking at the images; see WP:ALT #What not to specify. Similarly, the word "cream" (as a color, which cannot be verified from a black-and-white photo) should be removed, as should "who is their host", "the manager", "military cricketers", and the word "team" in "team blazer" should be changed to "uniform". The phrase "16-yeard old boy" should be rephrased to the less-specific "teenager" and the sentence punctuated with a period. A nit: use an endash (–) in "aged 20–35". Eubulides (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: a well written, researched and illustrated article which meets the FA criteria in my opinion. I found the subject to be very interesting. I have checked it a couple of times and couldn't see much wrong with it. The alt text seems good (but I'm new to it), the external links check out (there was one that apparently had a connection issue, but when I clicked on it, it seemed to work fine). I couldn't get the disambig tool to work, as it seems like it might still be down. The only possible MOS issue I can see is in the references section, the format of the Syd Barnes book is different to all the others (i.e. the year appears after the title). Could you please check this and see if it can be tweaked? Anyway, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wow. When I created the article I wondered if I'd ever find more than a few lines about some grey admin man. What an amazing job done by various WP:CRIC people, but especially YellowMonkey. I'm going through it, giving it a light copyedit, but it's outstanding. --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What did he do between 1953 and his death in 1972, other than collect an MBE? --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know. Per Haigh and Frith's book as noted at the bottom, the ABC records do not mention him at all after he resigned, Wisden said nothing, Haigh, Frith and Derriman had full access to the ABC and NSWCA archives because they were commissioned to write the history of the admins YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder about the photograph of Barnes aged 16 on the left side, somewhat disrupt the text I would hazard to mention. Perhaps that would make a could photo for alongside the lead? Also, is there not an infobox that is suitable? Even if its the generic "sports person" or "sports administrator" or just "person" ones. SGGHping! 10:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Sources check out on reliability. Couple of formatting notes: reference 3 has half of the titled unlinked; apparently the double bracketed sics are to blame. Reference 58 gives an author's name as Philip Derriman, while ref 61 gives it as Phil. Not sure this is even worth worrying about, but I might as well mention it while I'm here. Looking forward to reading this one. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it gives an thorough discussion of the subject and meets all of the criteria for FAC, or can do so with a minimal amount of editing. The work on the article has been a collaboration of several editors who have been able to add quality information with excellent sources and a good understanding of the text. Mrathel (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the alt text is done; thanks. I suggest somewhat-briefer alt text entries for images of manuscripts; the current descriptions are a bit long and contain details such as color that are not all that important here. Eubulides (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am delighted to find this wonderful poem at FAC. However, from a reading (so far) of the lead and Background sections, I believe a fair amount of work may still be necessary, as the writing is quite wayward at times.
Lead
"Winchester, England..." "England" is redundant - as he walked to London, it couldn't have been one of the American versions.
Suggestion: a paragraph break after "an autumnal evening" would in my view improve the presentation
Second para, first line: a comma is necessary after "eleven lines", since the subsequent "each" refers to stanzas, not lines.
Background
Starting sentences with "Additionally" usually does nothing for prose. In this case I suggest the word should be dropped.
Second paragraph needs significant attention; it does not at present follow very well from the first, and is rather confusing. It is not clear whether the poem referred to in the first line is To Autumn. And, having in the previous paragraph said that Keats was devoting all his time to writing poetry, we are now told: "Keats spent very little time writing poetry as a consequence of his troubled life at this time". It is not clear what "at this time" refers to; the chronology needs clarification. Also, having been told of "a multitude of personal problems" we are only told of one, regarding his brother. A brief indication of other problems would be helpful.
Fourth paragraph: again, it is not clear whether the poem not sent to Reynolds is To Autumn; it could easily be "the great poem" referred to in the previous sentence. Also, the swift repetition of the words "the poem" is awkward prose.
This long and somewhat convoluted sentence needs attention: "Although the publishers Taylor and Hessey were afraid of publishing Keats's volume with the possibility of bad reviews that plagued Keats's 1818 edition of Endymion, they were willing to publish the collection after they were allowed to remove any potentially controversial works." My suggestion: "Although the publishers Taylor and Hessey feared the kind of bad reviews that had plagued Keats's 1818 edition of Endymion, they were willing to publish the collection after the removal of any potentially controversial poems."
I will be back later with comments on the remaining sections. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I am unsure of what the MoS states on cities. Most of the FACs I've seen specify the country after a city in order for clarity (so people don't have to hunt down the information on other pages). Does anyone passing by know? It doesn't matter either way to me. Ottava Rima (talk)
Countries are added when there is scope for misunderstanding. There is no possible confusion here; the "England" merely looks intrusive. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to agree with that. Changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am afraid that it would make the paragraphs too small and the page is too small to justify more than two paragraphs per MoS WP:LEAD statements. I would hate to have someone want it changed back per the MoS and be stuck between two competing opposes. Ottava Rima (talk)
I'd hardly oppose on this! I just thought that the declarative statement might have more force on its own, but you may well be right. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The phrase is "eleven lines each" and not "eleven lines". To have the "each" read as you read it would require "with" to be placed before it. I changed it to "eleven lines each that describe" to clarify this. Without the "each" connected to "eleven lines", then it would be uncertain if the poem is 33 lines or 11 lines in length. Ottava Rima (talk)
The line as previously written was ambiguous. I think it still is, slightly. All ambiguity would be removed if the sentence began "The poem has three stanzas, each of eleven lines, that describe..." Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice problem solving skills. I like the reword. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. "Additionally" is a descriptive added in a parenthetical manner to rhetorically state that there is a secondary idea following the preceding comment but is not essential to understanding the preceding comment. It can be removed, but it would lose the rhetorical linking affect. Ottava Rima (talk)
My (very mild) objection was based on aesthetic, not grammatical grounds. I will leave this to you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it to Mrathel. :) He is the primary on this (I'm the primary on the other half of the 1819 odes). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. "It is not clear whether the poem referred to in the first line is To Autumn." - I've changed it to 1819 as the problems affected him throughout the whole year. I have also removed "at this time", as the use of 1819 clarifies the timing. I altered "personal problems" to "financial problems", as the personal problems would not require him to need money. Keats's love life is not discussed, nor does it have the same impact as Keats's need to earn money had, so it would not be important to get into (and thus "financial" is appropriate instead of "personal"). Ottava Rima (talk)
"the poem unites poetic process and temporal stasis" Well put, but will general readers understand this rather scholarly phrasing?
Another of those rather clumsy sentences that needs refashioning: "The poem does partially originate in his earlier works as the language is related to many of the phrases found within Keats's previous poems, including Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore." My suggestion: "The poem partially originates in Keats's earlier works, with its language related to many phrases found within poems such as Endymion, Sleep and Poetry, and Calidore."
Second paragraph: it's the language accessibility issue again. Will this language engage the general reader? Should there be quite so much reliance on links to explain specialist terms? I am not suggesting a complete dumbing-down, but I had a similar problem recently with The Bartered Bride, when trying to explain the metres of Czech verse, and was told to simplify. For consideration.
This is not an easy problem for me to address. I do understand that the average reader will have a problem with this paragraph, but the only answer I see is to give a broader explanation of each of the terms to help the reader along. I think that the information found here is necessary to understanding the structure of the poem, but I am not sure how much should be sacrificed to meet the demands of the average reader. Mrathel (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In terms of revision, the language was tightened between the manuscript version and the published version of "To Autumn". Basically this sentence is saying that in terms of revision, the poem was revised. May I suggest simplify to: "The language of "To Autumn" was tightened between the manuscript and the published version".
Awkward: "Many of the lines were deleted and completely redone within the second stanza,..." Suggest: "Many of the lines within the second stanza were completely rewritten,..." (and I have doubts about the need for "completely")
I do not have the Bate text on hand to be able to verify if the grave accent is necessary here. Mrathel (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
First sentence reads slightly heavy-footed. How about: "To Autumn" is thematically connected to many of Keats's 1819 odes."?
Second sentence: Suggest preface with "For example", place comma after "process of life", and specify "this poem". Thus, with other slight tweaks: "For example, his "Ode to Melancholy" introduces acceptance of the process of life, and this concept is reestablished within "To Autumn".
The comma after "Ode to Psyche" is wrong, as what follows is an independent statement. Could be rephrased: "..."Ode to Psyche", in describing an artist that is able to bring about creation." But it is unclear who or what this "artist" is. This needs to be clarified, since much of the rest of this paragraph relates to this "artist".
"The poem as a whole creates an image of death and a finality within the imagination that is welcomed." Suggest: "The poem as a whole creates within the imagination an image of death and a finality that is welcomed."
"...the poem was an escape from the violence of the incident." What incident?
"Although Jerome began..." Good to be on matey terms with the critics, but I think this should be McGann.
A few comments this evening, then I'm done. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in most of these cases that the language, while often elegant, should probably be brought down to a lower level. I will get to work making the necessary changes this afternoon. Mrathel (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note - the Bate text has the accent. The original poem has the accent, as it was used for syllable reading. It is not important for comprehension. Some editors drop it from later publications. You can remove it and it wont hurt my feelings. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some more changes here (that includes Mrathels also). All of the above should now be addressed. I changed a little about the artist and I hope it now reads clearly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
Themes (continued)
Third paragraph: sorry, can't follow the line here. McGann argues that the poem was an escape from the violence of the Peterloo Massacre and the political climate of 1819. Other critics "focused more on the political qualities of the poem", and one of them apparently endorses the Peterloo connection, Yet, "Later, Paul Fry further refuted McGann's stance..." What previous refutation has there been? And who has actually suggested that the poem is "an evasion of social violence" (not a readily understandable term)? The trouble with most literary critics, I find, is that they tend to write in a highly elitist style (the Fry quote is a good example); it is usually preferable to paraphrase them than to quote them at length, verbatim.
On the same issue, I have absolutely no idea what the Bewell quote means.
Critical reception: This section reads like modern critical appraisal rather than "critical reception". With the exception of the Swinburne comment, late 19th century, all the quotes date between 1963 and 2008, around 150+ years after the poem's publication. Was there no critical comment before Swinburne's? How was the poem received on publication – surely Byron et al had something to say?
Nitpick: books in the reference list need ISBNs.
In summary, most of my comments are relatively trivial. The question of readability is a bit more serious, and I believe that the last section needs rethinking. I look forward to supporting this nomination when these questions have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally added the Peterloo Massacre before it came up. I removed it. As for the Bewell, I don't really know how to explain it so I just summarized the point as this. As for the critical reception, were there any in particular that you had in mind? The quote from Bate at the beginning makes it certain that the view expressed was always true. I added some other scholars (2 paragraphs, mostly of those who phrase it in an interesting manner). If you have any others in mind, please point them out. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added all of the ISBNs and OCLCs. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the various simplifications to the article's prose have undoubtedly increased its general readability, and I think the extent of specialist language now remaining can be justified. Before I sign off, just three final points:-
Sorry to bring this up again, but in my most recent readthrough I noticed that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Background section are still contradictory. In para 1 we have Keats, from spring to autumn 1819, entirely devoting himself to poetry. In paragraph 2 we have Keats distracted by money worries, with no time for poetry until apparently resuming his writing in September. The statements need to be reconciled.
"barrèd" in the text, "barred" in the poem itself. Whether the accent is important or not, should there be consistency?
Critical reception: the point I was making was – how was the poem received on its first publication? Did people immediately say "This is a great poem" (or words to that effect)? Or was its greatness only proclaimed when the later Victorian critics got at it? You have, I see, added some 19th century comment, but the earliest is Arnold's, some 45 years after publication. I would like to see what the contemporary critical reaction was.
I agree on all of your points. We need to clarify the background section, point out when the accent was removed from barred, and find a way to either rename the critical reception section or add more critics from the 19th Century. I will try to get it done today:). Mrathel (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check now. I ignored many of the early reviews because they didn't say much. However, I just realized that some of them used other terms ("On Autumn", for instance), so I was able to find the first one. That one made the others less boring. However, I was only able to get 3 reviews by contemporaries -mentioning- the poem and the next time someone mentioned it by name was 1859. There may be others that allude to it in some other manner, but I don't have access to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also reworded the beginning of the second paragraph to hopefully make it clear. It should basically say that Keats did seem to write a lot, but he was only able to devote a tiny amount of time to writing. I also standardize the spelling of "barred". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff on the early reviews. I have made a BOLD edit in the Backgound section about Keats's writing habits in 1919 - see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With that into, I was expecting half the page to be gone. ^__^ But yeah, that works out well. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be clean... or the tool is broken. Either way. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The River Itchen link should be to the Hampshire, not the Warwickshire river. I have amended. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've just read it again. Probably, as always, it could benefit from a few tweaks, but I'm as satisfied as I can be that the article meets the criteria. Congratulations to the editors for a fine article on a great poem. I raised a large number of issues during this review; all were handled courteously, and my suggestions were mostly adopted. The only caveat I still have concerns images; they look OK to me, but I don't know enough to say for certain that they are, so I hope an image reviewer will come along soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from the top.
"The poem has been universally regarded by critics as one of the most perfect short poems in the English literature." Well, if you're sure, but I'd have thought it would safer to remove the amplifications: "The poem has been regarded by critics as one of the greatest short poems in English." You might also consider this trimming at the end.
I can't think how to substitute at least one "The poem" with a synonym, where it opens three sentences in a row. I tried "The work" for the middle one.
There are two "including"s in a row, top of "Background". You may not like the commas I added.
Redundant alsos; I've removed two.
"Keats was distracted by his fiscal problems"—does "his" refer to Keats or his brother?
"However, the poem also marks the final moment of his poetry career."—Remove "However" and "also"?
It looks good, overall; I'll return. Tony(talk) 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the fiscal problems, I think the context seems to sugguest that his brother's fiscal problems become his own, so I was a bit vague with the "his" as I felt that either way it was taken would be correct:)Mrathel (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. The "perfect poem" in the lead refers to the lines "Critical and scholarly praise has been unanimous in declaring "To Autumn" one of the most perfect poems in the English language", Bate's "each generation has found it one of the most nearly perfect poems in English", and some other references. (I went back and changed the line to read: '"To Autumn" has been regarded by critics as one of the most perfect short poems in the English literature' - it removes universally and "the poem").
2. The ode and "To Autumn" are two other possibilities. I put "To Autumn" in the second instance of the second paragraph of the lead.
3. Switched the first instance of including to a colon for the list.
Support - beautiful and inspiring, just like the subject. On a minor point, On 19 September 1819, Keats walked from Winchester to London along the River Itchen. He must have been a very fit poet, Winchester is about 60 miles from London. Graham ColmTalk 16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted, Graham! (I missed this despite several readings); "to" could become "towards", but I'll let the editors decide. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed he was walking towards London, but I haven't read the source. What is that old adage about the difference between English and American folks; something like 100 miles being a short distance, but 100 years being a long time to Americans? It's the opposite way round to us Brits :-) Graham ColmTalk 22:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read a clause wrong - it was after a journey between the two towns that he went on his normal walk along the Itchen (College-Street to Saint Cross and then through a meadow to the river). As Keats states, the journey to the river is one mile. Anyway, I think I cleared it up with this edit. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Sources appear reliable, and the links work fine. Reference 25 could have a pp. in the middle, but it's not a big deal. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images: All images have free licenses, but if you don't know the death date of the artist for File:Keats19.jpg you need another license. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Armitage Brown (1787-1842) is the artist; i will fix the image to clarify and keep the license Mrathel (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but keen to support if the two specific points below can be addressed.Support
This is a marvellous piece of work, but I have two quibbles.
From the lead: "The poet was beset by personal problems at the time of the work's composition and found little time to devote to poetry, though he did manage to find time for "To Autumn". The work marks the end of his poetic career as he needed to earn money and could not devote the time or thought necessary to composition." The word "time" is used on four occasions in these two sentences, while the words "devote" and "composition" are used twice. As well as being stylistically weak, this gives the distinct impression that some of the information is redundant - both sentences tell us he did not have the time to time to devote to the composition of poetry. Can this please be re-written?
There is one inexplicably bad para under "Themes", that begins: "There are also aspects of colonialism in the fact that other regions experienced variations on weather patterns." This sentence is a clanger, and I can't fix it because I do not know what is meant. The whole paragraph reads like nonsense to me, in contrast to the rest of this entry which is good. I read the poem through, and was none the wiser. This poem is so English in its nature, and written by an Englishman, that to try and use it to discuss colonialism by contrasting the climate portrayed by Keats with that of the tropics appears to me ridiculous - or perhaps pointless would be a better word. I did some quick research (we are talking minutes here, I confess) and it seems Bewell, the cited source for this para, launched a much-vaunted re-analysis of Romanticism in Romanticism and Colonial Disease (1999). On such foundations are academic careers built. One wonders whether his arguments are carried much too far in applying them to this single poem. I appreciate that Bewell is a reliable source, but I wonder if some judgement needs to be exercised. In any case, the paragraph as it stands is not understandable. If editors wish to persist with Bewell, there needs to be an expansion that explains his placing of English Romanticism in an international and colonial perspective. Applied to this poem alone it maes no sense. I presume Bewell's point is, rather, that the decision to write such a poem—to render idyllic the English harvest cycle and agrarian life etc etc—must, given the period of history in which it took place, be interpreted as a deliberate decision by the poet to acquiesce in the values of colonialism and the superiority of 'the English condition', if I can put it that way. Whatever: it will have to be fully laid out. As well as these problems, the references to Hunt near the paragraph's end are too terse - the lay reader (including this reader) will have no idea what is being discussed. Who is Hunt? What have "liberal political beliefs" to do with something Hunt titled "the calendar of nature"? What has any of this to do with colonialism?
Othwerwise the themes section, and the entry as a whole, is outstanding. PS: "Edingburgh Magazine" - is this is a typo? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post colonialism tends to be an annoying aspect of criticism. By the way, I reworked the lead and the paragraph (I trimmed it and added it to the end of the political paragraph). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The solution may not be perfect, but i think it is the best in the circumstances. Thanks for your efforts. Support this going to FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent piece of work—I have no significant concerns. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article, which has about 45 KB of main-body prose text and as far as I know meets all FA mandatory criteria, is well-cited and has many reliable sources (in fact, I've cited most of the big-name authorities on Egyptian literature: Erman, Breasted, Parkinson, Lichtheim, Wilson, Loprieno, Morenz, Fischer-Elfert, Forman, Quirke, Simpson, and Wente). Although I usually do Chinese history articles, I noticed this was a very neglected subject on Wiki, so I decided to act boldly. For anyone interested in Ancient Egypt or literary history in general, this article will certainly be an enjoyable read (I guarantee it).Pericles of AthensTalk 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? But they do have alt text. Could you point out a specific image? I can't find one image that lacks alt text. Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ALT for correct formatting of alt text (not to be confused with captions) Brianboulton (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also please click on "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right corner of this review page. You'll get a list of all the images, and their alt text in little blue boxes. The blue boxes are all blank, indicating that none of the images have alt text. Eubulides (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh; ok. I was under the assumption that you were just talking about captions, because I literally have been here since 2007 and have more than ten Featured articles under my belt, yet have never come across this problem before (or rather, no one bothered to mention Alt Text). Does this mean I have to go back through every article I've ever written and provide Alt Text now?--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is recommended. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this needs to be said. Alt text is not a "problem" as you so callously put it. It provides an essential service to visually impaired Wikipedians and I wish it had been enforced earlier. Perhaps the real problem is your attitude?MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of these images now have alt text (for this article, at least). Problem solved. Moving on...--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, dude, settle down and be civil. In no way, shape, or form was I trying to disparage the visually impaired. When I said "problem solved," I meant essentially "the problem of not having alt text is fixed and we can move on to reviewing the article". I don't know how you interpreted that as meaning the visually impaired are a "problem". Lol! Please, grab a beer, a chill pill, or take a long vacation from Wiki if this is how you normally greet people. Or, if you are willing and able to be civil, I would like to get this review started on a very important subject.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that. The alt text requirement is relatively new. We don't expect all existing FAs to be updated immediately, but when you have the time.... The alt text you wrote was very good; I attempted to improve it a bit by removing less-important phrases like "A museum display of" (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2), and removing phrases like "princess", "limestone", "hypostyle", and "ostracon" that I thought could not be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see example 3 from the same section). Eubulides (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. I'm glad to cooperate and help out the visually impaired. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportQuery That was an interesting read, nice work. The article begins "Ancient Egyptian literature refers to literature written in the Egyptian language during Ancient Egypt's pharaonic period,". Which would leave out the Coptic Ptolomaic and Roman eras. Whilst later it says "The final script adopted by the Egyptians was the Coptic alphabet, a revised version of the Greek alphabet.[18] Coptic became the standard in the 4th century AD". So perhaps the beginning needs to change to include the next three centuries? Also Coptic maybe the last Ancient egyptian language but not the last - Arabic has come since.ϢereSpielChequers 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. It should be made clear that Coptic was the last script adopted by the ancient Egyptians, as opposed to the adoption of Arabic during the Middle Ages.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also just tweaked with the introduction to include all literature in the Egyptian language from the pharaonic period until the end of Roman domination over Egypt, which roughly coincides with the invention of the Coptic alphabet and conversion to Coptic Christianity. This tweak makes absolute sense given the discussion in the article about literary works popular in the Roman era like Oracle of the Lamb and Oracle of the Potter.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, also can "there are some works that are thought to have been penned by women. For example, several references to women writing letters and actual surviving private letters sent or received by women have been found" be rephrased slightly. Either letters sent by women have been found or only letters thought to have been penned by women - if the latter we probably need a caveat about the possible use of scribes.ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response Here is the exact quote from the source by Edward F. Wente (1990: 9), QUOTE: "Although women were not generally afforded the advantages of a school education and did not compete with men for posts in the bureaucracy, there were certain positions that were genuinely female, such as priestesses, chantresses, and personnel surrounding the position of Divine Votaress of Amon during the New Kingdom. Although women did not officially compete with men, they were occasionally accorded considerable authority, especially to act on behalf of their husbands (Janssen 1986). Such letters as Nos. 24, 139, 289-91, 303, 311, 315, 319, 321, 324, 336, and 339 provide evidence for women functioning with varying degrees of authority, and certainly some of these women were literate. Occasionally there are references to a woman's writing a letter (Nos. 104, 124, 270, 282, and 297), but one must be cautious in concluding that a woman actually penned the document. Letter No. 124, if my restoration of the passage is correct, provides evidence for a female recipient reading a letter visually (the verb is 'look at,' the same as the one mentioned above in connection with No. 330). Regarding the women of Deir el-Medina, Janssen (1987:167 n. 25) considers it probable that the letters on ostraca sent by women were actually inscribed by them." ENDQUOTE From this, I think it is fair to say that women most likely read letters, wrote letters, and sent letters, with the slight possibility that they dictated while scribes actually penned the documents.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nicely fixed. ϢereSpielChequers 08:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It doesn't seem to be working for me (page won't load correctly); could you point out which specific links go to disambiguation pages, so that I can fix them? Thanks!--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! It looks like the only problems were "canon" and "vignette", which have now been fixed. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Another masterpiece, not China-related!! Definate FA quality.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 15:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's rare when I do a non-Chinese-history article, but when I do, I make sure that I do it right. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article! Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments Very good article. Well-written and interesting. However I have a couple of concerns, mainly with the wording of the Lead - which is obviously an excercise in cramming in information.
Resolved issues from Xandar 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
"Ancient Egyptian literature refers to literature written in the Egyptian language during Ancient Egypt's pharaonic period until the end of Roman domination."
Surely this should read "from" rather than "during", since the Roman period was not part of the Pharaonic.
"It was not until the early Middle Kingdom (21st century BC to 17th century BC) that Egyptian literature proper was created."
This seems contradictory since the whole article is about Egyptian literature from a much earlier period. Could this not better say; "that a narrative Egyptian literature was created."
"The creation of literature was thus an elite exercise, monopolized by a scribal class attached to government offices and the royal court of the ruling pharaoh. However, there is no full consensus among modern scholars concerning the dependence of ancient Egyptian literature on the sociopolitical order."
This seems over-long for the lead. This could be shortened to something like: "The creation of literature tended to be monopolized by an elite courtly and scribal class. There is, however, no full consensus among modern scholars on this."
"Scribes of the New Kingdom canonized and copied many literary texts written in Middle Egyptian,"
Canonized to most people, means listed as a Saint. What exactly does the word mean here?
"Genres of Middle Kingdom literature, such as 'teachings' and fictional tales, remained popular in the New Kingdom"
This sentence seems to jar without a specifier: "Some genres" or "Several genres" for example.
"By the New Kingdom period, the writing of commemorative graffiti on sacred temple and tomb walls flourished as a competitive genre of literature, with similar formulaic phrasing found in other genres."
I'm confused by this. What is a competitive genre of literature? What has the formulaic phrasing to do with this?
"Ancient Egyptian literature is found on a wide variety of media."
This brings to mind TV, DVDs etc. Why not "Ancient Egyptian literature has been preserved on a wide variety of media."?
Main Text
The main problem here is the use of some unexplained terms that could be categorised as WP:Jargon. The chief ones I spotted are Phoneme, Palimpsest, hermeneutics, orthography, and Palaeography. It would be better to say "the study of handwriting, or Palaeography", "the study of writing systems and symbol usage, Orthography," etc.
The following sentence from Private letters, model letters, and epistles is obscure: "The Heqanakht papyri, penned by a gentleman farmer, date to the Eleventh dynasty and represent some of the longest surviving private letters of ancient Egypt"
Does this mean the letters were of great length, or are the oldest surviving ones?
Hi again Xandar. Haven't spoken to you since you reviewed Han Dynasty. I'm glad you have enjoyed reading this article. I'll try to address your points one by one:--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Surely this should read "from" rather than "during", since the Roman period was not part of the Pharaonic."
Excellent point; fixed it.
This seems contradictory since the whole article is about Egyptian literature from a much earlier period. Could this not better say; "that a narrative Egyptian literature was created."
Once again, good point, fixed it.
"This seems over-long for the lead. This could be shortened to something like: 'The creation of literature tended to be monopolized by an elite courtly and scribal class. There is, however, no full consensus among modern scholars on this.'"
I don't think you fully understand this. Yes, literature tended to be monopolized by the scribal class, but a distinction should be made between the scribal class and their relationship to the pharaoh's court, the latter which embodies the "sociopolitical order", not the scribal class as a whole (which, it is argued, could act independently of the court and politics). Perhaps I should have made this clearer to begin with. In any case, there is no scholarly dispute that the creation of literature was monopolized by scribes. So your suggestion would be patently false.
"Canonized to most people, means listed as a Saint. What exactly does the word mean here?"
Well, I thought that linking "canon" to its Wiktionary definition would resolve any doubts about its usage, but to make things very clear, the use of canon here does not refer to Christian saints, but to "A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field." Canonized in this context is certainly not WP:JARGON. It simply means that the Egyptians designated certain texts as being more important than others and deserving of the label of "classic", such as how we designate Heart of Darkness and Moby Dick as classics of modern English literature.
"This sentence seems to jar without a specifier: "Some genres" or "Several genres" for example."
This is a good point and I have fixed the article accordingly.
"I'm confused by this. What is a competitive genre of literature? What has the formulaic phrasing to do with this?"
Hmm. Now that you mention it, it does sound confusing if one does not take into account the graffiti section of the article; I have reworded this. I hope that it sounds much clearer now.
"This brings to mind TV, DVDs etc. Why not 'Ancient Egyptian literature has been preserved on a wide variety of media.'?"
That's a good suggestion, I've used your wording exactly.
"The main problem here is the use of some unexplained terms that could be categorised as WP:Jargon. The chief ones I spotted are Phoneme, Palimpsest, hermeneutics, orthography, and Palaeography. It would be better to say 'the study of handwriting, or Palaeography', 'the study of writing systems and symbol usage, Orthography,' etc."
I have fixed all of these according to your suggestion, except for hermeneutics. I can't think of a good way to reword that sentence in order to include a brief definition of what hermeneutics is. Every rewording option I've thought of simply breaks the natural flow of the sentence and sounds choppy. If you can think of something good, I'll use it. Otherwise, I think this one should be left alone and we should settle only for a wikilink if someone is confused by the word.
"Does this mean the letters were of great length, or are the oldest surviving ones?"
No, not the oldest surviving, just the longest-written letters that we have from ancient Egypt; I have reworded that sentence to clarify this point.
I hope you find these copyedits sufficient and satisfactory. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greatly improved. I think that deals with most points. I still don't like "canonized" but I can't think of a word or words that explains things better. As for the very last sentence: "Scholars are increasingly following a hermeneutic approach to studying individual literary works, which can be used as case studies to reconstruct the main features of ancient Egyptian literary discourse." Since this is quite important, and the conclusion to the article, how about completely recasting and extending this, for example as:
Scholars are increasingly using a multifaceted hermeneutic approach to the study of individual literary works, in which not only the style and content, but also the cultural, social and historical context of the work are taken into account. Individual works can then be used as case studies to reconstruct the main features of overall ancient Egyptian literary discourse.Xandar 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent suggestion! I will amend the article to include this revised sentence word for word.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. That resolves all my issues. Xandar 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:TurinPapyrus1.jpg - Could you please clarify where the original upload was, and what "Photograph at the Turin Museum courtesy of J. Harrell", because it suggests that the file might be copyrighted.
Hi Nuclear Warfare (that's a cool name btw). I have fixed (and in one case replaced) every image mentioned, except for File:Heratic script limestone.jpg. How do I go about deleting this image? Where should I go to alert an administrator that this image needs to be deleted so that its Commons version can be used instead? Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for Heratic script limestone.jpg, I tagged that for deletion myself, so it should be deleted eventually. That's not really a pressing issue though, I don't believe. I checked the image that you replaced, and it looks great. Striking my oppose; great job. (And thank you for the remark regarding my username) NW(Talk) 02:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'm glad all of that is settled. On a completely different note, would you be interested in reviewing the article? Or are you busy with other things at the moment? Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather busy unfortunately; I am checking in on Wikipedia just about once a day, and that's all I can manage for a week or two. Sorry! NW(Talk) 11:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a reason why single quotes are used instead of double? The article looks very interesting, will try to review later if possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an excellent question and I have amended the article to replace all single quotation marks with double quotation marks, except, of course, in the case of quotations within quotations, which employ single marks within double marks. If there's anything else, let me know. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well, PoA does it again. The research, the prose, the extensive cites, the numerous refs from major scholars... it's incredible how most of this was done by a single person. PoA, sometimes I wonder if you have more than one head. Anyway, fantastic work. One thing though: is it not appropriate to have the Ancient Egyptian names for the pieces of literature mentioned in the article? Like, in parentheses the first time it appears in the article? ~ AMorozov〈talk〉 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's another excellent question! First of all, thanks for the support! And the very kind words you have to say about my articles. At first I wanted to include the ancient Egyptian pronunciations for these literary works, but I realized that I was unable to find them all! Also, I think it might distract a little too much from the flow of the prose by adding a bunch of Egyptian pronunciations in parenthesis; I think a better option would be to include pronunciations for each literary work in their separate and respective articles. This model, as you might already know, is followed by written Chinese character names and pronunciations; if a Chinese person/place/thing/idea has its own article, there's no need to include the character name or pronunciation in a ton of other articles. Thanks for taking interest! And I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) This is very good, and I have only a few nitpicks:.
"Besides the glorification of kings,[129] poems were also written to honor various deities, and even the Nile." "also" is largely redundant here.
I think the article is a bit overlinked, meaning that the valuable links are diluted by more unnecessary ones. In the lead alone, consider delinking words such as "genre", "author" (piped in "authorship"), "graffiti", "hymn", "poem", and maybe even "Nile" (which is probably one of the most well-known rivers in the world). Also, don't link more general terms when you have more specific links nearby (e.g. "literacy" when there's "literacy rate")
"However, Edward F. Wente cautions that, even with explicit references of women reading letters, it is possible that women employed others to write documents." Not sure "caution" is the right word; it has a connotation of "warning", which is not what we're looking for here.
"Egyptians was the 'teaching' or sebayt genre" We still have single quotes here.
"that can serve to instruct as well as entertain" "serve to" is unnecessary.
"manuscripts which have their original contents" "which"-->that
"This, alongside tearing off pieces of papyrus documents to make smaller letters, also suggests that there were seasonal shortages caused by the limited growing season of Cyperus papyrus."
"Moreover, Wente calls this a "...polemical tractate" which counsels against the rote, " "which"-->that
"c. 484 BC–c. 425 BC" Not sure why circa needs to be linked twice here; the en dash should be spaced.
"amongst " "among" is plainer, and works just as well.
"Nevertheless, there is speculation amongst scholars that ancient Egyptian literature" Make this stronger. "Nevertheless, scholars speculate that ancient Egyptian literature"
There's inconsistency in italicizing. I see "c." in italics sometimes, and other times not.
"was the first to compile a comprehensive history of Egypt" Why is "history" italicized? For that matter, why is it linked?
"Prior to" "Before" is shorter and sweeter.
File:Graffiti Kom Ombo.JPG crowds the text on my screen (Firefox 3.5, 1280x800). I think if you could slightly shorten the image directly above it, that would solve the problem.
As you can see, most of these are language nitpicks, and I will be more than happy to offer my support when these are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dabomb87. Thanks for reviewing the article! I have copyedited the article and amended it according to your suggestions; I hope you find my edits sufficient. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! One more comment: "The Harper's Song, found on a tombstone of the Middle Kingdom and on Papyrus Harris 500 from the New Kingdom, was to be performed for dinner guests at formal banquets." I don't think they found the song itself, but it's lyrics.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I always considered that to be implied, but since you want something more explicit, I have included the word "lyrics" to make things absolutely clear. :) Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a very literal person :) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For an online encyclopedia, that's probably for the best. Cheers and thanks for the support!--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because i believe it meets all FA criteria, after being worked on extensively for the past few months..
This was an Anglo-Canadian operation that took place during the Second World War Normandy campaign to capture the northern portion of the city of Caen.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most alternative texts done, though I'm not sure how to do to for the infobox image EyeSerenetalk 11:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 1a. Mostly very nicely written. Really good article.
Could we have a map showing where Caen is – see the article on that town – and perhaps its French pronunciation could be given, as here)? Or did the troops pronounce it as "Cane"?
Don't like that template that forces "4-mile", rather than the more natural "four-mile"; but it's no big deal. Sure you want US units first? It's Canada, the UK, France and Germany, which are all metric. The date format is not US.
Rewritten manually (not sure if the template caters for spelling out the numbers?) EyeSerenetalk 11:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot... re units, the UK at least is metric in name only. Miles are universally used in preference to kilometres (though anachronistically metres tend to be used over yards). It makes for a horribly confusing system to have to teach :P EyeSerenetalk 11:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the BBC has switched to metrics only—the David-Attenbrough-type programs. Thank the lord, we don't have to be bisexual any more. Tony(talk) 15:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I hadn't noticed that (must be my low-brow viewing diet). There are moves every now and then to finally bury the Imperial system, but they're always quietly abandoned when no-one complies. EyeSerenetalk 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a new rule about making images squint-tiny? Apart from saving my eye-sight, the captions wrap into one-to-three-word groups.
I tried removing the 'thumb' parameter, but they were too big. Can we force the image sizes (I've seen that objected to elsewhere)? EyeSerenetalk 11:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: "Example caption"
This point gets brought up quite a bit. Wikipedia:Images states "As a rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 180px default. If an exception to the general rule is warranted...." Then it explains how to do so as i have shown above.
Ive just added them but i dont think it has made much of a difference.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason bold is used under "Battle honours"?
It picks out the name of the honour, though I suppose enclosing it in quotes would work too. EyeSerenetalk 11:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Operation Charnwood has been analysed to varying degrees."—Does this grab the reader at the opening of "Analysis"? Consider getting straight into it with the second sentence?
Well done indeed. Tony(talk) 10:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A masterful article on military history. You should be quite proud of your work. Well done! I think I can sort out the map for you..Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 10:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone advise about the tiny images? Am I right in thinking that the increasing penetration of Internet speeds that are faster than dial-up have nullified the argument that pics should be pretty small? To me, these are excellent pics that are spoilt by the tiny size. Essentially, they need to be double-clicked on to see them. What is the current practice? Tony(talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are set to standard. You can always change your default px size to 250 or 300 in your preferences. I have mine set at 250px because I also dislike small images.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the images, i believe there is a wiki guideline somewhere, that states something along the lines of except maps and the infobox image everything else has to be a thumbnail.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's on WP:MOSIMAGES. Obviously setting sizes in the prefs doesn't solve the problem for passing readers. One solution might be to scale them up and re-upload, but although they'd look better on the article they'd lose resolution on commons. EyeSerenetalk 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I viewed the article with images in the default 180px size and they looked OK to me. A tad small, perhaps, but nothing out of the ordinary for an encyclopedia. Eubulides (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present but needs work. The lead image lacks alt text. File:Charnwood.svg''s alt text doesn't give the gist of the map's visual appearance to the reader (imagine that you're trying to explain what the map says briefly to someone over the telephone, and write that down). The location map's alt text is too generic; please supply better alt text ({{Location map}} supports this with its |alt= option). The following phrases cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT #What not to specify: "Imperial War Museum archive", "RAF", "British", "Allied", "French", "Caen" (only in "a street intersection in Caen"). The phrase "black and white photograph" is not that helpful and should be removed when it appears, as it's not that important to this article whether the photos are black and white or color (or even that they're photographs); see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2. Eubulides (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been over them again, though I still don't know how to do the infobox image (tried adding an alt parameter, but no joy). EyeSerenetalk 07:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a play round and it seems to be working now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job, thanks. The battle map's alt text is longer than it needs to be, perhaps; I mention this only because the next time you write alt text for a map, you shouldn't need to write something quite that long. Eubulides (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and noted; I'll try to be more succinct next time. EyeSerenetalk 08:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the nominators do not mind the fact that I've gone through and resized the tiny thumbnail images in this beautiful article. The issue of image sizing is coming to a head at MoS talk, and there is almost certain to be a major change. I've used before-and-after links there to demonstrate the inadequacy of the default thumbnails (given that you've disabled your WPian user prefs in this respect, to see what our readers see). Tony(talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very well done in my opinion. I think it is up to FA standard. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Sources check out on reliability, and the couple of online links function properly. I did notice that reference 77 has a page range of 196–297; is there any chance that this is a typo? Giants2008 (17–14) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is and i have fixed it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just a few very minor comments.
Some of the image captions are not full sentences and therefore should not end with a full stop.
Which ones are you referring to sorry?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the bolding in Battle honours: we don't use this for emphasis/distinction of a term. Bold text in the middle of an article is so unusual that it makes me think I'm looking at the target of a redirect, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Quote marks would be a better choice, I think, and preferred by MOS.
I have looked over the MOS, it seems italitcs should be used here. So i have the relevent changes.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the last sentence of Note 7; please check this, as the sentence was incomplete in a way that it could've been due to a botched copy/paste rather than the simple grammar error I presumed it to be.
Altogether this is very nicely done. Maralia (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - some necessary MoS fixes (at the beginning) along with copyedits needed - 1. "Further information: Operation Charnwood order of battle" is redlinked. This is a problem. 2. Image in "Allies" is left under a third level heading, a WP:ACCESS violation. This image must be moved down a paragraph or to the right. 3. It is unnecessary to have four references for the date in the infobox: "8–9 July 1944 [1][2][3][4]". Reference clutter like this reduces verifiability. 4. "major Allied objective" - "Allied"? They are either "Allies" or "Allied Forces", not "Allied". 5. "and by 18:00 the British" commas are needed to separate "by 18:00" as it is a referential parenthetical statement. 6. "tactically Operation Charnwood". Your sentence does not allow "tactically" to be used in the manner. "tactically" would have to modify "success" - "was tactically a partial success" or "was a partial tactical-success". 7. "Strategically, it achieved mixed results, in that although it forced the Germans to pull back all formations north of the Orne River, it did not completely succeed in stopping the flow of units to the American front" Too many mixed clauses in this sentence with modifiers going to the wrong places. Make the comma after "results" a semi-colon and remove "in that". 8. Over use of strange tensing - "has been described". Just use "was described". 9. "the southeast of Caen, to acquire airfields and protect" You cannot just say "to acquire" in that clause. You would have to explain how that clause can serve as a proper parenthetical statement - replace with "in order to acquire". 10. "and on 7 June launched" - see comments for number 5. 11. "The intention was to encircle Caen from the east and west,[27] but I Corps, striking south of the Orne River, was halted by the 21st Panzer Division,[28] while XXX Corps's attack to the west of Caen stalled near Tilly-sur-Seulles in the face of heavy opposition from the Panzerlehrdivision." Too many mixed clauses. Switch the first comma for a period. Change the "but" to a "However," and remove the comma after "21st Panzer Division". 12. "In an effort to force Panzerlehr to withdraw, on 13 June the British 7th Armoured Division attacked the German flank" - "on 13 June" is placed improperly. Place it after "the German flank". 13. "On 27 June the 3rd Infantry Division’s" comma needed after "June". 14. "was beaten off," Is there a better term? It doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the page. 15. "Terry Copp calls" Please state who this person is. 16. "to capture Caen, and to" Improper comma - the first phrase is not complete so the sentence is not compound. Remove the comma after "Caen".
I was only able to get through half the page. Sources are in book form and I could not verify. However, few passages seem like they are problematic from general reading and phraseology. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments i will attempt to cover them this week.
In regards to point 1, i do not believe this is a problem as it seems perfectly fine under WP:Redlinks; i do intend to create such a topic at some point.
I would also dispute the point raised in regards to "allied". It does appear to be a legitmate use of the word for example see here or other definitions that note that it refers to more or one states allied together etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "It is unnecessary to have four references for the date in the infobox: "8–9 July 1944 [1][2][3][4]". Reference clutter like this reduces verifiability." I dont see how this reduces verifiability, if anything it overwelming confirms these dates over the ones previously used in the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the second FA nomination of Synthetic diamond. Previous attempt in May-June this year ended by time-out, without a clear conclusion. After that I and a previous referee Cryptic C62 have continued the review and here is the result for your consideration. Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is there, but it needs some work, as it contains many phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the images, and these phrases need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These phrases include "diamonds" ("gems" would be better), "grown by the high-pressure high-temperature technique", "3-m tall belt press produced in the 1980s by the Kobe Steel Group", "made of single crystal of HPHT diamond", "metal" (in "metal holder"), "belt press", "cell", "horizontal belt", "are compressed by", "serves as the pressure transmitting medium", "transmission electron", "diamond" (in "diamond particles"), "produced by detonating carbon-containing explosives", "angle grinder blade", "cut from a diamond grown by chemical vapor deposition". Also, the text that's in an image should generally be copied into the alt text if it's at all important; this wasn't done for "Dies" and "Rubber diaphragm". Also, "2–3 mm" should use an endash, not a hyphen, as per WP:ENDASH. Eubulides (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be patient as this is my first ever experience with alt texts. I tried to address all those issues. Gems means faceted diamond and thus may not be used at will (only in the last image). I had added "compressed" because that describes the two arrows in image File:Hydrostatic Synthesis.png. Please suggest a possible alternative if this is incorrect. Materialscientist (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast! Much better, thanks. One last minor thing that I forgot in my previous comment (sorry): please omit intro phrases like "An image", "A photograph of", "A drawing of", as they are not that useful in this context (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example #2).Eubulides (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted some of that, but left a couple because I thought in a science article it is important to distinguish a schematic drawing and a photograph (they present design rather differently in terms of the components). Materialscientist (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks again for the quick work. Eubulides (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After our extensive work on the prose, I am happy with this article. Though there may still exist minor problems with the prose, at this point I am too familiar with the text to be able to see them myself. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - After quite a lot of work, I have been able to fix the images[31], I hope. NW(Talk) 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor note: File:Hydrostatic Synthesis.png - It would be appreciated if you could add categories to this, as you are a specialist in this field, I believe. NW(Talk) 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added categories to that image. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly well-written; good job. There are still things to fix up throughout; here are random examples from the top.
I'd have used "none" as singular, and omitted "of them": "but none of them have been confirmed to have produced diamonds" -> "but none has been confirmed to have produced diamonds".
No "the"? "Those two processes still dominate production of synthetic diamond."—My rule of thumb is "where there's an of to the right, put a the to the left".
"A fourth diamond synthesis variety"—you're trying hard not to repeat "method" or "process"; but when it's basically a list, it can sometimes be easier for the reader. "synthesis variety" is a bit hard. Possibly: "A fourth method, of treating graphite with high-power ultrasonic [blah],..."
"in particular" could possibly be removed for easier reading (after "natural diamond;").
Consider relocating "are being developed" back to sit after "devices".
So electric furnaces existed in 1879?
Any reason to use "utilized", when a plain word like "used" is available. I know engineers love the z word; never worked out why. And perhaps "in which graphite was dissolved"?
"he spent 30 years (1882–1922) and a considerable part of his fortune to reproduce the experiments of Moissan and Hannay but also adapted processes of his own. "—I've run outa fingers to count on. Comma needed before "but" (I'm searching for the constract, though, and the addition—was he successful or unsuccessful in the reproduction?). Tony(talk) 11:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) PS Can you remove the residual date-autoformatting?[reply]
I have addressed all style comments as suggested. The text was incorrect regarding electric furnace and is fixed (Hannay used flame heating in 1879). Scientific literature does endorse "utilized", that is why the term was used in the previous text (changed now). Please clarify your PS, if you mean accessdate ("retrieved on"), it might be obligatory for web-links. Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was referring to the unnecessary date links, which shouldn't be linked per MOS. I have since fixed them. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I care nought that "scientific literature endorses" a particularly ugly word, when a plain one a third as long is available and means the same thing. Scientific literature, whatever or whoever that is, also endorses the total use of the passive voice. We know better here. I suggest that "used" be substituted. Tony(talk) 06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I agree and did substitute "utilized" all through, and just added a note explaining why you might encounter "utilized" elsewhere. Materialscientist (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I believe this article now meets the FA criteria. Comment—I started reviewing this but, unfortunately, I immediately began struggling with the lead section. I just think it could be better written.
The parenthetical text in the first sentence breaks the flow, and the first paragraph is too short.
How recent is "recently"? This is too vague.
The first sentence of the third paragraph doesn't seem to tell me anything: the synthetics can be better or they can not. Well yes.
Is the 'already' really necessary in 'are already used'?
There are other sentences in there that, to me, could read smoother: e.g. "Its applications as a material of active electronic devices are being developed", "Numerous individual attempts to grow synthetic diamond were documented".
There is also some ambiguity: e.g. "ultraviolet (UV) light or high-energy particles, made of synthetic diamond".
Sorry to be so negative. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, your comments are rather positive as they helped to notice and rewrite the flaws of the lead, which is improved now as suggested. The first sentence of the third paragraph might seem superfluous in any other article, but please consider that diamond articles have always been a target for rewriting attempts questioning its superior properties (esp. hardness). While defending against those attempts, it was necessary to accentuate that there are different types of one material diamond which may have very different properties (e.g., few people seem to understand that the names "ultrahard fullerite", "aggregated diamond nanorods" etc, merely refer to a nanocrystaline, synthetic form of diamond rather than new materials). Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good for the most part. However, I think there are a few more issues that need to be addressed before it satisfies the FA criteria:
Expanded some subsections (will add more later). Note that some are of introductory nature. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Chemical vapor deposition" appears insufficiently cited. The final sentence of the "Ultrasound cavitation" is uncited. The first paragraph of the "Properties" section is uncited.
The format of the "production injunction against Iljin Diamond" reference is inconsistent with the others. For example, I can't tell if the two numbers are pages or volumes.
It is a special type of a reference (US court case). Added books where the case is cited and described. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's still one disambiguation link. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Should have appeared during the review. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm willing to say support on the source issues with the corrections and from what I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis - but first, "synthetic diamond is" sounds off. Chose either "a synthetic diamond is" or "synthetic diamonds are". Sources are hard to check as most are offline.
1. This source (p. 123) is being used for this phrase: "In 1926, Dr. Willard Hershey of McPherson College replicated Moissan's and Ruff's experiments, producing a synthetic diamond; that specimen is on display at the McPherson Museum in Kansas". However, 123 (according to numbering at the bottom) does not mention Hershey, Moison, Ruff, or anyone else. Moisson is first mentioned on page 127. Hershey is shown in a picture, but I could not find any mention of him except as perhaps as an anonymous author mentioned in the 130s with the initials C. H. D.
Thank you, all your comments made me re-check and re-think the referencing. Here, I added new references to avoid confusion. The source is correct, but strangely, while printing two (unique) named photos of Hershey, that chapter calls him only by his (McPherson) location rather than name. Page numbers adjusted - previous number pointed to the chapter start. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. "no other experimenter was able to reproduce their synthesis" I think it is more proper to say that "other experimenters were unable to reproduce their synthesis".
3. Wiki - "His breakthrough was using a "belt" press, which was capable of producing pressures above 18 GPa and temperatures above 2400 °C."
3. Source - "subject to pressures of 100000 atmos at temperatures in excess of 2000°C"
Corrected to comply with that reference. Hall did reach 18 GPa and 2400 °C, but only later. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. In the source for number 3, I could not find use of "cobalt", "iron" or "solvent-catalyst" in the document.
The reason is simple - that reference is a detailed description of the press, nothing about diamond synthesis. I added two his Nature papers on diamond synthesis using that press. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. This source is used for this quote - "The second type of press design is the cubic press. A cubic press has six anvils which provide pressure simultaneously onto all faces of a cube-shaped volume. The first multi-anvil press design was actually a tetrahedral press, using only four anvils to converge upon a tetrahedron-shaped volume." I could not find use of the word "cubic press" or "six". There was something called the "Bidgman anvil apparatus" and the "tetrahedral anvil".
I have to disagree, the reference described tetrahedral press and is placed exactly in the sentence on tetrahedral press. Other presses are covered in the book mentioned in the end of the paragraph. I have split up that book reference to avoid confusion. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. This source is used to support this statement: "Synthetic diamond is the hardest material known". I could not find mention of "synthetic diamond" within the text.
Same situation - the mentioned reference honestly supports its claim on Mohs hardness. I re-cited the reference on "hardest material known" to fix that. Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the other sources I could check checked out. Other things: "During the 1980s a new competitor", there needs to be a comma after "1980s". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first note, "synthetic diamond" is a material found in various forms and used in various applications. "A synthetic diamond" or "synthetic diamonds" are gemstones. This article is about the material, not just synthetic gemstones. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly, it is perfectly legitimate (and sometimes necessary) to use both phrases. The coating on a cutting tool or the substrate on which electronic devices are formed is the material diamond. The presents you give to your girlfriend are the gem diamonds. SpinningSpark 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this excellent article for promotion, with the following comments,
Lede para 2:"In the 1940-1950s" construction does not seem right to me. "In the 1940s and 1950s" or "starting in the 1940s through the 1950s" would be better.
"explosion of carbon-containing explosives" the repetion is poor style. Perhaps "detonation of carbon-containing explosives"?
"...has no commercial use yet." That phrase sounds incomplete. "...has no commercial use as yet." would be better or even better "...but as yet there is no commercial application."
Lede para 4: "...can be cut into gems of various colors:" I assume that this does not mean that the color is determined by the way the jeweller cuts the stone (or does it?) but that's how it reads. A construction like "...can be cut into gems and various colors can be produced:" would make it clear.
History, para 2: "Ruff...reproduced diamonds" should be "Ruff...produced diamonds"
GE diamond project: para 2:"...squeezed out of the container through a gasket". Ref 9 (Barnard) says the gasket does not rupture or break. How are those two statements reconciled?
Misprint. Changed "through" to "into", as in the original source. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tracy Hall's award is described by both your references as an ACS Gold Medal. However, I am a little perturbed that the ACS does not itself describe it so. Assuming that is the right award, I think it would be wise to link that ACS page in the refs, after all, it is the authoritative source for who has awards from the ACS.
I was perplexed by that earlier and thought that the form of the ACS award had changed (hard to imagine they kept $5,000 award for 40 years). I couldn't find references supporting my idea and thus changed the statement and reference as suggested.Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 17 (Hannas 2003) is cited as page 76, but the material referenced is mostly on page 77 so should really be 76-77.
para 3:The terms "belt press" and "solvent-catalyst" are not very clearly explained. Although belt press is explained later there is no indication to the reader that this material is coming ("see below" or see "High pressure, high temperture" below).
Later developments, para 3:"(1 carat(200mg))". Brackets within brackets, good in maths article, bad in English. Can we have that as (1 carat, or 200mg) or just wikilink carat to carat (mass), or both.
Argh .. killed the misbehaving conversion template there. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9 is cited for this para giving page numbers 3-9, 31-50 which is quite a wide range. I could not locate the cited material in pp.3-9 and am unable to read 31-50. This ref is used in nine places; it should be broken up with more specific page numbers.
I tried to avoid using multiple links to one source, but gave it up now and split up some references as suggested. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultrasound cavitation:Micron should be wikilinked to micrometre, not everyone is familiar with this term.
"...are not optimized yet". Another yet at the end of a clause, better "...are not yet optimized."
Properties:crystallinity:A few words on the bulk properties of polycrystalline diamond would be useful. Is it still transparent for instance, can you tell by looking at it that it is polycrystalline?
Hardness:<111> requires a wikilink to explain that notation. I think the right article is Miller index but the explanation of the angle bracket notation has been deleted in this edit, possibly accidently. I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject to fix this confidently but either a wikilink or an explanation is needed.
Thermal conductivity, para 2:"...produces a measurable temperature drop." I could not verify this fact in the ref (Donoghue), the page cited does not discuss the temperature probe. Although it is discussed on other pages, the description of the device as using two thermistors is not found in that ref at all.
Electronics, para 2:"...for covalently linking DNA to the surface of polycrystalline diamond..." I am a bit in the dark what the application is here, i.e. why do you want to link DNA to polycrystalline diamond? It is also not clear why this is under the electronics heading. Also the doi for the reference (Nebel) is returning an error.
Citation bot had lumped doi with journal name, fixed that. Attaching DNA to diamond turns it into electronic detector of bio-molecules through at least two mechanisms: (i) when initial DNA attaches to diamond, it changes its surface conductivity, which is being measured in situ; in case of reversible attachment/detachment we get a DNA sensor. (ii) if the attachment is relatively stable in that DNA medium, then the thus modified diamond surface can be further used for detecting other biomolecules. They will selectively interact with the initial DNA, detaching it or adhering to it, which is again detected through variation of diamond conductivity. All this is rather complex to me too, and is further complicated by that it apparently doesn't work in dark, but only with illumination. Thus I only added one clarifying sentence upon this comment. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
para 3:"While no diamond transistors have yet been successfully integrated into commercial electronics, they are promising..." this leaves it open in the readers mind whether or not diamond transistors have actually been made at all, which of course they have.
Gemstones:The claim regarding memorial diamonds needs a citation:SpinningSpark 19:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a non-commercial ref for that (most will try to cremate you by all means :). All other style and reference comments were fixed as suggested. I really appreciate all these comments, and the work of the referees not only in pointing the problems, but especially in suggesting solutions, and hope this could be a good example for FA reviews. Materialscientist (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I've been working on it since December 2008 and I think it meets the FA criteria. I know it's a bit short (this is the only information available), but it's comprehensive. Theleftorium 19:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I did a copyedit for this article and found it to be well-written (there wasn't much to edit) and thoroughly researched. A fine piece of work by the editors involved. Scartol • Tok 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question why doesn't this episode have any picture from the episode itself (unlike all the other Simpsons episodes)? 18.60.2.34 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's non-free content criteria is very strict. I don't think there's any image from the episode that significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (see "8. Significance"). Theleftorium 10:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is mention at one point in the article about how Paul & Linda are drawn. Maybe include something like this? Scartol • Tok 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there used to be an image of them in the article before. I'm not sure that passes the NFCC, though.. Theleftorium 09:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this image, you can see the colors of their eyes (well, Linda's, at least.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's actually the exact image that used to be in the article. Would you say it meets the NFCC? Theleftorium 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that for non-free images, significant critical commentaries are needed to qualify their inclusion; for the frames suggested above, the article should have certain comments on how the McCartneys were drawn or what sort of reactions were elicited by their caricatures, and would be helped with illustrations instead of words to qualify for fair-use. "The designs for Paul and Linda McCartney are unusual for The Simpsons in that the characters have brown and blue irises, respectively." does not seem substantial enough for this. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a run-through by an independent copy-editor (throughout); it's no disaster, though. Here are random examples.
"October 9 to October 15, 1995" -> "October 9–15, 1995"—See MOSNUM?
Why is "lighter fluid" linked? "Theme song" is a debatable link. Is it an obscure item? "Movie soundtrack" is definitely a common term and should not be linked here.
Here, you could link accurately rather than distorting the info in the pipe: "The episode features several references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career." —> "The episode features several references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career.
"But rather than simply punctuating the episode with an iconic image of the porker soaring through the air, the writers actually develop a story into which the joke fits." Consider "However,..." at the start of a sentence. Remove "actually". Slightly awkward syntax at the end. Tony(talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That last one is a quote from IGN. [33]Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken care of the comments above except for the last one. Do you want me alter the quote with brackets? Theleftorium 10:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one thing that had bothered me while I was reading the article weeks ago, but for some reason, I never pursued the issue. I'm talking about this part:
"In one scene of the episode, Homer fills his grill with two bottles of lighter fluid, causing viewers to anticipate an explosion when Homer throws a match on it. When he does release the match, however, it barely ignites. A similar joke appeared in an older episode of The Simpsons, "Treehouse of Horror", and Mirkin enjoyed it enough to reuse it."
An important thing to note is that there is an explosion after Homer sprays the lighter fluid in the earlier episode. I think we need to add or reword something in the passage above, because it's misleading to say that Mirkin "reused" the scene. Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes. Is it better now? (if not, please excuse my bad English) :-) Theleftorium 10:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit. I made a few changes of my own. I'm still not 100% satisfied, but I'll think about it a little more. Zagalejo^^^ 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it's good enough now. Of course, if anyone has suggestions for improvement, they're welcome to comment. Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support; looks ready; in near-perfect shape. Good work. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Another excellent episode article from WP:DOH. But, however, I think a promotional image for the episode would follow the Fairuse guidelines as it better illustrates the episode in questions. As well, the Paul and Linda image might be best on the left to give it a more organized look, as all of the images on one direction makes it looked clumped, IMO. Anyways, great work. The Flash{talk} 23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: the three images are appropriately licensed; note that the Flickr source for File:Davidmirkin.jpg has a non-commercial license, but User:EPO says it was CC-BY-2.0 without restrictions on 5 August 2007. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New comments I looked at the article again, and I think the critical reviews section might benefit from a trimming. It's a bit difficult to read through, and some of the quotes are more insightful than others. Is there anything that you think we could get rid of? For starters, we should probably drop the Daily Bruin reference, since that is a college newspaper. I'd also remove the Martyn & Wood quote, which is pretty dull. Zagalejo^^^ 08:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it down quite a bit now (removed around 1,000 bytes). Please take a look again. Theleftorium 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little bit better. It's still a bit tough to read through, because the text rapidly jumps from one reviewer's comment to another. There's no real paragraph development, just groups of loosely related blurbs. However, I don't know if there's much more we could do with that material. If I had my way, I'd present the reviewers' comments as bullet points, rather than forcing them into paragraphs, but I realize that goes against the consensus for writing fiction articles. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd prefer that to what's in the article now. Topic sentences are good. :) There are still a few rough patches, but that's definitely an improvement. Zagalejo^^^ 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could split up the section into four focused paragraphs: Simpsons staff reaction, humor, character development, McCartneys (in that order). I'd move the MSNBC blurb into the paragraph that focuses on humor, and look for another quote from the DVD commentary to flesh out the staff reaction paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do that tomorrow. Theleftorium 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Do you think it's better now? Theleftorium 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing issues - Sourcing issues 1-6 refer to this source. Issue 7 refers to this.
1. Wiki - "The Simpson family rushes in as outlines, and gets filled in by robotic paint guns"
1. Source - "The Simpsons rush in as outlines - and get filled in by robotic paint guns."
Reworded.
2. The source cannot verify this statement "was the first full-length episode" as it only mentions him as a writer and nothing else.
That is verified by ref 3, do you want me to remove ref 2?
3. The source cannot verify this statement as it merely mentions her appearing in the episode - "Mirkin also recruited McCartney's wife Linda to appear in the episode.".
I think this has been fixed, but please check again.
4. The source cannot be used to verify this statement, especially when it only mentions the lentil soup recipe in reference to the end credits: "The episode features several references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career. For instance, McCartney tells Lisa that playing his 1970 song "Maybe I'm Amazed" backwards will reveal a secret recipe for lentil soup."
Added ref from commentary, which discusses the references to the Beatles and McCartney's solo career.
5. Wiki - "One of the backwards snippets says, "Oh, and by the way, I'm alive," a reference to the Paul is dead theory."
5. Source does not specify this - "The reference to hidden messages in reversed Beatles songs refers to the (mistaken) belief that 'Paul Is Dead' was spoken backwards on the Sergeant Pepper album."
That was verified by ref 5, but I moved them around to make it more clear.
6. Wiki - 'and Linda says that she enjoys visiting "Apu's garden in the shade", alluding to a line in the Beatles' 1969 song "Octopus's Garden"'
6. Source does not specify this - "Linda McCartney quotes, appropriately, a line from the Beatles' song Octopus's Garden."
Done.
7. Source does not verify these claims "His most prominent work for the show to that point had been the "Nightmare Cafeteria" segment in the season six episode "Treehouse of Horror V"."
That is verified by ref 5, do you want me to remove ref 4?
8. Neither this or this source can verify the wording - "The Simpsons staff wanted to bring McCartney onto the show, and David Mirkin thought "Lisa the Vegetarian" would be an attractive story, since McCartney is a vegetarian himself"
The "attractive" part comes from the DVD commentary.
9. This source cannot verify this statement - "resulting in one of the few permanent character changes made in the show"
That is verified by ref 10, do yo want me to remove ref 11, or move it to after the "would remain a vegetarian" part?
10. This source does not verify this wording - "Mirkin also recruited"
You already brought this up in #3.
11. Many of the papers like The Denver Post and The Hamilton Spectator are missing online links.
These articles are (most likely) not available online. They have been access with NewsBank. I can send them to you via email, if you want to.
12. This source cannot verify Apu saying "I learned long ago to tolerate...". It only has '"It's like Paul's song 'Live and Let Live.' " Paul McCartney: "Actually, it was 'Live and Let Die.' " Apu: "Well, whatever, whatever. It's got a good rhythm." ("Lisa the Vegetarian")' The line is also followed by an off-topic explanation of the song.
That is verified by ref 1, do you want me to remove ref 22? Also, I removed the off-topic explanation.
- Many of the sources are offline and cannot be checked. The spot checking ended about 2/3s of the way through. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article before you brought up the sourcing issues at my RfA, so I'm very sorry for not checking on this before the FAC nomination. I'll go through the article as soon as possible, and I can provide the offline sources to you via email. Theleftorium 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even realize that or that you wrote it. I've just been going through all of the articles from the bottom and putting in sourcing critics. It is starting to become a blur right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that it is a serious problem, and I've begun to improve my edits. Theleftorium 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the above is important. If there is another ref that verifies the comment and I did not mention it, chances are I could not access it to determine where it comes from. However, if you have two sources saying the same thing and one leaves out an important statement, it is best to drop the reuse of the weaker source. Anyway, I will not oppose on sourcing issues, as I will just be going through and finding what I can and put it forth in as neutral as a manner as possible. Others can determine if the problems are fixed to their satisfaction so I will not be wrapped up in judgment calls or subjectivity. Good luck with the rest of the FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the sources (I actually appreciate that you spend so much time on this). I'll remove the "weaker" sources as you suggested and check the rest of the sources tonight. Theleftorium 17:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question—why are the people who contributed to the DVD commentary listed in the infobox? That seems highly unnecessary—listing out the key creative contributors of an episode is logical, but the listing out the commentators on the DVD is trivial. indopug (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. They're listed in the Merchandising section, anyway. Theleftorium 09:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe I have addressed all the sourcing issues now, including the offline sources. Theleftorium 15:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): PL290 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article languishing a couple of months ago and it struck me as a good candidate to develop more fully. I have been working on it since that time, taking it through a GA pass and polishing it further since. In my judgement it now meets the FA criteria and I offer it for review. All comments are welcome and will be acted on promptly. PL290 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check the toolbox to your right, there are several disambiguation links to be fixed. Also, I see you've put in alt text, but it is incorrectly done. What you've done is simply duplicate the image caption, which is not the purpose of alt text. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done: dablinks fixed and new alt texts provided. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn (talk·contribs) I own Jovanovic's book, and I am a big fan of Big Star and am familiar with their history. In fact, I planned in the back of my head to work on this article forever, but I've been inactive on Wikipedia for a while and in the meantime it seems you've picked it up (great work, btw). I've cleaned up a few minor typos and changed a few UK spellings to US ones. Here are some things I noticed along the way reading it (I'll keep adding to this list as I read each section):
"The band's musical style, influenced by British Invasion groups including The Beatles and The Kinks, as well as The Byrds, The Beach Boys and other U.S. acts, incorporated darker, nihilistic themes, foreshadowing the alternative rock of the 1980s and 1990s." Darker than what? This sentence is awkwardly constructed and should be split into two sentences.
Done: reworded. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Chilton had enjoyed commercial success as lead singer with The Box Tops, delivering, at sixteen, the lead vocal for the #1 hit "The Letter"." Is this sentences necessary to the lead? Only one sentence is dedicated to the Box Tops in the article's main body, and the placement at the end of the first paragraph seems out of place. I'd say either remove it or at least make it the first sentence of the lead's second paragraph.
Done: I've removed it. I added it because it's notable but was never happy with the way it detracts in the Lead; having thought on, I now see that it's notable to Chilton rather than Big Star. The later mention is sufficient. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Although Big Star disbanded in 1974, only reforming in 1993[...]" the "only reforming in 1993" is unnecessary, you go over this later in the paragraph and sticking it here is out of place.
Done: removed. PL290 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"attention was drawn to the early material in the 1980s when R.E.M.[...]" should be "the band's discography drew attention in the 1980s when R.E.M.[...]"
"new releases" should be "reissues" (and be sure to link to it so readers understand what this means)
Done. Only the Big Star albums were reissues, however, so I've reworded it to allow for the Bell one being new. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He was offered, but turned down as "too commercial", the role of lead vocalist for Blood, Sweat & Tears." --> "He was offered the role of lead vocalist for Blood, Sweat & Tears, but turned down as "too commercial"."
"other reviewers wrote that "every cut could be a single" from this "important record that should go to the top"." I looked it up and the publications that printed these quotes were Billboard (high praise from an important source!) and Cash Box. Additionally, Record World called it "one of the best albums of the year". I think that the publications should be credited in the text, and that new sentences should be devoted to mentioning the additional praise.
I'm surprised to find that there is virtually no explanation of the sound of each individual Big Star album. The "Musical style and influences" is a good general overview of the band's sound, but surely it's a good idea to explain the differences between each record in their individual sections?
Done. It was definitely needed. I've tried not to overdo it, as the album articles are of course where much of the detail should go eventually. PL290 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"[...]existing copies of #1 Record from the stores again." Is the "again" needed? They hadn't been previously removed.
Done: removed. This was a slightly interesting one! The word isn't needed and the style is more encyclopedic without it. As a point of interest, perhaps it's more in British English then that "again" is commonly used in the sense not of "another time" but of a reaction or response, as a result of which the status quo ante is restored. For example, to pick something up only to put it down again; or, the music got loud and then got quiet again. Used in that sense it has a function in conveying a connection between an action or state and another that preceded it. Anyway, that's by the by and purely for interest in case that usage is new to any reading this; I do think the style is better without the word in this case. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"according to Fry (quoted by Clark) and Hummel (quoted by Jovanovic)" Why not put direct references directly after Fry's and Hummel's names instead of the parentheses?
Done. Turns out Jovanovic says both anyway, so I've removed Clark. PL290 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bell quit for good"; "Hummel too quit for good": I'd suggest removing the "for good" part, as it's not only repetitive but very informally worded. The mention of Hummel's quitting is far enough away from Bell's quitting that I think the "too" is also unnecessary.
"Radio City was released in January 1974. Like #1 Record it received excellent reviews, critics noting that "the sound is stimulating, the musicianship superb" on what was "a collection of excellent material" and affirming that Alex Chilton had "now emerged as a major talent"." I suggest changing this to "Radio City was released in January 1974, and like #1 Record it received excellent reviews.", and then spend a few sentences detailing those quotes and the publications they came from.
"sales of Radio City were prevented"; this makes it sound as though Colombia deliberately suppressed every copy of Big Star's album, which is not true; Radio City actually sold around 20,000 copies, much better than #1 Record had performed but still not great. Perhaps "sales of Radio City were minimal"? Additionally, the information I mentioned above (from the same page you already cite) is important.
"(The phrase "sister lovers" was[...]" No need for this to be in parentheses. Also, why not briefly explain how #1 Record and Radio City were named in their own sections?
"The first three Big Star albums are included in Rolling Stone magazine’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time." "September Gurls" was included in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs list, a fact which should be noted in that sentence.
Done. Also "Thirteen". PL290 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Posthumous popularity, critical favor, and influence" is a long title, and I'm not sure I like parts of it. For example, "Posthumous" seems a strange choice, given not only that Big Star is a band and not a person but also that they became influential before reuniting, so it's not really posthumous at all. "Popularity" might be a bit misleading as they're still only a cult act. Perhaps "Legacy and influence" is more succinct?
Done. I've also made it a subsection of "First era" since its the latter's legacy and influence we're talking about. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that logically, the "Covers and references" section should be a subsection of the "Posthumous popularity, critical favor, and influence" section. They cover similar ground, so it seems strange to see them separated by unrelated sections.
Bearing in mind my response to your previous comment, I've instead made it a subsection of "First era", located immediately after what is now "Legacy and influence". Does that all seem OK, or would you suggest something different from what I've done? PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1998, #1 Record's "In the Street" was used as the theme song for the sitcom That '70s Show;[10] in 1999, a new version titled "That '70s Song" was recorded by Cheap Trick for the show.[10][43] This and Big Star's own "September Gurls" were included on the 1999 album That '70s Album (Rockin') released by the television program's producers.[44]" Logically, this should be in the "Covers and references" section.
The "Second era: 1993 to present" section in general is very choppy, with short paragraphs. It really should be reworked into a better organized section.
This was largely taken care of when more material was moved here from two other points. I've taken out a further paragraph break; are you happy with the result? PL290 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bogdanov et al. reserve "snarl" for another #1 Record song, "Mod Lang"" "Mod Lang" is on Radio City, not #1 Record.
Done. (Doh!) PL290 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Musical style and influences" section: I think that it would make most sense if the first paragraph came after the second, and if the third paragraph were incorporated into the "Second era: 1993 to present" section.
In the audio sample boxes, as the quotes about each song are used later, it's a better idea to format the descriptions more in the style of articles like R.E.M.
Done: I've formatted the descriptions in the style used by R.E.M.; I have retained a few parts of the quotes as they're suitably descriptive without getting POV; does this seem an acceptable result or would you suggest it's better to completely eliminate any quotations from the descriptions? PL290 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Stringfellow is also known for his work with R.E.M." Not sure about ending a sentence with the last period of R.E.M.'s name... Perhaps reword this or slide the information into an earlier sentence?
I noticed throughout that there is very little insight from members of the band and/or people who worked with the band. Without going into too much detail, which should of course be reserved for the individual articles about the band's releases, it would be nice to include some quotes from Big Star-related people.
You're probably aware of this, but there is a 33⅓book devoted to Radio City. While it might not be needed for this article (33⅓ books are usually used in the article for the album they're about and not so much in the band article, although there are exceptions), it might be good to lighten the dependence on Jovanovic as a source. And it's certainly worth looking into.
Noted - I have in mind to get that, and it will be excellent when it comes to developing the Radio City article further. Unfortunately I don't have a copy yet but will hope to address all review points without recourse to that. PL290 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All of my points have been met. I believe that, other than a few minor MoS issues which I'm sure will be resolved, that this article is feature-worthy. Good work, PL290! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images have alt text, but it needs work to satisfy the WP:ALT guidelines. The alt text is simply a copy of the caption. But alt text should not be a copy of the caption; it has quite a different function from the caption, and it's quite rare for the same text to be good for both. Please read WP:ALT (particularly WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Examples) and then have a go at writing good alt text.Eubulides (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done: new alt texts provided. PL290 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. But these proper names shouldn't be in the alt text. The average reader doesn't know what these people look like, so saying (in effect) "It looks like Stringfellow" in the alt text won't help them. Can you please remove the proper names from the alt text? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done: proper names removed from alt texts. PL290 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment Could you move the line "in its original era 1971–74, a "seminal body of work that never stopped...in all of rock & roll" to last paragraph of the lead? It seems more appropriate there, as that is the paragraph where you talk in detail about the group's legacy. Otherwise, it seems a little POV to tell the reader how influential Big Star were before you even lay out the basic facts about them.
Actually that sentence was intentionally prominent; not as POV, which I hope it avoids by being composed of cited quotes, but to establish notability in first sentence per WP:LEAD. In view of this, would you be happy to leave that sentence where it is? PL290 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article could also do with a MoS polish. For eg: I see Rolling Stone linked and unitalicised twice in the same section. indopug (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been attempting to adhere to MoS as I work on the article but had missed italicising Rolling Stone for some reason; that's now fixed. I'll go over it again at the end of other editing to check for any other MoS issues. PL290 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 71 (Big Star perform..) lacks a publisher. And what makes this a reliable source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
last.fm is part of CBS: [35]. I've now rendered it "lastfm.com (CBS)" in the notes to make that clearer. The rest don't look too reliable though, I agree. I've substituted better sources for all except two in your list. I drew a blank for Matt Brown's cover version, so I've removed it from the article. The other troublesome one is the R.E.M. Christmas fan club cover version. However, it's listed in the WP article R.E.M. discography#Christmas fan club singles, so I've added that as the cited link. PL290 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the REM thing, you can't cite the Wikipedia article. You need a source you've seen yourself for the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as no source available. This should now address all the items in your list. PL290 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! Reinstated to use this source. PL290 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last.fm is not a reliable source. It's user-generated content. You need to remove it. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that although last.fm does indeed contain some user-generated content, the cited parts are not user-generated. As you're querying it though, I'll check it out in the morning. PL290 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can find a better source than Last.fm, though. This isn't a music reference site; it's a site to show off what you're listening to (yes, I have one). It's routinely discouraged from use in music articles. Try Allmusic. Even then, to state the cover is notable, you need more than just a mention of a tracklisting, since the original doucment (the album itself) could tell you that (and you wouldn't need a citation for that). Also, this is not an appropriate source, not the least because when logged into my account I can edit it to say whatever I want. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reading the article in-depth, you really should get rid of those long lists of cover songs. That's inappropriate minutae for a band article; if it's notable, stick it in the articles about the songs being covered themselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point; I suspect the detailed list of covers had more value in the past, before other content took over the role of demonstrating the band's notability. I'll look at condensing the list, probably into one sentence that just states artist names with reliable sources. I'll also hunt down a better source for the July 2009 concert. PL290 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks and reads much better. Also, I'd recommened make the Legacy subsection its own separate section, separate fromt he band biography. It's common practice in band articles, as a band's legacy and influence is not part of its biography. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed this article for GA, and helped copyedit it and dragged some other editors in to have a look. I think it has congealed nicely since then and passes criteria. I suppose I could jiggle a little prose around but no deal-breakers stand out and much of what I might tweak would be subjective. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need to do a thorough run-through of the article in the next few days. I see some things that worry me. I may not get to it right away, so I hope this doesn't suddenly get promoted or something (which has happened before with FACs I wanted to list objections to). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Give me three more days to review the article in-depth and figure out if I'm going to field an object. Rather busy off-wiki these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed a newly ambiguous Hyde Park. Trust that is all but please let me know if anything else is needed. The api workaround tool Dab_solver.py generated various other output without saying why, but I think all is now well. PL290 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please trim down the external links section as per WP:EL. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Niggle: most US style guides say no dots in "USA", although the you dot es dot is still clung to, ironically. But in the infobox, I'd go with spelling it out, just once: "United States", as more stylish in isolation. No space problem there.
Sorry to be a bore, but I think FAC needs to be reminded (I certainly do) by Black Kite of the issues concerning NFC sound files. There seem to be a lot of them. Let's see what he says. Tony(talk) 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) PS Except he's away until 19 August; even if this is promoted, we can easily make adjustments if necessary afterwards, and report them at WT:FAC. Tony(talk) 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the sound files can be adjusted if necessary; however, the question has been considered with other editors (see talk page if interested) and there are good grounds for this particular range of four sound files for this article. They are specifically selected, each demonstrating one aspect of the band's musical style, per their captions, in support of the article text. I hope they can remain but if it does after all transpire there's any violation of WP principles then I would support whatever changes are necessary to bring them in line, whether during this FA review or at a later time. PL290 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I stopped reading after the first sentence. It reads like an advertisement for the band, and provides very little actual info. As it would be unfair to oppose based on one line, I'm not going to vote, but I hope this can be addressed. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all free, with proper attributes and reasonable alt text. No problems there.
Audio has a slight problem. All the rationales are fine, they are reduced quality, and seem to be important to include for the text with reasonable "captions", but the last three audio samples exceed the 10% limit per WP:SAMPLE. There's a table on that page that id's how much is appropriate with a given song length. (The first sample is ok). --MASEM (t) 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Audio is all good now (I feel the 4 samples are fine and not excessive and at least backed by discussion). --MASEM (t) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sources - Checked through most of the sources and I can see no problems. The extensive copyediting and stylistic changes above probably ensured that if there was anything (which I cannot see in the history and from looking at sources I have access to) then it would have been changed from the source. Heavy use of quotations are good. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support (disclaimer, I'm a big Big Star fan) I dont like the accolades in the 1st sentance Big Star is an American rock band that created, in its original era 1971–74, a "seminal body of work that never stopped inspiring succeeding generations",[1] earning it recognition decades later as "the quintessential American power pop band" and "one of the most mythic and influential cult acts in all of rock & roll".[2] . Too much too soon. All this is true, but it is overkill in its present form. Just go for the usual "formed by.. in..(bass) etc, and save that stuff for the last para. I met this at PR, and most of the body of the article is fine, but the lead remains a problem though easily fixed by a cut and paste and a better opening. Would be leaning towards support once the lead is toned down, very nice work overall. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I wonder if my interpretation of Wp:LEAD is off the mark... that sentence has been criticized before, but of course it could just be personal preferences. The reason for that particular opening sentence is to meet the guidelines in Wp:LEAD, i.e., as well as summarizing the article, the Lead should explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and should establish notability in the first sentence if possible. I've seen opening sentences taken up with "formed by... (bass)" etc. and they don't have the impact that Wp:LEAD appears to be aiming for, and the reader finds nothing interesting or notable in the first sentence. In view of this, do you still feel it's inappropriate as it is? Do you interpret Wp:LEAD differently? PL290 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do to be honest. You gushed before you even explained what Big Star is. Its academic now anyway, I've reworded a bit. I dont want to fall out over this though, I think the work here is terrific, have been following the development for the last month and a half, and am delighted to Support. More articles like this please, PL290. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like an idiot, as I have never heard of this band even though I am a music fan. So the article doesn't make much sense to me. How did I miss something as big as this? —mattisse (Talk) 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article passed GA last year, was peer-reviewed in June and was granted MILHIST A-class status in July. After extensive recent tweaking I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. However as this is my first FA nomination I apologise in advance for any newbie errors. Any comments, suggestions or criticisms are welcome. Euryalus (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the official website of the De Delft shipyard where the replica docked, though I should have noted that it was in Dutch, sorry about that. However, I've removed the link altogether because a) it doesn't provide a unique resource per point 1 in WP:ELNO; b) sufficient replica images are already in the article; c) most of the De Delft photos aren't that good; and d) a pet peeve - the photos show the replica with blue-painted upper works. The real Endeavour′s upper works were painted mud-brown. So the De Delft images aren't an accurate representation of the real ship, which limits the utility of a link to them. Euryalus (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.The alt text needs a bit of work. The alt text for the maps should give a bit more gist of what the maps tell the sighted reader, e.g., it should say which direction through the Torres straight, and what bodies of water were traversed other than the Torres straight and in what order. The alt text "The Royal Naval Ensign in use at the time of Cook's first voyage of discovery" cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who looks only at the image; better would be "Red flag with Union Jack covering the upper left quadrant". The word "circa" should be removed, as the image doesn't say "circa". The hyphen between the years should be an endash, as per WP:ENDASH. The phrases "Painting showing", "sketch", and "a sketch of" are unnecessary noise and should be removed (see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 2). And please use proper English punctuation (one alt text ends in two periods, some non-sentences are punctuated with periods). Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, or at least improved. I used "Map:" to introduce the two map alt texts per the 5th example at WP:ALT (which uses "Diagram:"), but let me know if this should also be removed. It was a challenge with the map alt texts to balance information inclusion against verbosity - let me know if I got that balance wrong and I'll have another go. Lastly, sorry for the grammar errors - don't know how I missed those. Euryalus (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the new alt quite good and is well-balanced between brevity and verbosity. Eubulides (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an outstanding article and easily meets the FA criteria Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent article, informative and clear but also it importantly is an exciting article. Some of the insights from Cook's crew on certain events makes it a special account. I come from a family where the men had a long history of being sailors before 1900 and the article makes me want to sail the high seas like they did. Awesome. The only complaint is "The prospects if the ship sank were grim. ". I think that is stating the obvious and could be reworded...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 14:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though its an exciting topic so the really hard thing would be to make this article boring. I agree the "prospects are grim" bit is a statement of the obvious, though I think it leads well into the following sentence. Still, I've spent an hour or so trying to reword it without success. What do you think - should I a) simply remove it altogether, or b) expand it to mention that Banks considered but rejected abandoning ship as it was too far and if he survived he'd be marooned, and that Cook thought of running the sinking ship onto the nearest island, then building something from her wreck that could maybe sail to Batavia. But neither option was very seriously considered, and then the fothering saved the day. Any suggestions?
On consideration I'd probably prefer to keep the "grim prospects" sentence as is, as I think it leads well into the rest of the paragraph, and is not entirely a statment of the obvious (shipwreck survival prospects sometimes being pretty good). Obviously, any other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A fine nomination with an impressive standard of writing. (I haven't examined for the other criteria, though.)
" to Australia and New Zealand in 1769-71."—I'd be inclined to follow WP:LINK and not link anglophone country-names, or if you really want to, to section-link to their history sections (those whole articles are too large and diffuse to be beneficial as links in this context). ("Australia" is linked again further down, too, just before the more appropriate linking of Botany Bay, NSW".) And there are so many valuable links in that vicinity and the rest of the article that are better less diluted. WP:MOSDASHsays to use an en dash for ranges; but not to use range punctuation where there's an introductory preposition. Thus, "from 1769 to 1791" ... is that the correct meaning?
Can scuttling be anything but deliberate? Perhaps it can ...?
Comma required unless you mean the sheathing and caulking was to protect against a third deck, etc.
Suddenly, metrics come first, which is much more comfortable to me; but whichever way, they need to be consistent.
Apostrophe for officers' mess.
A joy to review. A few of the sentences rival Patrick White's descriptive narrative in A fringe of leaves! Tony(talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS WP:MOSDASH and the preceding hyphen section would be a good read. No hyphens after adverbial "ly"; I've fixed "full size"; and there are lots of ranges (day and page) in the Notes section that have hyphens rather than en dashes. Someone here (can't remember who) may very usefully run a bot to fix this aspect of Notes sections ... PING PING? Tony(talk) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"From" and "to" vs "-"' - Done the one in the first sentence. I confess I find the MOSDASH isntructions a little confusing, so a particular thanks to Dabomb87 for fixing the other ones. If any have been missed please let me know.
Scuttling - An accidental scuttling is possible I suppose, but would be an embarassment of epic proportions for a Royal Navy vessel. Blackbeard once deliberately scuttled his flagship then pretended it was an accident so he could abandon his crew and flee with the loot, but that's as close to an accidental scuttling I can think of. Anyway, done - redundant word removed.
Comma - fixed, thanks.
Metrics - Do you mean in the journey length for the replica? If so, done. If not, let me know and I'll have another look through.
Officer′s mess - done, thanks for pointing this out. Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written and well sourced article. It, in my opinion, satisfies all FA criteria. I have only two comments:
In the lead: her crew sworn to secrecy about the southern continent they had discovered. But had they actually discovered any southern continent? It is indeed a strange sentence. The main text only says that To keep Endeavour’s voyages and discoveries secret, Cook confiscated the log books and journals of all on board and ordered them to remain silent about where they had been. I think the sentence from the lead should be removed or rewritten.
I am very interested what disease killed a third of the crew? Is anything known?
Good point - I changed it to "lands." Hope this addresses the issue, but if I've missed the point please let me know.
The earliest deaths sound like dysentery and the later ones malaria, though the first to die was the ship's surgeon and after that no one kept any lasting medical records. Banks described it as an inflammation of the lungs accompanied by a violent fever and physical collapse. Cook got it too, but made a fairly quick recovery. By coincidence Cook's 1st lieutenant Zachary Hicks died of TB, which he'd had since leaving England but finally succumbed to after leaving Batavia. One source (Hough) says disease killed 50,000 people a year in Batavia, and Cook's log says "the unwholsome air of Batavia is the death of more Europeans that any other place upon the Globe." Euryalus (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not change anything. I still see "southern continent". Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I was sure I did that yesterday. Done now, let me know if you'd like something other than how it reads now. Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add a note with information about diseases? Ruslik_Zero 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, should have done that when you asked last time. Don't have the references on hand, so it'll be a little while. Euryalus (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added disease types mention and reference. Both Hough and Blainey suggest the deaths around this time were dysentery other than 1st Lt Hicks (TB) and ship's master Molyneaux (drunkenness), though many of the crew were already weakened by malaria. Cook and Banks just called it "the flux" and their descriptions of symptoms include both diseases. I've gone with the references as they have the benefit of modern medicine in their identification. Malaria was almsot totallly unknown to the Royal Navy at the time, and there were no identified causes or cures for either condition in 1770. I think a longer dissertation on this in the article would be moving a little off-topic, but I'll put one in if you think it would add value. Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - These issues should be easy to fix.
File:Endeavour, Bayldon, Francis J. B.jpg - This image is hosted on Commons, which means it has to be in the PD in both the US and NZ, therefore we need a tag explaining why this image is in the PD in the US.
File:Endeavour replica in Cooktown harbour.jpg - The uploader does not seem to be the same as the author, so the uploader could not have released the rights to the photo. Could you contact the uploader and/or the author and sort this out?
Looking forward to striking this objection soon. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these. They're fair points, though I'm not an image expert and these two predate my work on this page so it'll take me a few days to work out how to fix them or if they should be replaced. With the second one, would that be addressed by [User:John Hill]] editing the commons page to reaffirm his release of the photo? If not, what should I do to address this? Euryalus (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. We have his explicit release in a deleted revision here. That suffices. Hesperian 12:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be an administrator to see that page (I can't view it, for example). Releases have to be as available to the public as we can make them. Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between the claim and the proof. The claim must be highly visible, and it is. The proof is, unfortunately, in a deleted revision, and therefore accessible only to administrators. This still makes it far more accessible that our OTRS tickets, which are visible to even fewer people. Hesperian 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS is definitely not an ideal solution, I agree, but sometimes we have to resort to it. In this case, happily we do not. Awadewit (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on this point is at odds with consensus, which is that OTRS is just fine, and there is no need for every image to offer publicly accessible proof that the license claimed is legitimate. Hesperian 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I agree with Hesperian. However to resolve the issue I have replaced the John Hill image with this one, which is less visually striking but perhaps more historically relevant. The Bayldon image narrowly fails PD-1996, but I've found an acceptable and much older alternative which I'll upload today. Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that John Hill is active. Hoever, if you would rather replace the image than contact him, that is fine. Awadewit (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done that too, thanks for the suggestion. Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Bayldon image with an Atkins from 1794. Hopefully this address the remaining query - feel free to let me know if there's more that needs doing. Euryalus (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All image issues resolved. Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one comment. You should utilize the |oclc= parameter in the cite cook template in your bibliography section. OCLC is a nice tool to use to locate a book quickly especially for those books that were pre-ISBN. You can look up your titles here. --Brad (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. Never knew there was such a thing. Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I agree that this is a well-written and comprehensive account, and interesting, too, there are still a few minor points requiring attention. For instance:-
Lead
"...she [the ship] was forced to beach herself." I doubt this is literally true; should it not be "Cook was forced to beach her", or perhaps "the crew was forced to beach her"?
"American Revolution": "American Revolutionary War" or "American War of Independence" would be more precise
forced beaching - Done, or at least improved. Replaced first point with "was beached on the mainland for seven weeks for rudimentary repairs to her hull." The two "for"'s in the sentence trouble me slightly, if they bother anyone else let me know and I'll reword again.
Revolutionary War - Done. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purchase and refit
It would be useful to have present-day equivalent values for the ship's cost. I normally use MeasuringWorth.com; their calculation gives figures of £265,000 and £326,000 respectively for the two cost figures you mention.
Banks should be described and linked on first, not second mention
"Cook and his passengers" - there were passengers? I imagine that you are referring to the scientific team, so perhaps passengers isn't the right word.
Last paragraph: can you say briefly why the ship carried armaments of this nature? Presumably they were in case of trouble in the unknown waters that were their destination; this could be clarified.
Measuringworth - Happy to do this, but how would I assert Measuringworth as a reliable source?
No problem. MeasuringWorth was founded by two professors of Economics, from UIC and Miami University respectively. Its advisory board has a host of academics from US and UK universities. The site has been accepted as reliable on many previous FACs. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as footnote a. Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banks wikilink - Done.
Passengers - Done, or at least improved. Passengers in a naval sense, but I agree it wasn't clear. Let me know if it needs another go.
Armaments - will do tonight - there was something in one of the sources about protection from the French while near Europe and indigenous people in the Pacific, so I'll hunt that down and add it. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Was wrong about the French bit, the only source to discuss the perceived need for the guns refers to their use against hostile natives. This makes sense as they were small scale weaponry designed for anti-personnel combat. Have added their intended use to the text. Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outward voyage: "The voyage commenced with a landfall among the Madeira Islands." Surely the voyage commenced when they left Plymouth? Suggest reword.
Voyage commencement - will do tonight, as I should probably explain why they went to the Madeiras at all. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - replaced "Voyage commenced" with "The first port of call". Also expanded this section a little. Euryalus (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northward to Batavia
Fourth paragraph begins "Despite this, the ship remained in very poor condition..." I'm not sure what "this" refers to; the last event recounted was the ship being struck by lightning. I think "Despite this" could be dropped.
The carpenter's quote contains nautical terms which won't be familiar to most readers, e.g. "main keep", midships", "larbord". It might be better to paraphrase what the carpenter said so that we can better understand the nature of the damage.
Final para, second sentence: there seems to be a disjunction between "shipworm" and "they". If "shipworm" refers to a condition (like for example woodworm), then I think "they" should be "it". Otherwise you should say "shipworms"
Despite this - Removed.
Carpenter's quote - I think the quote adds something to the "flavour" of the article, will have a think about how to address this and get back to you.
I agree the carpenter's account adds flavour. Why don't you just add wiktionary links for "midships" and "larbord" (correctly, "larboard")? The main keep, one might reasonably deduce, is the ship's main hold. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General point: I'm uncertain about the value of the maps. The detail on each is mainly illegible, even when the maps are forced to their full size. On the "Track of Endeavour" map it is very difficult to find and follow Endeavour's track, given the multiplicity of lines.
I think the south pacific one is OK (the big one), but I can see the problem with the Torres Strait map. If I can find a good PD replacement I'll put it in, otherwise would you suggest one or both maps be removed and replaced with a more detailed text description of the voyage? I covered the Torres Strait-Batavia voyage only briefly because I'm trying to keep the focus on the ship as the aticle subject, rather than the voyage which is better covered here. But that's just my opinion, other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The larger map is marginally more legible. If no other reviewer sees it as a problem, leave it in. The second is more problematic, and doesn't really add to the value of the article. As the subject of the article is the ship, I think the Torres Strait journey is adequately covered by the text. My recommendation would be lose this map, though I won't oppose on this if you/other reviewers decide otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the small map - there's an alternative one by Cook himself, though as it was a navigation chart rather than for amateur interest its not at all clearer. I've also found a 1790's map showing Cook's opath through the straits, but with so little frame of reference that its really just a line between two other lines. Per Brianboulton's comment above, I'd prefer to keep the current map for the (admittedly limited) value it adds, but if anyone else prefers its removal (or if Brian presses the point even mildly) I'll call that consensus and take it out. Euryalus (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to add my support when these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk)
Support: All my points properly attended to. I leave the decision on maps to you. Great article now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: well written, sourced and illustrated. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've given this a quick copyedit, but my changes were very minor. This is in excellent shape—well done. Maralia (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current ref 54 is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, must have died in the last day or so. Replaced with Beaglehole. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citations need some cleanup for consistent formatting (I left some sample edits, problems with dates and page numbers). Is one of these supposed to be an author? If so, author comes first in other citations ...
"Interesting Relics". The Advertiser. Frederick Britten Burden & John Langdon Bonython, Adelaide South Australia. 24 October 1918. p. 4. Retrieved 23 July 2009.
Thanks to Dabomb87 who fixed the inconsistent date formatting in the online refs. Re the 1918 Advertiser reference listed above, Burdon and Bonython were the publishers, though an examiantion of the publisher text on the last page of that edition of the paper indicates they did business under the name "J.L. Bonython & Co." I've replaced the individuals with the company name in the reference. There is no stated author of the article. Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citenews template not permitting the spelling out of "page", I have changed all the references to either "p." or "pp." for consistency. I think the issues raised in this comment are now addressed, but if I've missed something please let me know and I'll have a look back through. Euryalus (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting looks good now (can hardly believe I failed to check it in my review; must be going soft). Maralia (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA standards. Please don't be put off by the rather dull title, it is the Richard Nixon-Helen Gahagan Douglas race, which was one of the nastiest ever. The article has been passed for GA by our local Nixon expert, Happyme22, and has received a peer review by Brianboulton. I briefly nominated it before but withdrew it after an objection was posed because I didn't have candidate percentages for the primaries. I now have those statistics, thanks to some very helpful people at the California State Archives. Enjoy the article! I'm proud of it.Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Helen Gahagan Douglas1.jpg is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 per [38]. There needs to be some sort of demonstration that there has been an effort to find that File:Helen Gahagan Douglas.jpg fits {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Consider contacting UCLA to work things out and also ask if they own the copyright to be able to license it at all, because the image was originally created by LA Daily News.
I've added alt text, sliced note 120, alternated sides on the images (not perfectly because I don't want the images looking offscreen), and swapped two images, plus added a youtube link to the Ninotchka trailer to the Melvyn Douglas article. That leaves the Douglas photo, and given [39] it is not in the public domain. Since the only Douglas photo on commons is clearly unsuitable (showing her 27 years before the Senate race in a costume), I'm going to go with a fair use image. I'm looking through the available ones, it will be swapped shortly. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about Eleanor Roosevelt :) NW(Talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's been changed for an image taken from the FDR Library site. They aver that all their images are public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to the .html page for File:Eleanorbel.gif rather than the .jpg link? Thanks, NW(Talk) 02:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. They don't have that. See here--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Updated with library ID number. NW(Talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is present, thanks; but it needs work. It's pretty much a copy of the caption, which is even worse than no alt text at all, since a screen reader will read both the alt text and the caption to a visually impaired reader. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example #4, and then give it another try. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's new for me. Check it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still needs quite a bit of work. To a first approximation, the alt text should not contain any proper names, because proper names do not convey any visual information to a non-expert reader (unless you already know what Nixon looks like, which most readers don't these days). Another rule of thumb: no info should be in both the caption and the alt text. If it's about visual appearance, it should be in alt text (the caption can assume people can see the image); if it's not about visual appearance, it should be in the caption (as the alt text should be only about visual appearance). Again, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Two more things. First, several images still lack alt text; you can easily find them by visiting the "alt text" part of the toolbox at the top left of this review page. Second, the phrase "Photographic portrait of" is not that helpful can can be (twice) removed.Eubulides (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've tried again. Can I ask that you suggest some language for those that you find less than satisfactory? This is something new to me, despite a bit of experience on this page. I fear that if you just keep saying "needs work", I may accidentally make things worse. Using the alt function still leaves the template photos of the Great Seal of California and of Nixon as a much older man, but as those are purely decorative and in templates, not in the article, I don't think they need alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Of the images with alt text, the only one I see a problem with now is the campaign thimble, where the alt text specifies text that cannot be seen in the image. I suggest changing that to 'Beige thimble with red lettering, the visible part of which says "Safeguard the A..." and "NIXON for U..."'. I modified the templates to put "|link=|" in the purely-decorative images, which should fix that problem; please see the diffs ([40][41]) in case you run into similar problems in the future. Eubulides (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I peer-reviewed this last month, in the happy pre-alt days (O tempora! O mores!), and most of my concerns were addressed there. So it's down to a few quibbles and final polishing for a comprehensive, involving account.
War in the Pacific: "Nixon angrily objected..." At present the adverb reads like interpretation. If it's in the source, maybe the sentence could be rephrased to make this clear.
Debut of the Pink Sheet
In the second line we have "Roosevelt" and "Mrs Roosevelt", both referring to the same person, I think – though as James is a candidate in the election I can't be sure. Later we have "Delegate Roosevelt", again referring to Mrs R. These forms can cause confusion; I've had a go at resolving it, but please amend if you have a better idea.
Barkley: "...the best he could say" again reads like your interpretation, and should be reworded
Name-calling
Virtually no British readers, and perhaps not that many contemporary Americans, will know that "the future chief justice" refers to Warren, so I wouldn't use that description. It reads just as well with "Warren"
Clarify who "Joe Holt" is (the reporter, I assume, but it's not totally clear).
Aftermath
Style issue: it may be just me, but beginning a sentence "Mused an aide" doesn't seem encyclopedic in style, more like reporting, or literature?
"In 1956, though,..." I don't see the purpose of "though"
Long, scruffy sentence with two "ands"; suggest it is rephrased/split: "When the alleged statements were reported, Nixon denied them, and issued press releases defending his campaign, and stating that any impression that Douglas was pro-communist was 'justified by her own record'."
General: No-break space lapses, specifically "160 acres" but there may be more.
The tabulations are excellent. A fine article overall. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, I've made some changes. As a note, disambiguating two Eleanor Roosevelts in the article, plus James, plus the shadow of FDR hanging over things, led to some judgment calls. I called her "Delegate Roosevelt" as an effort to give her a title she had earned, rather than one through marriage. I see that's been changed to "Mrs." and that's fine. I've added in an extra "James" and the first bare "Roosevelt" is now three paragraphs away from the last mention of Eleanor, and I think it is pretty clear from context that James Roosevelt is being referred to. The Barkley anecdote was added very recently, and I've rephrased for a direct quote from Time. I've changed "future chief justice" to "him". Joe Holt is mentioned earlier in the paragraph; he's the Young Republican (and future congressman) who pestered Douglas into the statement, but I've added an extra "Holt" for clarity. The tabulations took me hours last night; I got the official returns yesterday afternoon, glad you like them. I think I caught all the nonbreaking spaces, but if anyone sees one I missed, please let me know. I've cleared up the other things you mentioned. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- a very strong support at that. It's a fabulous article about one of the most fascinating and captivating Senate races in U.S. history. I gave this article a detailed GA review a few months back and quickly passed it, as Wehwalt had completed all that was necessary to do so. And Brianboulton, an editor whom I have worked with well in the past on Pat Nixon's article, gave it a peer review; his suggestions were readily implemented by Wehwalt. I give my full support to the article. My only hope is for a public domain image of Helen Douglas, though I'm sure that one can be found somewhere. Excellent job to all parties involved, especially Wehwalt! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I haven't given up on the public domain photo of Douglas, I've looked through the photo listing in the Douglas archives and there is nothing that looks pd. I'm planning to call the LBJ archives in Texas, LBJ appointed her to the US delegation to Liberia President Tubman's inauguration. That failing, I'm hopeful there will be a group shot of the committees she served on but I really need to go personally to the Library of Congress on that and I can't do that for two weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:Strong oppose: Significant problems in the prose, unlikely to be overcome given the nominator's objection to being told about them.I think this one is going to make it, but more work is needed by an independent copy-editor, throughout. The following observations from the top show a few issues that recur throughout. Careful auditing of comma usage, for example, would improve the text. But that's not all.
"Communistic" is not a word I've seen before; what about plain "communist"?
Small point: "Nixon's attacks were far more effective, and he won the election by almost 20 percentage points, winning 53 of California's 58 counties and all metropolitan areas." Avoid repetition by using "carrying 53"?
"Nixon–Douglas race"—an opposition, so en dash required, not hyphen.
"to reluctance of voters in 1950 to vote for a woman"—nope: where there's an "of" to the right, put a "the" to the left.
"The campaign gave rise to two memorable political nicknames, both either coined by Boddy or making their first appearance in his newspaper: "the Pink Lady" for Douglas and "Tricky Dick" for Nixon." I'm trying to determine whether the "either" means we just don't know which. See the ambiguity?
"and had been elected to the Senate as a liberal, but as senator his stances gradually began to favor corporate interests."—the turning angle is enough to require a semicolon, not a comma.
This sentence turns to porridge towards the end: "Douglas, a former actress and opera singer, and the wife of actor Melvyn Douglas, had represented the 14th congressional district, which combined Hollywood with a large part of poverty-stricken South Central Los Angeles, since 1945, compiling a liberal record in the House of Representatives."
When we first hit "House of Representatives", then "House", do we know whether this is in Sacramento or Washington DC? Foreigners, even Americans, may need to have this clarified.
Remove comma after "1946" for better flow?
As a meta-comment, most of the reasons provided in the previous review in support of the declaration "Strong support" do not appear to be relevant. Please address the criteria. Tony(talk) 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting way to get out of saying good things about the article, Tony. Obviously your oppose is not motivated by the prose, but by our disagreement. I tried to apologize, you respond by switching from comments to strong oppose. I guess your oppose is not actionable. It's also contrary to the truth, as you know, Tony, I've asked for a copyedit, and have made most suggested changes. I'll leave it at that, I'm starting to get hot under the collar.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I'm not 100% sure it needs another copyedit, as two editors (including Happyme22, by the way) have gone through it pretty thorougly. However, I'll see if I can get someone to take a look. Communistic is a word, see here, though I've taken it out of the lede, Douglas uses the word later in the article and I was echoing that in the lede, but not much either way, I guess. I've changed "House of Representatives" to "United States House of Representatives". If Boddy didn't coin the terms, he certainly approved them, the Daily News became his campaign newspaper, I'll strike the word "either", but it is a subtle point. I'll rephrase the paragraph on Douglas and use the alternative word you suggest, and carry out your other fine points. I split up the Downey sentence, mooting the need for the semicolon. Thanks again!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect to Tony, I really don't think the article needs a third copyedit. It has not substantially changed since it went to GAN, and both Happyme22 and BrianBoulton went through it pretty carefully. I'm going to wait and see what the community thinks of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think Tony is quite right, the prose is still a bit clunky in places, and it does need a proper copyedit. For instance:
"Buoyed by polls in early April giving Nixon some chance of winning the Democratic nomination, thus effectively securing his election, Nixon sent out mailings to Democratic voters in the hope of winning that party's poll."
"Nixon was born of a working class family, growing up in Whittier ...".
"Douglas leased the craft from a Republican-owned helicopter company in Palo Alto, which hoped her influence would lead to a defense contract."
"While debates did not take place among the candidates ...". "While" implies simultaneity.
"... he held a grudge against Democratic gubernatorial candidate James Roosevelt". "Gubernatorial" is a word unlikely to be familiar to anyone outside of the US.
"Nixon assailed Douglas for advocating giving Taiwan's Security Council seat ..."
"... the former actress called for the President's ouster once the Watergate scandal broke". "Ouster" is a legal term to do with the eviction from freehold property.
Thanks for the comments. I'll make a few of those changes. While ouster is indeed a legal term, please see here "ouster from office" is a common term, and I'll modify to that. I will amend to "Democratic candidate for governor" and I've changed that debate thing. I don't know who to ask about a copyedit. Suggestions? Volunteers?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, I've provided ample evidence, at random, of why a copy-edit is required. I note that the nominator has taken it upon himself to bad-mouth me elsewhere, in a rather nasty, irrelevant, unexplained way: "Could I get you to hold your nose and at least take a look at this? Tony1 is saying it needs a copyediting, and I think it's garbage and he is showing why he's on editing restriction." I believe this is unacceptable bullying of a reviewer; if this kind of behaviour starts cropping up, no one will dare to make comments, let alone oppose. I must ask you to read WP:CIVILITY very carefully. I'm watching this nomination to see what is done about the prose. Tony(talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony, I'm sorry that you were offended. Perhaps a better way of handling your hurt would have been to post on my talk page, or via email, and let us work things out. I don't think I would recommend the route you took, of posting on my talk page that you had "complained" to the two FA delegates, and also posting at length here. Did that make the process regarding this article better or fairer? Did that make me more likely to accept your comments as borne of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia? My comment, which was on another editor's talk page, was born of frustration. Tony, what emotion sparked you to post what you did on the FAC page for the article, and on Karanac's talk page, and on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and then to tell me what you had done? Was that the right thing to do? Think about it please.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your place to lecture me about how to complain about your attempts to intimidate a reviewer. I'm entirely satisfied with the course of action I've thus far taken. In addition, you might take a look through WP:ADMIN: see the bit about setting an example for all WPians? Tony(talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, at this point, you are plainly allowing your anger to rule what you are doing on this page. I suggest you calm down, you are not helping anyone. Do you remember these examples cited here? You are doing the same thing again, and it is not benefitting you or anyone. Let's have a truce, OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Agree with Tony that a copyedit is required, and I've undertaken one [42]. I think at least one more good copyedit would be helpful. I definitely think that there's an FA in here, though, and expect to support before this process is complete. Besides the copyediting I've done, here are some issues:
The lead's not in great shape. The first paragraph almost functions as a lead to the lead, summarizing the next three paragraphs, which results in a great deal of repetition.
I'm having some trouble reconciling that Marcantonio rarely discussed communism but was known for opposing restrictions on communists. This may not be a problem - I need to think about it some more.
"...hoping her influence would lead to a defense contract for the company." This looks like a possible dangling modifier. As it reads now, Douglas hoped that the company would get a defense contract. It seems more likely to me that the company hoped that.
"Northern California" - is this a clearly-defined area? If not, the N should be lowercase.
Some of the organization seems less than intuitive: for example, one paragraph begins by talking about Knight deciding not to run and then veers off into talking about Nixon's speaking tour. Another starts off by talking about Nixon's abilities as a fundraiser and then abruptly switches to talking about Alger Hiss. With the nominator's permission, I'd be willing to try some reorganization.
I really dislike "War in the Pacific" as a section header, first because a great deal of the material below it isn't about the Korean War at all and second because it makes me think of World War II, not of Korea.
"According to Tipton, "They fell for it." Tipton was confident that Nixon "couldn't keep up the red smear indefinitely"." Some elaboration is required here; I don't really understand what there was to "fall" for.
I'm not clear on how this whisper campaign took aim at Melvyn Douglas's Jewish heritage if it was about his being a communist. Is there some kind of Jew-communist connection I'm missing?
"...and Humphrey Bogart introduced Melvyn Douglas on radio." The relevance of this isn't immediately apparent.
"Chotiner publicized this response as an endorsement of Nixon, which Warren could not deny..." Why couldn't he deny it?
There's considerable inconsistency in the article over whether positions are capitalized (lieutenant-governor, senator, vice president, etc.) and I have no been able to glean the rule that is being applied. Can you explain it to me?
There's considerable discussion in the final section about the Korean War costing Democrats' support, but I can't find anything in the account of the campaign itself that would suggest that.Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting pretty close now. I think the prose is pretty close at this point (though I'll go over it one more time), and I've struck most of my concerns above (particular kudos for the lead, which is miles better than it was when I last looked at this). Two of the remaining three should be easy enough to address, though I still think that the "trap" that Douglas was apparently trying to set by accusing Nixon of voting with Marcantonio is unclear. I'd suggest clarifying or, if the sources don't allow this, just deleting language referring to it being a ploy and leaving only the bare factual details (Douglas made this allegation in her opening speech, Nixon responded as he did). But as I said, I think we're very close; thanks for your patience. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I capitalize when it is part of a title, as in Senator Nixon, but I would not capitalize "Nixon, the senator". However, I always capitalize President or Vice President when it is referring to the then-incumbent. I think that is MOS. Am I a deviationist? I will expand the Bogie bit, he was a Douglas supporter. Can you come back to my talk page for discussion on the Tipton issue? I'd like your thoughts but I don't want to make this page longer than I have to.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He voted against contempt citations for people hauled before HUAC who took the fifth or kept silent. "War in the Pacific" is a reference both to Korea, and to California, if you don't like it, I can easily substitute "early campaign". I'll strike the Warren language. Celebrity endorsements are often well thought of. I'll rephrase a bit on Melvyn Douglas. I'll link to Northern California, and all five counties fall into that category. If you are willing to do a complete copyediting, Steve, I have no objection to a reorganization. I just don't want people to do part and then say "please get another copyediting". I'm happy to have one person do it. Be bold. Just let me know. I spent the day hard at work in the library researching images for this article and right now I'm not feeling very enthusiastic, forgive me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there was an error in the whispering campaign sentence introduced by an editor trying to be helpful in this process, but I wasn't clear about what was being said before she made the change, and I've rephrased. Sorry about he confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think we're finally there; good work to all involved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There isn't really a proper first sentence in this article, as per the WP:LEAD guidelines. It just kinda jumps in with talking about the campaign. The rocky start to the article might be what's setting a problem elsewhere. It just needs a "The 1950 United States Senate election in California..." Wizardman 03:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, in the effort to repeat the name of the article, the first sentence becomes more abrupt. I like the way it is currently. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If others are fine with it I won't push, I'm just saying it feels like it goes too deep into what the article is about for a first sentence. Wizardman 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it intentionally that way. It's famous for three things, Nixon, Douglas, and nastiness. May as well tell the reader that right up front.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tony. To me the tone of the way the article is generally written doesn't seem right, a lot of it, particularly the Democratic contest section reads like a magazine or a narrative rather than an encyclopedic account. I think it needs major copyediting and to reword many of the gossip-sounding sentences into ones which read as more encyclopedic.
Hi, thanks for the thought, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you give one or two examples for my benefit and that of those who may copyedit, plus how you would like to see them? I should add that I really don't see what you mean about "gossip", the 1950 Senate race has been extensively written about, and these are all incidents from major historical books about the candidates. And for my guidance, you say "Per Tony". Tony has opposed on the ground that I won't agree to a copyedit. Is that the basis for your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I think it needs a copy edit. I'll find some examples shortly. It is mostly in regard to quotes I think. A lot of them don't seem to help the articles. E.g "You don't know anyone who has any money, do you? We have a campaign on and no money—and I mean no money". I think it could just be plainly written in prose that they had no money, plain and simple, I don't think the quote really adds anything. This is what I mean when I say a copy edit and taking out unnecessary quotes which don't enchance an understanding or if they do they beat around the bush so to speak. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 14:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what other concerns you come up with, and I'll take a look at them. I will admit that I went to some length to give Douglas' perspective, thus the quotes. I'd really like to be able to say more about Boddy, but he left no archives that I can discover and has had no biographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's the section I mean, Boddy versus Douglas. I think you should cut down on the quotes and write more in prose and do so in a way where the section doesn't read as if its literally a verbal face off. I know politics is a nasty business and I know this is what the section is about but I just think there is an encyclopedic way you can present both sides and write more of an account of it in your own words rather than somebody said this, he responded with saying ......, he laughed off etc. You see what I mean? A few quotes provinding they further an understanding is good but not to the extent where is starts to read as a narrative.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Is it just that section? I don't see it as much in the rest of the article, personally. Thank you, that is very constructive. I'd value feedback on the rest of the article. I'm going to try to keep this FAC going.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut back on the quotes and combined two of the paragraphs, and taken out the interaction between the two. I think the remaining quotes are justified. Possibly the paragraph about Pepper could be taken out, but as the Pepper race and the Nixon/Douglas race are closely linked, I think it is best to keep it in. Let me know your thoughts please.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better already. I feel that the article needs a final copy edit."The laughter recurred as Nixon, sitting behind Douglas as she spoke, fidgeted to show his disapproval of what she was saying, while Douglas appeared bewildered at the laughter. After Douglas finished her remarks, Nixon rose to speak again, but Douglas left rather than listen to him." I think this could be reworded, also "Douglas appeared bewildered at the laughter" looks like original research. "After Douglas finished her remarks" ? After Douglas finished her remarks? I don't follow. "Finished remarks" seems a little clumsy, maybe "completed her speech"?Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 15:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made that change, thanks. Douglas appearing bewildered at the laughter is straight out of the book, but I didn't want to do it as a quote, because it wouldn't be improved by making it a quote. Obviously it stems from Bill Arnold's perspective, since he is a Nixon partisan I mention inline that it's his story, but the fact that it was put into the book makes it an appropriate secondary source. Both of these events were officially "off the record" events, so there is no contemporary news coverage to appeal to. Please feel free to let me know anything else you see that needs improving. Malleus is going to do a copyedit. I can certainly drop a note on your talk page once that has been done and hopefully you'll reconsider your oppose. Thanks! Very constructive.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This has improved considerably thanks to the copyediting by Matisse. I now think it is almost there. Keep up the good work. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 10:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. I'd welcome further feedback either here or better yet on the article talk page since this is getting to be very long and that can be a turnoff to reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review part 2 - Three new images have been added. Let us check those out.
File:Meyercard.jpg - This is the one that I was most unsure about. This is a pretty unfancy envelope, but it still might be eligible for copyright; I don't know if {{pd-ineligible}} would apply here. However, I would like a third opinion on this one please. (Also, could you categorize it)
File:Douglasenv.jpg - This doesn't seem like something that would be part of the House of Representatives, but the House does seem to claim that it is part of the Congressional Record, which would make it PD. That looks good.
Meyercard.jpg is a business card, containing his name, degrees, address, and phone numbers. None of which are subject to copyright. It's like a telephone directory. I'm pretty pleased with myself for finding it in the Nixon archives, didn't expect to have anything relating to Meyer in this article, but apparently he came to Nixon hq and left his card (after reciting his campaign speech to the receptionist). I think it's PD, but can you get someone to doublecheck?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit's note on my talk page, as well as your explanation, convinces me as to the copyright ineligibility of that image. So, images all look good now. NW(Talk) 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A newly-added image lacks alt text; please add it. In general, when an image is added, alt text for it should be added too. In reviewing the altviewer output, could someone please make a pass through the alt text and punctuate it properly? Some entries are sentences but lack initial cap and/or final period; other entries are not sentences but lack a final period. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. Mattisse has spent much of the day copyediting the article, when she is done I'll take care of that punctuation. When I run the viewer, all entries have alt text. Is there a particular image that you see as not having it?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse has done a wonderful copyedit of the article, keeping the article compelling yet smoothing out the little quirks of my writing style! I think the article is much improved, and I'd ask those who indicated that it needed a copyedit to take a second look and see if it is good. Incidentally, I did change that "War in the Pacific" heading.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsJoint appearances - I'm a little confused here, exactly which "Eleanor Roosevelt" sent the letter? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TR's daughter in law, not FDR's widow. I've made that clearer. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After reading the article, and other reviewer's comments, it is my opinion that this article meets the four criteria. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that at the time of his frenzied campaign to discredit me as a reviewer, aided by Ottava Rima, the nominator went so far as to try to smeer me on the talk page of one of the ArbCom arbtirators, here, accusing me of incivility. I think this attempt to intimidate, humiliate, and damage a reviewer—for what was and remains a very straightforward review that contains not a jot of incivility—needs to be taken into account when this person has anything to do with future FA nominations. Above all, it is critical that reviewers feel they are free to provide feedback and assessment without fear that a nominator will run amok trying to damage them. All of this, and I didn't even oppose. I do not understand it. It's like "How dare you say anything critical about my article." Tony(talk) 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with Wehwalt's behavior completely, but I think it's best if you leave this matter Tony. It's run its course, and no need to open old wounds. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect Tony's position, but will not reply; anyone wishing to have a discussion is free to approach me off wiki. I should add that Tony did oppose, on the ground that a copyedit was needed and that I was unlikely to allow it, the article has been copyedited twice by Mattisse and Steve Smith, and those changes stand; I asked Tony to reconsider his oppose, here is the diff he did not choose to reply, as he did not choose to reply to my apology to him which Sandy applauded when she saw it. I think at this point, we should view Tony's concern regarding the article as acted upon, and move ahead. Tony himself noted that there was an FA in there when he made his original comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Steve Smith and others. The article is thoroughly referenced from multiple sources. It has also been intensively copyedited for prose issues, and all the problems noted above have been addressed and more. The last copyedit by Steve Smith upped the quality another notch. This is an in depth treatment of a controversial event, and the editor has done an excellent job of providing the differing views on the subject. The prose allows the article to retains the flavor of the times through descriptions of the incidents characterizing the campaign, which adds interest and dimension to the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has five six supports, including the GA reviewer, the peer reviewer, and three reviewers here who have gone through the article in considerable detail subsequent to Tony's oppose, which despite my request, he has not revisited, but we've done what he asked. Image and technical checks have been completed. I would submit it meets standards for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What date style is the article using ? This citation mixes two date formats:
Also, on the lead infobox, it looks huge. I tried to read the template code, but I don't speak that language. Is it within the 300px size? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date formatting fixed.
MOSNUM permits text expression of numerals of one or two words, and "thirty" falls into that category. I have never been able to get beyond eighth grade English class, and so generally prefer text where possible and permissible. Note that in the Pink Sheet section, though, I do use a number for 64. But for a one word numeral, I tend to go with text.
I've simply used the infobox formats used in all California Senate election articles. See, for example United States Senate election in California, 1994. This article is careful to follow the practices established by those, since it is one of a series, and I don't want to vary from the standardized layout, and so this article uses similar infoboxes, templates, tables, etc. I would advise against shrinking the infobox, even if we could figure out how. It looks fine, includes three nice images, and gives the reader important summary information.
Hope this helps. Thanks for the catch on the dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a Republican-owned helicopter company in Palo Alto"—The party is in the helicopter business?
The business card image is just a brown blop. No one could ever read a word on it. Please enlarge the pic so it's functional on the page. Other images contain details that suggest a larger size is required; thumbnails default to 180px for our readers, which is rather small. See Eleanor R., envelope, opera house ... Tony(talk) 09:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-comment: " I think at this point, we should view Tony's concern regarding the article as acted upon, and move ahead." Ah, no, you presume far too much. I have not changed my "Strong oppose". Tony(talk) 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: I've made those changes. Please let us know if you have any more concerns. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Tony's ongoing strong oppose, I looked at two sections and left notes on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Sandy. I am not home until late tonight, but will make the suggested changes and additional referencing then. I've already adjusted the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've carefully (I hope) spellchecked the article (for some reason, my browser doesn't seem to like "fundraising"), checked the lede to make sure that everything in there is supported in the article, and been proactive in looking at the rest of the article for the glitches Sandy was kind enough to point out. I think it's all done. All comments made by reviewers have been responded to and in most cases addressed (or explained why it shouldn't be so). Six supports, with an oppose whose stated concerns have been addressed. I think it meets the criteria for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony has been kind enough to strike his strong oppose, for which I thank him.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we're at six supports, no opposes, technical check done, image check done, everything in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with a couple of comments). I'm here somewhat at random after having a quick interaction with Wehwalt and deciding to read through this article. I've never done one of these reviews before, and I gather this comes a little late in the game, but as someone with a decent amount of historical knowledge with respect to this topic I figured it's worthwhile to weigh in, since most of the other reviewers are commenting on issues of prose, sources, logic of argument, etc. From a purely historical perspective I think this is rather well done. I don't see any errors of fact and I checked up on a number of things. For example I was surprised by the fact that Douglas apparently mentioned Marcantonio and Nixon vote similarities before Nixon ever got into a Douglas-Marcantonio connection, but the 1950 NYT article (which I read on ProQuest) at least partially bears that out. On the whole I think the topic is covered quite fairly (though I have one general quibble - see below) and the "history and legend" section is particularly effective as an overall evaluation. A few small concerns follow, but they do not alter my support for this being promoted to FA status.
Quite trivial, but the wording in footnote 52 is rather imprecise, particularly references to an "explanation" (obviously referring to an explanation for why "Eleanor Roosevelt" sent Nixon a check). Perhaps, for example, instead of saying, "Morris does not mention an explanation of "which Eleanor Roosevelt"... you could say "Morris does not mention a clarification by Nixon as to which "Eleanor Roosevelt" sent the check..." (or something similar).
On two occasions you cite Murray Chotiner's view of a particular situation where we might have reason to doubt his reliability as a source. First you note that "Chotiner stated twenty years later that Marcantonio suggested the comparison of voting records, as he disliked Douglas for failing to support his beliefs fully." It would be really nice to have backup for that (I can't access the original article but in historian (not Wikipedian) parlance it would be considered a "primary source"), though the suggestion is not completely unbelievable. The second instance, where you say, "Chotiner later stated that the color choice was made at the print shop when campaign officials approved the final copy, as the color appealed to them" is more problematic. Your footnote points out that Chotiner told multiple versions of the story, and it's a highly self-serving account (making what many would view as a Machiavellian move by a political operator schooled in red-baiting tactics seem to be little more than a random aesthetic choice). Though an interesting detail, you might want to remove it unless you can also include a historian's evaluation of its reliability or an alternative view suggesting that the color selection was not a matter of mere chance. Personally given the circumstances I don't find Chotiner's claim particularly credible.
One-third of numbered footnotes come from Gellman's book (and actually probably a higher percentage of the inline citations). Academic and non-academic reviews of the book (though I only found one of the former on America: History and Life) praise Gellman for his archival diligence, but at the same time view the book as a bit of an apologetic for Nixon (Gellman obviously cast it as a "revisionist" account). I've hunted around and I'm guessing it might be the most well-researched book that discussed the 1950 campaign in great detail but I'm curious if other (more recent) books or articles have taken different views of the campaign using the same sources Gellman first gained access to in the mid-1990s. Thi s is more something to think about for the future though as improvements are made after the article is (hopefully) promoted, and in general I think you did an excellent job keeping the article NPOV.
Again, none of that precludes me from supporting the promotion of this to featured status—just a couple of suggestions. Props to Wehwalt for all the effort on this article, particularly given the importance of this election to post-WWII American political history. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are several versions of each Chotiner story out there. Most Nixon bios mention that Nixon and Marcantonio were at least cordial, if not friends. A couple of them do have Marcantonio saying words to the effect of "Tell Dicky to get in on this thing" when he heard of Boddy's attacks during the primary. As for the Pink Sheet, most bios mention some version of Chotiner's story, but don't pass judgment on his truthfulness (though the man was a compulsive exaggerator, in my view, which explains why all the clients he was hailed before Congress for supposedly influence peddling lost their cases!) The reader will have to make his own judgment, I'm afraid. It's worth including, but it is not fully credible, I agree. Gellman writes the most lucid account of the 1950 campaign, which is why I relied heavily on him, but I'm careful to cite to him for facts, and given the wealth of legend surrounding the 1950 campaign, I cited little that was not in at least two accounts. Where he strays into opinion, however, that is clearly labeled in the article! I was talking with the archivist at the Nixon Library about him, it seems the second part of his bio about Nixon was greatly delayed due to illness, but is now just about done. I would say that Gellman and Black take a slight apologist view, but Morris and Mitchell take the opposite view, and Ambrose takes a neutral view, but his view is relatively early and he doesn't go into 1950 in great detail (Ambrose is writing about the first fifty years of Nixon's life in one volume, so it is less detailed) I also have an additional book, which I read part of while waiting for material at the Nixon Library, by Jonathan Aicken coming, perhaps I'll portion out some of the cites to him. I'll clean up that footnote, it became less precise in the course of copyeditiong of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Chotiner's actual comment on the Pink Sheet, "it just seemed to appeal to us, for the moment" is decidedly more ambiguous. I was asked to take as many quotes as possible out, because I tend to overinclude them, as an attorney, but that one I think I will put back in. It is unclear, and I think intentionally so, whether he's talking about aesthetic choice or whether they had a great idea at the print shop and had a The Prince moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another one of my German battleship FACs, this article was significantly rewritten over the past couple of months. It passed GA in May and WP:MILHIST A-class review a few days ago. I think the article is at or close to FA standards; any comments that help me get all the way there are appreciated. I've added alt text to the images, though I'm still a little unsure of how that's supposed to be done, so if it needs work, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis good, as far as Cr. 1a goes.
WP:LINK advises against the linking of common geographical locations (like Germany). Any reason to here? It's a very big article. I see that "German Imperial Navy" is linked a second later ...
"Kaiser" is italicised at the opening, but not in the title. Is this correct?
Minus sign for -8. It's in the edit tools under the edit window ("Insert" tab), before the multiplication sign.
I think MOSNUM says to spell out 160 here: "160 99.9 lb shells".
Avoid multihyphen bracket monster by inverting the order: "the ships had a 4 cm (1.6 in)-thick torpedo bulkhead" -> "the ships had a torpedo bulkhead 4 cm (1.6 in) thick".
"yards"—do we provide metric equivalents for this situation?
"caliber" is US spelling; I'd have thought this had enough reference to the UK to be otherwise, but maybe I'm wrong. Tony(talk) 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking this stuff, Tony. I'm not quite sure what you mean by your second bullet; do you mean the large bold title "Kaiser class battleship" at the top of the page. I am unfamiliar with any way of italicizing the actual title. I fixed the "160 -> one hundred and sixty", the bracket/hyphen issue you pointed out, and the missing conversion you mentioned. As for US/UK spelling, the way I see it, "national ties to a topic" only applies to British ships. Another issue is, I wrote my first FA, SMS Von der Tann, and I did try to stick with British English, since that was how it was originally written. I found this to be extremely difficult and time-consuming; I'm an American, and the time spent trawling the article for words I spelled out of habit in AE that needed to be switched to BE could have been more usefully spent elsewhere. I have since stopped doing this. Thanks again for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahoy there Good read but:
"30.5 m (100 ft)" would make those pretty long barreled guns, any chance that was 30.5mm calibre?
I'm not sure about "The ships lost speed up to 66 percent and heeled over 8 degrees" was that meant to be "The ships lost speed up to 66 percent when heeled over 8 degrees".
The lead describes the ships as "raised and broken up for scrap between 1930 and 1937" but later you give March 29 as the date for the raising of one of them.
the lead mentions their involvement in operation Albion, but I could find no mention of this in the main article.
could you check your sources re their having 88mm flak guns, my understanding was that flak guns came later, after aircraft had become dangerous.ϢereSpielChequers 23:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking the article. Yes, somehow the template got messed up (probably a copy-paste error on my part, I'd guess); it should have been 30.5cm (12in). The speed loss and heel figures were when the ship was turning at the tightest angle, I apparently didn't say that in the text. Kaiser wasn't actually broken up until 1930, which is probably what I was thinking when I wrote the lead. I changed it to 1929 to avoid any confusion. Thanks for catching my forgetting of Albion, I'll add an appropriate section tomorrow when I have the time. As for the flak guns, they were indeed added later in the war. Groner's states "four [two] 8.8 cm/45 AA guns (2,500 rounds)", the "[two]" indicates that two of the guns were later removed. Further information on the flak guns can be found here. It does seem a little odd that the Germans were fitting AA guns to their warships, but I'd wager a guess it had to do with the Cuxhaven Raid of 1914. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, may I suggest adding a note to the effect that they were originally built without flak guns but had later had .... installed.ϢereSpielChequers 08:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've added the section on Operation Albion and reworded the sentence about the Flak guns to make clear that they were added to the ship later. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was interesting. Two minor points:
Four tubes on the broadside - unless they were on a turntable on the deck I'm assuming this was either two tubes on each side of the ship, or four on one side and none on the other?
South America and South Africa, as Germany had a colony in what is now Namibia, I wonder if you might check whether that was South America and Southern Africa as it would be odd for them to go nearby and not visit their own colony.
Yes, there were two tubes on each side of the ship, which I have now clarified. Groner's states "These ships participated in the first major trial overseas of a detached division, to South America and South Africa in 1913–14, with the light cruiser Strassburg." It doesn't say anything more specific about which ports were visited. It is entirely possible that the ships never visited German South-West Africa, the German African colonies were a sort of useless backwater (Herwig's Luxury Fleet has an excellent chapter detailing the utterly deplorable conditions in the German overseas possessions, pp 95–110). Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking in to that, thats me done; But looking at the picture of the Prinzregent Luitpold I think its a photo rather than an illustration, and you might want to talk to user:Durova as to how those photos could be restored. ϢereSpielChequers 19:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one picky comment. Shouldn't the notes be listed as [Note 1] etc instead of [Notes 1]? "notes" is plural. --Brad (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. That's how I had been doing it in other articles, but at some point I randomly added the "s". Thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful job, no complaints from me Burningview (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gave this one the tick in MILHIST ACR and it's only improved since then. One thing though in Operation Albion... You finish with the expression the German army held their objectives. First off, "the army" is singular, so you need "its", not "their". Secondly, I would say one "attains objectives", or "holds gains", but not "holds objectives" - suggest you substitute one of those alternatives I've mentioned... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing it again, Ian. I fixed the wording issue as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Are we sure that File:SMS Kaiser steaming to Scapa.PNG is a work of the British government? It's an Imperial War Museum photograph, but does that mean that it was actually created by the British government? As well, the image's date needs to go on its description page. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's really the only possibility; the German fleet was under British escort for majority of their trip from Germany to Scapa, which included observation blimps. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with that (I'd missed that the photo was taken post-armistice, which is why it struck me as unlikely to be a British government photo). The date still needs to go on the description page, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the date and a short caption. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All quiet on the image front. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The {{main}} templates appear to be incorrectly used in this article. "Main" is used when this article is a summary of that article. This article discusses one class of ships, so it's unlikely that it's a summary of a battle. The templates should be switched to a further information or see also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I didn't know that before. I guess I have some other articles to fix as well. I've changed them all here to {{detail}}. Thanks Sandy. Parsecboy (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.The two three two images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to have now been added. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but they still need work. The Gygax image says "Gary Gygax" in the alt text, which isn't right; most readers don't know what Gygax looked like. The isocahedron is purely decorative and should not have neither alt text nor a link. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify. Eubulides (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the Gygax one again. What's the third image, if the Icosahedron isn't it? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my remark wasn't right and I've changed the "three" back to "two". Like all images, the icosahedron either needs alt text, or it needs to be marked with "|link=" (it's OK to do both). But after I looked at it more carefully I noticed that it is purely decorative. So it should be marked with "|link=". It can keep the alt text if you like. Eubulides (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the alt text. Eubulides (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 5 (Schick...) lacks a page number. As it's 448 pages, we need something a bit more specific to satisfy WP:V
Current ref 8 (D&D Alumni..) Current ref 9 (Design..) and 10 (Spotlight..) need last access dates. Also, can we format these like the other website refs? (remove the "from"?)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made some adjustments. I've asked at the wikiproject if someone know the page for the Schick book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the page # using Amazon.com's book search. It may be 1 or 2 off because of how that tool is setup, but that's probably the best that can be done (the user who added the link hasn't been around for quite awhile, IIRC, and I don't think that any of the remaining project members have a copy of the book). Is that good enough? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a page range to be safe and we're good. (example if you think it's page 13, put in pp. 11-15) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can do. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—It appears to meet the FA criteria. Thank you for your work on this article. Comment—Reading the text left some issues unresolved in my mind, so I'm not fully convinced it is comprehensive. Thus:
What would the characters be doing up in the Barrier Peaks in the first place? How does the plot draw them to that location?
The text describes this mission as the character's job. Are they hired to resolve this situation?
Why would it matter that a stream of monsters have been appearing from a cave in the mountains? Are there settlements nearby that are being impacted?
What are the secrets that are revealed by the cover illustration? (Note that the image is reduced in size, so some of the details are fuzzy.)
Could these questions be answered by the article? Thank you. :-) —RJH (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to get to these questions tonight if no one beats me to it. :) BOZ (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this answers the first three questions. I can add more detail if you feel it's needed. I've been trying to keep the Plot part short, since the whole article isn't that large.
The last question is a bit harder. Here's the source sentence: "An A4 book of 32 pages describes the environment in detail, with a cover that reveals the secret of the creatures." I think the "A4" part is a typo, or introduced by a bad scan. The main cover, File:S3ModuleCover.jpg, shows a party of three adventurers fighting a plant/octopus creature. One of the main creatures in the module is the "cute little bunnyoid on the stump" which turns into a multi-armed creature, although the interior illustration of it is by a different artist and looks quite different. Not sure what to do exactly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't think it was necessary to remove it; I just wondered whether that could be clarified. I would have no heartburn about leaving that quote in place.
I suspect that at least one of the secrets being revealed by the cover is the use of the plasma beam weapon, in contrast to the usual D&D weaponry.—RJH (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, but I don't want to commit WP:OR if I can help it. I figured out that the A4 thing is a reference to paper size, thank goodness. Now, the secret of the module is that the creatures coming from the mountains are coming out of a downed spaceship. The review says the module has a "cover that reveals the secret of the creatures." I also believe it's based on the blaster gun and the high tech gas mask that one of the party members is waring (here's a bigger image of the cover). I'll think about how to best word it, or if someone has an idea, I'm all ears. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I came up with. I tried to sidestep the OR issue by putting the relevant info in, and people can put two and two together if they wish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good :) bring on the froghemoth and vegepygmies ;) Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support(moral or otherwise as sometime D&D contributor) I have read this a couple of times over, and nothing jumps out as neding improving. The prose is clear, succinct and flows well, and it is about as comprehensive as I can think of. The secret revealed on the front cover is the use of a space gun/pistol by one of the adventurers. I remember this as being a talking point. I remember when I bought it in 1980 or 1981 I had no idea about the space concept until I opened it. Thing is, players playing a module spend alot of time staring at the cover (itching to open it :))) ), hence the allusion to picking up clues looking at it. Not sure where this is going, but I would think working the secret back in is good if it can be done. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Most of the writing looks quite reasonable. I went through it and found only a handful of picky things to complain about.
"It included a seperate booklet of illustrations, both color and black and white." Should it be "in both color and black and white", or is my proposal just wordy?
Watch for overlinking. I doubt many of our readers need a further explanation for virus or robot, and they have little to do with the topic.
Publication history: It could be made clearer that the "What could be more logical" quote was from Gygax (assuming that it was).
Reception: I assume that reference 11 is citing all these quotes from judges? Not a problem per se, but be careful if someone adds content in the middle of this paragraph; some of the early quotes could be left uncited.
I would like to see a comma after "on both sides of the same sheet."
"(This a visual barrier...)". Missing word.Giants2008 (17–14) 14:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I delinked what you mentioned, as well as Extraterrestrials in fiction, video game, Baltimore, Maryland and a few others. Hopefully that's about right. I clarified the Gygax quote, and reused the refs in the body. For "(This a visual barrier...)", I removed "This" instead of adding "is", hopefully that works. I also fixed the other stuff you mentioned. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support – Prose seems up to scratch, but on a second look, I noticed one of those over-referencing clumps that Tony refers to. In the second paragraph of Publication history, three straight sentences are cited by reference 9. Nothing in those sentences strikes me as controversial in the least, so I recommend taking out two of the three, and leaving the one after "version 3.5 rules." Giants2008 (17–14) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-enough written. But needs an over-referencing audit.
Deceptive piped link, first line: "Adventure" goes to somewhere quite different. Can you work out how to change the piping or relocate the link so readers will know what they're going to? No one will click on "adventure" in that context.
"Stream of monsters" ... "succession"?
Ref. number formatting: "[6]:29" etc. Is this within the guidelines? I've not seen it before. It's a logical formatting, if we can get people used to it.
Over-referencing: BUT, I see [6]:2 EIGHT TIMES in a row; please remove the first four and have one at para's end, and one after "game"—two should be enough, unless there's something contentious that needs marking. Then six 13s in a row. Please audit throughout. Tony(talk) 05:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking about the deceptive dab.
"succession" done.
I don't know if they're allowed. I've asked at the FAC talk page.
I thought the latest trend was a ref for every sentence, but I guess not. ;-) I've cut down on the duplicated refs. I left the ones after quotes, and when the text switches from one ref to another, then back again. I can remove more if needed.
"(a visual barrier that allows dice rolls and other activities to be conducted without the players knowing the outcome)" and "(Wizards of the Coast periodically alters the rules of Dungeons & Dragons and releases a new version)" are not associated with any reference, I just added them in as explanations. I can add refs for them, or I can remove the ref right before them. Whatever people think is best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "[6]:29" format is a good way to use citations to specific pages if a source contains content from multiple pages and there are only a few such sources (between, say, one and five, since then using Harvard refs would look weird for such a small number of different sources). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the deceptive piped link to "adventure module". Hopefully that works. The problem is that in the old days they were called "modules" and now their called "adventures" and sometimes "adventure modules". Hopefully the two word name will allow old, new, and non-gamers to understand the link. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about using the {{rp} template for page numbers, and apparently its OK.[45] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A short article on a spy that nobody really knew about until 2007. 'Nuff said, read and learn! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a cursory copyedit, and it reads smoothly for the most part. One sentence I was scratching my head about for a while was this: "As Koval built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union, the FBI launched an investigation into his activities in the 1950s". Was the FBI investigating Koval's 1950s activities, or did the investigation take place in the 1950s? If the former, I suggest: "As Koval built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union, the FBI launched an investigation into his 1950s activities"; if the latter, there's a deeper problem because you've got "As" and "1950s" disharmoniously co-existing, and I'd suggest a complete change around: "In the 1950s, the FBI launched an investigation into Koval's activities, while he built a new life for himself in the Soviet Union" (or some such; it's still slightly awkward). —Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped part of the sentence entirely, as its dealt with in the earlier paragraph, and reworded. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Query Interesting well written story. No mention of his wife after his return, did she predecease him? Did they have kids? Also did he ever renounce his US citizenship?ϢereSpielChequers 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I did not find any sources that discussed those matters. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK well we can't add what we can't source, but thanks for checking. ϢereSpielChequers 08:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind having another look at your sources for the sentence "According to Arnold Kramish, an American colleague he befriended, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU station." Perhaps the reference has been updated, but I would read this as implying that Kramish knew about the GRU section structure from Koval, whilst the reference implies that he learned it from the FBI.
Also "While other spies such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Klaus Fuchs were caught after the war, Koval apparently went unscrutinized for years. Among the reasons given for his maintained cover" implies that he maintained his cover after they had been caught, whilst the sources state that he had returned to Russia in 1948 - well before the other three were caught. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked a mention in "later years". Kramish and everyone else didn't know anything originally, but he struck up a correspondence with Koval which is how he learned about the covert activities. As for the Rosenberg&Fuchs, there's not meant to be any connection besides that they were Soviet spies; it's just that in contrast to them being caught, Koval escaped and went uninvestigated for years. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them. I think that resolves my earlier query, but in Jan 1941 "a year's deferment from service starting February 1942." Reads to me as a two year deferment or did it end in Feb 42?ϢereSpielChequers 11:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "President Putin.." ref in the references is thesame as the current ref 1 (Kremlin.ru)? If so, it should probably be listed in the notes as "President Putin" since that's the first part of the reference. Makes it easier to find.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, milady, I'm confused. You mean "President Putin" as referred to in the article text? In other words make it out as "Putin" in the named ref rather than Kremlin. ru? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. The first footnote is presumably refering to the article in the references that's titled "President Vladimir Putin...". I'm just asking that they be consistently titled so that they are easy to find. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's just because {{cite web}} prioritizes the title if there's no author. I've tweaked it, thanks. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - for now. Fascinating stuff and well-written. Quibbles: Where we have "sites producing" in the Lead, how about "sites that produce" or "sites that produced"? Is a "debate team" what we call over here in the UK a "debating society"? WRT the Jewish Autonomous Region(s), I got a little confused. Presumably the one "established by Stalin" had nothing to do with the one mentioned in the sentence above, or did it? I think "cell" might be better than "station" here, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU station. And, here, his motivation for leaving might have been because American counter-intelligence agents had discovered Soviet literature about his parents— why not just write "he might have left because..."? Lastly, I cannot see where the Doyle reference is used in the text. Graham ColmTalk 17:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some auxiliary Doyle citations, I forgot to add them in a while back with another edit, I guess... only a byte or two change. I've implemented your recommended changes, and cut out Stalin entirely and move the wikilink so it's clear the regions are the same... better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I don't envisage any problems with the image, so I a pleased to added my support. Graham ColmTalk 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The sole image looks perfectly fine. NW(Talk) 04:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SteveT • C Looks good overall. I come bearing a list, but it's all quite minor:
Lead
"After the war, Koval left on a European vacation and never returned to the United States."—sounds like he left on a genuine holiday, rather than its being a ruse so he could get out of the country.
Early life
"The carpenter settled in Sioux City ..."—who, Jesus? :p At this point, saying "the carpenter" as a way of avoiding a second use of "Abram Koval" doesn't quite work, as his profession hasn’t been established at this point. Sure, it's implied, but the word still strikes up enough of a query that it interferes with the flow. Fowler: "The effect is to set readers wondering what the significance of the change is, only to conclude there is none."
"were profiled by an American Communist daily in New York City"—ambiguous; the meaning of "daily" (as in newspaper) only becomes clear in the next sentence with the mention of the journalist.
"While Isaya became a champion tractor driver..."—a champion tractor driver? Can you confirm?
The source says he became a "champion tractor driver". Not being in the ultra-competitive Soviet heavy farm machinery circuit, I have no idea what that entails beyond that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recruitment and espionage
"Later, Koval was recruited by the Soviet Main Intelligence Directorate"—a pity the section has to start out without a scene-setting date. I presume that even an approximate date isn't known? Would the sources stretch to saying "Between 193[n] and 1939, Koval..."?
unfortunately it would. The exact dates, or even a year range, is never specified. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Arnold Kramish, an American colleague he befriended, and who contacted him over half a century later in 2000 and started corresponding, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU cell."—the mid-sentence digression is ungainly, makes the sentence too long and obscures its focus. Perhaps we can cull some of that without losing the intended meaning: "According to Arnold Kramish, an American colleague he befriended and with whom he re-established contact in 2000, it was there that Koval assumed deputy command of the local GRU cell."
"Eventually, Koval managed to obtain a teaching job there, where students laughed at his foreign pronunciations for technical terms."—seems to focus too much on the students' finding his pronunciations amusing, as if that's all that happened there, the teaching is considered almost an afterthought. Perhaps find some way of de-emphasising?
I removed the "where" bit and replaced it with a semi colon to try and break it up, is that a bit better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELLIPSES is a little unclear on what should be done with the last sentence. Spaced, as the guideline seems to recommend, looks very strange.
I made some minor changes; see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each. Otherwise, a nice article on an interesting subject. All the best, SteveT • C 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the top one. :-) Oh, and "On November 3, 2007, he received his last award"—wondering what "last" is doing there, as there were no previous awards. SteveT • C 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the award bit, and reworded the first one ever so slightly. Better? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a lot more to say than that. :-) The prose is fine, the image correctly licensed and the article as seemingly comprehensive as it can be for the subject. The minor concerns I listed above have been dealt with speedily too. Nice work, SteveT • C 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with comments - 1. 'This group, organized by American Jewish Communists in 1924, supported through money and publicity the development of the "Jewish Autonomous Region"' There is no verb. Put a "was" before "supported" and it can be a sentence. 2. Quote in the middle of the paragraph beginning "The Koval family" needs a citation directly following the quote per MoS. 3. "Though the United States was still neutral in World War II," Should be "during the beginning of World War II". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented your other tweaks, but I'm pretty sure #1 is a sentence: "This group [...] supported [...] the development of the JAR." If it's a bit wordy I can try chunking it out. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Supported through" makes it not a verb. See: "I am supported". The verb is "to be" (i.e. "am"). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But then it reads "This group, organized by American Jewish Communists in 1924, was supported through money and publicity the development of the "Jewish Autonomous Region"—the Communist answer to the Palestine project then being undertaken by the Zionism movement"... it doesn't sound like "the development..." and what comes after it makes any sense with "was". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve seems to have fixed it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the images have alt text, but the alt text needs work. The currently alt text is just a copy of the captions. But alt text has a different function from the caption, and typically the alt text and caption should overlap little, if at all. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples and then give it another go.Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've improved them properly now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better, but still needs work. The alt text too often give details like "Hurricane Georges" or "Chandelur Islands" that cannot be verified merely by looking at the image (unless you are an expert). An ordinary reader won't look at the Chandelur Islands photo and say "that looks like the Chandelur Islands". I reworded the first few; can you please reword the last two? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came back to see that the alt text problems were still present, and fixed them as best I could. Eubulides (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are the damages and deaths repeated twice in the lead, in the first sentence of each paragraph? Also, for the images in the Impact section, can you find a way (might involve playing around with the template itself), to use {{Double image stack}} as used in Raymore Drive? The way those two small images are positioned looks awkward. I'll probably add more comments, as I'm combing the article over to use it as a model for writing an effects article myself. Maxim(talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the double image link, I didn't know that existed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the prose needs more work. The year of the hurricane needs to be specfied at the beginning of the article (not just in the infobox); in the Preparations section third paragraph there are multiple repetitions of evacuate/evacuated/evacuation – nine in all; "Record-breaking" needs a hyphen; "declared disaster declarations" is not good prose. These are examples of points needing attention; in addition there are numerous no-break space omissions throughout the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done these examples. Will try to copyedit the article more thoroughly tomorrow. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedited the entire article. I'll proofread it tomorrow. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: Most of my earlier concerns have been addressed. I have since had the chance to read the article through, which has brought to light several more (manly prose) points:-
"On September 16, the depression was upgraded into Tropical Storm Georges and further into Hurricane Georges the next day." The word "further" is disruptive and unnecessary. Also, "into" rather than "to"? My preferred version would be: "On September 16, the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Georges, and to Hurricane Georges the next day." Also, shouldn't Tropical Storm Georges be wikilinked?
Done and it doesn't have to be linked since the article is linked in the lead and there is a {{Main article|Hurricane Georges}} in that section Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance, but what time was "1500 UTC". I've never heard of UTC, and the link hasn't made me any wiser.
Coordinated Universal Time is the standard time unit for world events, the time zone it is centered around is the Grand Meridian. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of "evacuate/evacuations" in paragraph 3 of Preparations has been reduced from 9 to 6, but the repetition still jars. Because hurricane articles all tend to use the same terminology, it is important where possible to vary the language. Here, the first "evacuated from" could be replaced by "left". Likewise, Grand Isle's 1,500 residents could be ordered to "leave", and the large-scale evacuations could be described as "population movements". Please consider.
"were confined", followed by "having been concentrated" is ungrammatical. The sentence makes perfect sense without "having been".
"A lighthouse located on the islands prior to Georges was partially submerged in the Gulf of Mexico, nearly 1,200 feet (370 m) from land." The wording is unclear. Does this mean that a lighthouse was bodily picked up and hurled 1,200 feet into the Gulf, or that the waters of the Gulf covered the island on which it was standing, leaving it 1,200 feet from land? We need a clearer picture of what happened.
It's not clear where the 80,000 "residences" that lost power were located. The previous sentence begins "In Orleans Parish..." – were all 80,000 there?
I don't want to be funny, but "...medical conditions complicated by an evacuation" sounds, well, medical (and unpleasant). Could you rephrase to "medical conditions aggravated by the stress of the evacuation" or something similar?
"Including relief funds to Puerto Rico and Mississippi in association with Georges..." Awkward wording: try "associated with" or "arising from", rather than "in association with"
Is it possible to give a bit more information about the various costings referred to in the lead and Aftermath sections (both saying much the same thing at present)? For example, what does "paid losses" mean? $56 million was raised in relief funds - how was it raised, and who got it? What is the relationship of these relief figures to the $30.1 million estimated cost of damage?
My earlier comment about no-break spaces has not been addressed.
Otherwise, a tidy enough piece of hurricania. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the lead doesn't really summarize the article per WP:LEAD. The first half is dedicated to information that more or less rehashes the Background section, but it doesn't tell me anything about the topic of the article. I'd prefer to see a sentence or two of the background, and the rest of the lead summarizing the meat of the article. --Andy Walsh(talk) 20:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else you want added into it? I'm just being on the cautious side since it's a short article and I don't want to put too much into the lead Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
Pleased with the writing. In view of the clarifications and changes at MoS concerning those dreadful unsized thumbnails, will you consider upsizing a few of the pics? There's interesting detail (potentially) in the satellite shot of the hurricane; but it's wasted in such a small pic, and all the hurricane article pics like that seem to be the same at that size. I can't make out much detail in the differences pics. Can they not be left–right adjacent to the rainfall chart? Already the text is a little squeezed down the middle, and bigger pics will require a reshuffling of locations. Tony(talk) 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed the image size issue. On my computer, the images appear fine, I'm not sure what's happening with other computers. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, my issue with the lead was resolved. Prose looks good. --Andy Walsh(talk) 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I rarely support off the bat, but I made the necessary tweaks (please check) myself instead of listing them here; the article is quite good (and relatively interesting for a tropical cyclone). One question: "for the Ascension, Assumption, Jefferson, Lafourche, Livingston, Plaquemines, Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, and St. John the Baptist St. Tammany, Terrebone, Tangipahoa, and Washington Parishes." What's that first "and" for?Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a listing error on my part. I've fixed it, thanks for the corrections and support. Same goes to Tony1 and Laser brain Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No image review? Text squeeze between images in "Impact" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments (please fix these first with emphasis on number 4 being absolutely necessary for FA status) - 1. I tried to check some sources and I got stuck behind having to sign up for stuff, so, I will AGF. 2. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph of the lead seems off - I would suggest: 'After nearly 1.5 million people were urged to evacuate coastal areas, officials described the evacuation as "probably the largest [...] we have ever achieved".[1]' 3. The semi-colon in the second paragraph seems off. Semi-colons connect two sentences that are thematically connected but there is little grammatical cohesion to warrant a semi-colon. 4. The image is against the main template in the "Background" section in violation of WP:ACCESS. Please move the image to below the template. 5. You never say who Mayer Morial is. 6. In "Impact" you use "impacts" as a noun, which seems inappropriate. You could switch to "damage", "destruction", or something similar. 7. The phrase "nearly 1,200 feet..." doesn't work with the sentence. You don't say which islands either. You could start the section dealing with the islands saying "The Chandelur Islands were nearly 1,200 feet..." then follow that with the lighthouse and other sentences. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the text per suggestions for your first three comments, as for the image comment, there has never been an issue with having a storm track near the infobox template in any other FAC, I'm not sure what makes this any different. Points five and six addressed. As for the last point, it's not talking about any of the islands being 1,200 feet out, it's referring to the lighthouse that was isolated from land. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On point 4, Ottava was referring to the fact that the image preceded the {{main article}} template in the section order when it should be the other way around. I fixed that. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, that makes much more sense, thanks for taking care of it :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a sentence to clarify "the islands" in "A lighthouse on the islands". "the" is used to specify a specific set of islands. It would be helpful to instead put a name of which islands. If there isn't a name, then use "on a set of islands" or "on some islands". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that removes the confusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all free, appear to have proper attribution, and appear fine. However, I would recommend that File:Georges1998rain.gif enlarged on this page as at 180px (the fixed size used in the page), the text on the image is unreadable. It's better at 300px (and per recent FAC/MOS discussion, images do not have to be thumb size but should stay under 400px). --MASEM (t) 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 300px, thanks for the image review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it's about a fascinating subject, has reached Good article standard, and is timely in relation to the approaching 150th anniversary of publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species... dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Supplement: please note that Fertilisation of Orchids was Darwin's first book after On the Origin of Species, and the first time he demonstrated the usefulness for research and the explanatory power of his theory of natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restart, old nom. Alt text is clear; unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jappalang (talk·contribs) is a good one to verify that images are in compliance (or Awadewit (talk·contribs)), and I didn't see that Ealdgyth (talk·contribs) had done a source check, so you might ping her. I noted in edit summary an inconsistent citation style between notes and references: publishers should be separated from title in notes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have dropped a line to Jappalang, and implemented the corrections to citation style. Many thanks for helping with that, dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the image issues have been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had a review and wanted to support before, but things suddenly changed and, well, I lost my chance. Anyway, I just have a few suggestions. 1. The image "Musk orchids in grassland" should be moved to the second paragraph of "Insect fertilisation of plants". I say this because of the formatting problems that happen with the header along with musk orchids being discussed in that area. 2. "After On the Origin of Species was published Darwin " Please put a comma after "published". The "aft" would denote a clause that is explanatory but unessential to the statement in the next clause (the one starting "Darwin"). The next comma, "editions, as", is unnecessary as it is logically part of the same clause and would not be separated (i.e. Darwin didn't do one, then something else happened. Instead, Darwin did 1 and 2 with the mutual verbal phrase "became involved"). 3. "During 1861 botany" Please put a comma before "botany". See "2" and also - this could be read as "1861 botany", as if there would be such a thing. :) 4. Please move the image "Catasetum macrocarpum" down a paragraph. It levels against a blockquote directly above and the formatting seems off. 5. In "British orchids", the section beginning "While the bee orchid showed adaptation for self-fertilisation" could be separated into its own section. The second image could be moved left and to the front of this paragraph to keep the two images from running into each other and giving a small break in the paragraph for readability. 6. If you move that image as suggested, you could move "Catasetum saccatum " to the top and to the right of that section and further remove the formatting problem. 7. At the end of "Further research by Darwin", you have a quote followed by a blockquote. I am unsure about this. Are the two connected? Is one quoting the other? Is there some way you can denote this so it wont be as confusing? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - My opinion on the primary sources is as follows - The work is a scientific book. Regardless if it was later proven wrong or challenged in any form, it was created as a work of science and has the rigor of a scientific work. The primary sourcing is necessary to explain the ideas behind the science. This is not the equivalent of a plot section, as a plot is mostly summary about opinion, instead of a rigorous scientific discovery that is argued. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and suggestions, I like the grammatical changes and some of the image moves work well for me. Not too sure about the position of the pencils with pollen masses: see how that looks for you. dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the paragraph some and moving the image does help with the readability. The changes are much more aesthetically pleasing and really help. The little details do matter a lot. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per my comment on the previous nomination. It is a very nice piece that meets the FA criteria and is very informative. I particularly enjoyed the backcround and botany as recreation sections give a great feel for how natural history was done in the Victorian era with informal correspondance networks and leading naturalists putting notices in popular journals to solicit readers to submit their observations on a topic. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been met except 1 that was debatable. The article has made it clear that the book, although known only to specialists, has been important and influential, and a worthy complement to Origin of Species. I hope to see it on the main page before the end of 2009. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in previous nom. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can the punctuation on this sentence be improved?
He explained the mechanism by which it fired its sticky pollen mass at an insect that touched an "antenna" on the flower, referring to experiments imitating its action using a whalebone spring.
Comma followed by a dash: is that the punctuation in the cited source?
flower is due to a long course of slow modification,—each modification having been
In my examination of Orchids, hardly any fact has so much struck me as the endless diversity of structure,—the prodigality of resources,—for gaining the
This is my first attempt at the FA process, so any help would be greatly appreciated. The article has been greatly improved from its GAN a while back and I believe this meets the FA criteria. It recently underwent a peer review and seeing there are no FA's on Australian Football League topics it would be great to base other AFL articles on this one. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment: I assisted in the peer review process, and agree that the article has improved markedly from its GAN format. I would love to see this make FA as the first AFL article. One thing I've noticed, however, which I obviously missed at PR: the final paragraph of the lead is a bit too detailed in regard to Selwood's commercial activities, and contains rather more information on this topic than is within the main article. The opposite should be the case, with the lead briefly summarising the article's detailed contents. I wonder if some transfer of material could be made to remedy this? Subject to this, plus a final read-through and validation of images and sources, I'd say the article looks strong, and I'd be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry it wasn't there when you did the PR. I've started trimming it down. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've restored the old revision and tweaked those areas. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've just noticed that a couple of dablinks need fixing, and there's one dead link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link seems to have perished today. I'll look for another. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a while although it seems as if "Selwood has stated his career intention to work really hard on the basics. Despite admitting not (being) the fastest player, or most skillful", will have to be removed as I can't find another source. Hopefully something will pop up or the link starts to work again. Maybe another AFL fan with a book might have something. I've also emailed the Bendigo Advertiser but I'm not expecting a reply or anything to happen. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the two dablinks as they don't have a relevant articles on wikipedia. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If The Advertiser story also appeared in the print edition, and not just online, then there's no need to remove it as a source; the url is just a courtesy link in that case. SteveT • C 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joel was forced to wear splints on his leg to help overcome a walking disability.[3] - You have linked the incorrect article at shin splints, please check that.
Thanks, Ceranthor, I'll have a look through. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selwood displayed his talents as an athlete from an early age. - displayed talent...
and had kicked three goals as a half forward.[3] - I might be wrong, but shouldn't it be scored three goals?
I would like to keep this as is rare that Selwood every plays half-foward. The only positions I've really ever seen him play are midfield positions. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I now think it's non notable as he was only 8. I removed it. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selwood played his junior football with the Sandhurst Football Club - remove his
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Link died yesterday unfortunately. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the link as it moved to a new page. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I removed the links altogether.... Aaroncrick (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did so. Mustn't have saved properly, removed now in any case. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
swaps between using his first name or surname in the article specifically in the section Early Life
Removed use of first name within article body, and replaced with surname for consistency. Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honours section - Other Achievements are these really notable achievements, unlike the other two subsection this list doesnt indicate when the achievement occurred.
I would argue yes, they are. These achievements are notable historical achievements. They are not merely season relevant, but achievements on a larger scale (the Australian Football League's history etc). Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youngest premiership player since 1993 (19 years, 126 days) realy this more a commentator line rather than an achievement, also none of the ones in this list say when it occured . Gnangarra 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since removed the premiership achievement, and date-stamped others. Boomtish (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This two points are items that stand out and need to/can be addressed. What really hits as an issue is that Selwood is only 21yrs old playing in his third season for a total of just 61 games, just starting out as a player. Is this really going to be a stable article that we can tag as our best work, will it not be back at WP:FAR in 2 months? All things being normal this person has at least 7 years of his playing career to go though more likely it'll exceed 10 years, during that time he'll add another 200 possibly even as many 300 games. Gnangarra 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point, there are obviously going to be additional edits made still. But I would argue that this hurdle didn't stop other articles from being presented with FA status. See Karmichael Hunt and Kevin Pieterson articles; both are similarly young athletes with the majority of their career still in front of them. Boomtish (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stability criterion relates more to edit wars than to updates that are required over time. Are no active athletes/singers/movie stars/politicians to even be considered at FAC? I remember John McCain passing FAC last year, in the months before the election. If that can become featured, surely an article on an athlete is a viable candidate. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Actually, I believe Aaron was here once before, with a stadium article that had some problems and wound up failing. Nice to see the nominator back at FAC. I assume you've been working with Boomtish, the nominator at the first Selwood FAC?
Your infact right. Forgot all about that, good memory! :) I don't think I was too familiar with FAC/FAR processes back then. Aaroncrick (talk)
The first sentence of the lead's third paragraph feels like it's jamming too much into a single sentence. Either chop it or add
"and" before "becoming" to simply improve the flow.
Early life: "with his performances in the championship games earning him end-of-year All-Australian honours and the Most Valuable Player award for Victoria Country." The with+-ing sentence structure is often clumsy, and the sentence is overlong to begin with. Again, I recommend chopping it in two.
"in the annual under under-18s International Rules Series in Ireland." Are the two "under"s both supposed to be here?
"However, a knee injury occured only six rounds into the competition forced him to undergo surgery". Lacking a "that" after "competition"; "which" also works.
Done. Changed to "forcing", is that ok? Aaroncrick (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFL career: What is the home and away period? Is that supposed to mean the regular season?
Yes, that's what It means. I'll change that so it's easier for non AFL followers. Aaroncrick (talk)
"with former Brisbane coach Leigh Matthews noting...". Another awkward structure.
From the beginning, Selwood showed an ability to influence games," Comma after this should be a semi-colon. It may seem picky, but proper punctuation is a vital part of compelling prose.
What is a disposal? A link should be provided for jargon like this. Also, the tackle link could be moved up.
A disposal is the same as a possession. There is no current article, but I may be able to scratch up a stub. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Coaching staff had a highlights package made of this performance". Should it be "The Geelong coaching staff..."?
A couple of these may have to do with my lack of AFL knowledge, but I'll have to come back for another round later. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone once told me that references should be placed inside dashes, not outside as is done normally with citations. Even though I don't understand why dashes should be treated differently from other punctuation marks, the Manual of Style should still be followed in featured articles.
Found one section where this is relevant, and fixed it. Reference is now inside the dash. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation fix needed after "Club champion award".
2008: "Selwood also polled 19 votes in the Brownlow Medal". Sounds like a person is polling votes in a prize, instead of a vote count. Is this used often in Australia? There are a couple of other similar sentences before and after this one.
I belive the term "polling" is used regularly in regards to these awards. Nonetheless, made some adjustments. Let me know if this is better. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"citing 'club success and future opportunities' as his reason for accepting the reduced salary." That's actually two reasons, not one.
Check capitalization of Organisation and Seeing Eye Dogs (not the one in the charity name). Also grammar fix needed for "who are being trained as a Seeing Eye Dogs".
Period after "childhood friends". How two nominators and a great copy-editor missed that one, I will never know, but it needs fixing to make for a professional look. These errors cause me the most concern, as they always leave me wondering if I missed something elsewhere.
Minor slip-up, but fixed. Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Single-page references should be presented as p. and not pp.
Personally, I don't think Selwood's first name is needed in the last two photo captions. The one in the infobox is fine for identification purposes, but it's a bit much to have them in all three. Also, I keep hearing that names shouldn't be in alt text, although I'm no expert on the subject.Giants2008 (17–14) 00:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed use of first name in captions. Also removed use of name in alt text and replaced with "young male athlete". Boomtish (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The three images in the article looked good, though one had to be moved to commons. I have done that for you, but could you take care of it next time? Thanks :) NW(Talk) 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some readers might be irritated to find that "inside" and "outside" (both epithets separately linked) go to the same place. Perhaps make it a single link of three words?
"currently holds"—violates the MoS "vague chronological terms" guidelines, I think it is. "As of 2009"? This should also do for the claim at the end of that sentence.
I don't mind "kicked three goals" (someone above had qualms).
I don't think this was changed in the end. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't consider swapping the "leaves the ground" pic with the one in the infobox? I think the former is better, without the effects of the mouthguard. Or perhaps it's too narrow for an infobox ...
"instant success" as a pipe for "child prodigy"? Both the linked article and the pipe are inappropriate, I think.
"resulted in him becoming"—the old noun +-ing issue. Consider "his becoming"; and, oh look, the last exercise seems to have exactly this wording. And hyphen for "first-year player". Some would hyphenate "debut-year achievements", but I could live without that hyphen if you're more comfortable without it.
I've recast the "not (being) the ..." quote. Square brackets were required, anyway. Tony(talk) 11:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Any reason the piped years are italicised in the table? Straighter, easier-to-read, more authoritative as plain roman face, I think. Tony(talk) 11:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and fixed the table issues. Boomtish (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My comments at the start of this review have been adequately answered, and there have been some useful tweaks since. I think the article now meets the FA criteria. I've been following it since the early stages of its peer review, and it has developed wonderfully well – and given me some insight into the mysterious lingo of Australian football. It's always good to see the FA range expanding, so I really hope this makes it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however, why are only the initials displayed in the notes? That seems odd. Also, I think the wording about winning a premiership medal can be confusing and roundabout, as people may not know that only people who play in the grand final get one, whereas the guy might win the Brownlow and kick the most goals and then break their leg in the second last match and not get a medal. I think Tony Modra was teh top goal kicker for the crows in one year and got injured in the prelim f and didn't get a medal when they won the final. It's easier to simply say "youngest person to play in a grand final winning team" or seomthing YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There were a few issues remaining after my review, which I fixed myself to expedite things. The article has seen substantial improvements since the previous FAC and looks FA-worthy now. Be sure to keep it up-to-date as his career progresses. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe this article on one of Greater Manchester's mill towns complies with the FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well sourced, and – having recently undergone a copyedit – hopefully well written. Thanks in advance to those who take the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Images need all have good alt text as per WP:ALT. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images have alt text, except the one in the infobox, which needs an update to be made to {{Infobox UK place}}.[51] --MalleusFatuorum 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images have alt text. The only one which might not work is the image in the infobox. The infobox is currently being upgraded to alt text and should be working soon; I've tried to add a workaround, but I'm not sure if it will work. Nev1 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This is being worked on. It's in a queue for other upgrades to be made to the template, so I would hope reviewers can temporarily WP:IAR whilst it is implimented over the next few weeks. :) --Jza84 | Talk 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I looked at the first one, saw it lacked it, and assumed the rest lacked it. Thanks for doing all that alt text: it's really good. My sincere apologies for the false alarm; I must try to be more careful. I'll mark off this part of the discussion with hat/hab to avoid distraction.
Query - Sorry if this is an odd question, but are you the author of Nevell works used to write the article? --Laser brain(talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an odd question at all, and no I am not. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - this is good, and I'm leaning toward support. Some fit and finish is needed, as follows:
"it was probably used as an administrative boundary and dates from the 8th or 9th centuries" 8th or 9th "century" OK?
"Ashton Old Hall was a manor house and the seat of the Assheton family, the administrative centre of the manor." Strangely worded—to me, it reads like the family was the administrative centre, but you presumably mean the Hall.
"The manor remained in the hands of the Ashton family until 1514 ..." Until now you've been referring to them as "Assheton" and haven't explained the leap to "Ashton".
"Domestic fustian and woollen weaving has ..." I would have used "have", unless I am misreading the sentence.
"There was a cholera outbreak in Ashton-under-Lyne in 1832, caused by a poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage." Switch this around to make active and avoid the awkward "there was": "A poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage caused a cholera outbreak in Ashton-under-Lyne in 1832."
That compass table is awful... 4 different fonts including the header? And why the period after the header?
Please check all instances where you begin a sentence with "In <year>". Some have commas, some don't. I fixed a couple but there may be more.
"Ashton Market Hall has undergone a £15M restoration ..." Why not just AMH "underwent"?
GCSE...? Spell out acronyms the first time they're used, and only include the abbreviation if re-used.
Nev1 and I have made edits to this effect as shown in this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 21:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've dealt with everything apart from the compass table, and there's not much we can do about that as it's a template (the alternative template isn't any better IMO). Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if an upgrade was made avaliable, but I suppose that's a matter outside of this FAC. --Jza84 | Talk 23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 125 and 125 (Eve Dougdale) and (Adam Derbyshire) are lacking publisher information
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the publisher field for refs 125 and 126 (there was a typo so the field didn't appear); all are now using template:citation; and I've sorted out sources 3 and 51 as suggested. [52] I've not got a page number for the gazetteer though, so the reference looks a bit odd. I've replaced runtrackdir.com with the sports club's website. Nev1 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sorry it took me a while to get back here but I believe it is up to standard now. --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments Article is comprehensive and up to standard. I made one tiny edit to remove a repetition of "around".
or else to Ashton's proximity to the Pennines not clear to me how this relates to "under Lyne" and the ref is opaque. Can you clarify the link, if any, between "Pennines" and "Lyne"
A bit of a tendency to the passive voice, which I particularly noticed in the "History" section, was founded occurs a bit too often, and, as an example, the Oxford Mills bit would read better in active voice
Some images have forced image sizes. it looks as if that's a conscious decision, but I'd welcome reassurance that it's not just a breach of MoS
I believe the "under-Lyne" was (or perhaps still is) something to do with being 'under the line' of the Pennines, or even (so I once read) 'under the line' of Lancashire's county boundary with Yorkshire. Shouldn't be hard to clarify. --Jza84 | Talk 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three images with a fixed size are done so because the details are difficult to make out at smaller resolutions. I suppose it's not essential that the Portland Basin and town hall pictures are large, but the image under the geography section does need to be as at the default 180px you can't see the town. A few instances of passive voice have been changed to active and I think Casliber has changed a couple. As for "under-Lyne", Wilson doesn't explicitly state why the town's proximity to the Pennines leads to "under-Lyne", however Jza84's explanation is the likely implication. Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, so I've struck the comment header. I'm happy with the picture size, just wanted confirmation that it was a deliberate choice rather than an oversight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - I'll begin a lookover and might massage prose I find, please revert if I inadvertently change any meaning. I will note queries below nice to fix those below but neither are deal-breakers: Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "under-Lyne" facet --> suffix? (more exact?)
In the 19th century, Ashton-under-Lyne was hailed as a "new Jerusalem" by John Wroe. - this leaves me hanging and wondering why. Even a single sentence would be helpful.
I've changed facet to suffix as it sounds better, it's the word I was searching for when I originally wrote the sentence but couldn't put my finger on. Also, I've clarified that Wroe tried to turn Ashton-under-Lyne into a "new Jerusalem" rather than proclaimed it as such for any property it possessed before he arrived. Nev1 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Thanks for the copy edit, everything seems fine. Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
When you calculate the percentage change (table within the Population change section) you should divide the difference by the old number not the new one. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. Thanks for finding that, I've now fixed it. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image licensing comments
File:Ashton-under-Lyne old hall.jpg; the tag gives multiple ways it can be freely used, but it's not really specified in the description when the image was first published, merely a date I would assume to be the year of capture. Was the image previously published before the cutoff date, or was it never published before then? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph was taken before 1890 (as that's when the building was demolished), so my understanding was that it comes under "A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1939". As for publication date, the book it's taken from doesn't give details of first publication. There is a date of 1931 handwritten below the image (which I cropped out for wikipedia) but I'm not sure what it relates to. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good overall, but I do see glitches in the prose. Here are examples.
"resulting in it being granted honorific borough status in 1847." Ungainly and probably ungrammatical. See noun plus -ing. "resulting in the granting of"?
US units and metric units seem to swap places as main/converted at the bottom of the lead. Looks like a case for km/miles at the top.
Numerals or spelling out for centuries? Both appear.
"probably became a settlement sometime after the"—not "sometimes", but two words, I think.
"when it became useful as a means of distinguishing the town from"—"useful for distinguishing"?
"Afterwards the effigy would be hung up and shot and then set on fire."—Neater as "Afterwards the effigy would be hung up, shot, and set on fire."?
"The first recorded occurrence of the tradition is in 1795"; present tense? And do traditions occur? What about "The first record of the tradition was in 1795. The ritual may be even older, and continued into ..."? I've avoided the repetition of "tradition", too.
"The manor remained in the hands of the Ashton family – whose name had changed from Assheton over time – until 1514 when the line ended"—I was uncomfortable with the "over time" bit. Isn't a name change instant? If parts of the family did and parts didn't, perhaps "during the second half of the 15th century", or something like that?
"large-scale" hyphenated as an adjective.
centred around? Do you mean it was at the intersection of? Unsure.
MoS on chronological vagueness: "(today about £600,000 and £60,000 respectively)"—I think "as of 2009" is better.
"A poor supply of fresh water and dwellings without adequate drainage led to a cholera outbreak in the town.[42] "—When? The decade or year or year-range?
Does "secondary industry" carry a technical sense? Primary is agriculture? Unsure. "Coal mining was a secondary industry in the town compared to the textile industry ...". Was second in employment and output to the textile industry"?
That's down to but not including "Governance". Perhaps a look through by word-nerd colleagues? Tony(talk) 08:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus has addressed most of the comments you made intends to scrutinise the article further. As for the other comments, I've added the year of the cholera outbreak and clarified that the evidence comes from Ashton Moss as "centred around" is a bit vague. Looking at the source again for information about the Assheton family, apparently the name did not change (the reason a vague phrase such as "over time" was used was because I couldn't find a date... mainly because one didn't exist) and I had mixed up the name of the family and manor; I did not twig as it was not uncommon for names of places or people to change. Regarding "secondary industry", you are right that it does have a specific meaning so I've removed the term and clarified that coal was not as important as textiles [53]. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it would be impossible to expand this article any further unless new information were to come to light. I believe that this article meets all of the Featured Article criteria and that the only thing it is missing is a photograph of the site as it exists now, which I should be able to obtain by the time this nomination is complete. Opinions are welcomed and encouraged. – PeeJay 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport from Cliftonian (talk·contribs) – looks good generally, just a few points that need clearing up:
"It was the first home of Manchester United F.C." – I'd expand this to "Manchester United Football Club".
Done
"The ground was originally just a pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate, but the addition of stands by the club in 1891 increased the capacity to around 15,000. However, the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run and, without the company's financial support, they were unable to afford the rent on the ground and were evicted." – This whole paragraph is very clunky and awkward, I'd be happier if it was re-written.
Wording seems fine to me. Could you perhaps suggest alternative wording that with which you would be happier?
The aspect which seems weakest to me is the first line – "The ground was originally just a pitch". Doesn't sound very good to me – perhaps "Originally, the ground consisted only of the pitch, around which an estimated 12,000 spectators could congregate. On the club's addition of stands in 1891 the capacity was increased to around 15,000." The rest is fine. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Instead, they had to change at a pub – The Three Crowns – a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road." – A bit too stop-and-start for my taste – try "Instead, they had to change at The Three Crowns public house a few hundred yards away on Oldham Road."
Done
"Fortunately, the club's management had been seeking a new stadium ever since the first attempted eviction in May 1892," – "Fortunately"? I wouldn't use this word in an encyclopaedic article.
I've removed "fortunately".
"the site now serves as the location of the North Manchester Business Park, and before that it was Moston Brook High School." – chronology all wrong. It should be "the site served as the location of Moston Brook High School, before becoming North Manchester Business Park in *date*.
Done, with some extra additions
"A red plaque could once be found attached to one of the school's walls" – when?
Cheers for the comments, mate. Glad you liked the article for the most part. Nevertheless, if you could suggest alternative wording for the passage you commented on above, that'd be very helpful. – PeeJay 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I'm happy enough with it now, that paragraph still irks me a bit but it doesn't stop me changing my stance above. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Cliftonian. I have changed the paragraph like you suggested. Your version certainly reads better than mine did. I seem to have a penchant for sentences with lots of clauses! – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now transferred that image to Commons. Thanks very much for doing that for me, FN. Hope you'll support the article's promotion. – PeeJay 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To eliminate watermarks from that site browse it with firefox, with the Adblock Plus add-in. Then just block the watermark from that site, before screencapping. Nothing wrong with doing that, after all its the watermark that carries the copyright, not the map. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport
"Unable to afford the increased rent, especially as the Manchester Deans and Canons felt it inappropriate for the club to charge admission to the ground, the Heathens were served with an eviction notice in June 1893."
I know that the Heathens was a nickname of the club. But anyone reading the article who was unaware of this fact might assume that the religious organization evicted them partly on religious grounds. You might want to change the sentence a bit or explain that it was a nickname. Might also want to say what the organization felt about Newton Heath's nickname, if it is known.--EchetusXe (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've italicised "Heathens" to highlight the fact that this is a nickname. Do you think that, in conjunction with the fact that "Heathens" is spelled with a capital H, this will be enough? – PeeJay 09:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Unless anyone else thinks it is not enough?--EchetusXe (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A small, detailed article with solid prose. Excellent work. My scans could not detect any defects. ceranthor 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment makes me extremely proud of this article. Goes to show that not all Featured Articles have to be tens of thousands of kilobytes in size! – PeeJay 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the article is extremely short, though. If promoted, it would likely be the second shortest FA. This shortness might be from a lack of comprehensiveness, but I do not have the knowledge in the area to research. ceranthor 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 789 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sole top-level section is "History". If other sources are found, consider adding at least one more for the stadium's structure. It mentions that the stadium eventually got grandstands; any data on the surface area or dimensions of the stadium, or the height of the stands? Seating arrangements? Popularity and revenues over time? I know it's tough to source those things, but criteria 1b is very demanding and I've received concerns about sales data in an unrelated good article nom. Try to find library support or other sources (including pay databases) if at all possible.
I've added a short section on the ground's history as a cricket field, but it is very short. A section on record attendances has also been added. I will try to add a section on the ground's "structure and facilities" per the Old Trafford article, but there's not much that could be said there that hasn't already been said in the History section.
Nice work on the attendance figures. It's clear now that it brought the crowds even so long ago!
How is ref 11 reliable? Not much author, editor, or fact-checking mentions there at all, looks blog-ish. I'm not even sure that it says a school was opened at that site.
Yes, you're probably right about that. The Gary James reference was intended to show that the school was erected on the same site, but that's obviously not clear, and I'll try to find a reference for the closure of the school.
I see. It looks ok now.
Article, ref dates, formatting, dabs, and links look good otherwise. --anoddname 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, AON. I'll get to work on adding as much as I can. – PeeJay 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I replied above. --anoddname 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Redundancy: "They attempted to take the two grandstands with them, but the attempt failed and the stands were sold for just $100." (not really, but us American don't have pound signs on our keyboards :-)) Attempted and attempt probably shouldn't be repeated in such close proximity. Overall, I'm shaky on this article because the writing seems fine, but there isn't much of it. It just feels like there is more that could be said, but isn't because newspaper sources from the time aren't utilized. In addition to the mentioned lack of a section on the facilities, there's nothing on record attendances, or whether they have been lost to history.Giants2008 (17-14) 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "They attempted..." to "They tried...", so that "attempt" isn't used too often in quick succession. As I have mentioned to User:AnOddName, I have also added a section on other uses and a section about record attendances at the ground has also been added. – PeeJay 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on sources
Slightly confused by your "General" and "Specific" subdivisions in the References section. "General" rather implies background reading, yet all these works have been specifically cited. It might be clearer if the citations were listed as "References" and the booklist as "Bibliography" or "Sources"
Probably a good idea, but I thought that the "General" references would have indicated that those books were used as general references for the entire article, while the "Specific" references would allow for the citation of individual facts from within those books.
This page at politics.co.uk also mentions the school's closure in August 2000, but I don't know how reliable it is. It would also seem a bit odd to have an MP's profile page in the middle of an article about a football ground!
What do you think of the politics.co.uk source I provided above? – PeeJay 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same problems, who's behind the site? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've completely replaced the ref with a site run by the British government. Had to ask at WP:GM for help in finding it though. – PeeJay 22:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—1a. There's a tendency towards a slightly pompous texture. It needs a thorough, independent audit of the prose. Here are random examples from the top.
Awkward: "the football club split from the railway company by whom they were run"
"Upon" twice in one sentence? I don't want any of them: "Upon the foundation of Newton Heath L&YR F.C. at the request of the employees of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Company's Carriage and Wagon Works, it became apparent that the club would require a pitch upon which to play."
"the site chosen was a "bumpy, stony patch in summer, [and] a muddy, heavy swamp in the rainy months",[2] and owned by the Manchester Cathedral authorities." -> "the chosen site – owned by the Manchester Cathedral authoritie – was a "bumpy, stony patch in summer, [and] a muddy, heavy swamp in the rainy months".[2]" Tony(talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of opposing, could you not have simply left comments for me to deal with? I can easily make any changes you suggest, but an "Oppose" !vote just means that I'm going to have to go through this whole process again as soon as it closes. Anyway, I've made the changes you suggested, with the exception of the first one, which is actually the most efficient way of getting the message across. By the way, what do you mean by "a pompous texture"? – PeeJay 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the football club split from its parent railway company" for the first? You'd avoid the "by" problem and get crisper text. Tony gives other suggestions at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a; "Misplaced formality" suggests alternate words, for example. --anoddname 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good suggestion! Can't believe I didn't think of that one! By the way, I would really appreciate it if someone would give this article a thorough copyediting, if that's what it needs. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do it myself, seeing as I'm the principle contributor to the article, and Peer Reviews get piss-poor responses these days. Seems like FAC is the only way to get an article properly reviewed sometimes! – PeeJay 21:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the team of Ruhrfisch, Finetooth, and Brianboulton usually make sure that no article goes without a proper peer review these days. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dabomb. This article wasn't submitted for peer review; had it been, most of the prose issues raised at this FAC would probably have been sorted out long ago. Something to bear in mind next time, perhaps?Brianboulton (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Correction: it was peer-reviewed in October 2008, before I got involved. Sorry! Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Has the nomination been copy-edited yet? Please ping me when it has. Tony(talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing oppose: the prose is much better (thanks to Malleus et al.). But if it's promoted, please make it a top priority to bulk it up a bit—this is on the slender side for an FA, and I wonder what further information might be included from the sources. Tony(talk) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is L&YR ... make it tight for those not in the know ... Newton Heath L&YR Football Club SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a while since I graced these pages... This had a previous nomination in 2007 which failed due to a number of concerns, mainly that there was not much separate information; now we have had a recipient and all of the publicity that goes with that. I believe that this is the most comprehensive resource on this medal and I have scoured the web and books for anything else that could be added and I have come up with nothing to add. In that sense I think this meets all FA criteria: comprehensive, reliably sourced, MOS compliant etc. Thanks for your time, Woody (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done now thanks. Woody (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1a looks good.
Can you check the commas in this quote, please? The one after "enemy" is ... eccentric if it's official! The others aren't stunning either as a flowing package.
The Victoria Cross for Australia is the "decoration for according recognition to persons who in the presence of the enemy, perform acts of the most conspicuous gallantry, or daring or pre-eminent acts of valour or self-sacrifice or display extreme devotion to duty."
"they are highly prized"—please clarify "they".
pp. with space is normal for page ranges, I think. Can you check them all?
Why is information lost in this pipe? "Siege of Sevastopol (1854-1855)"
I removed "It is estimated that", since the citation is there, and to state the fact of the estimation seems redundant. I hope this still works.
"last" --> "most recent"? Unsure.
If common country-names must be linked, better to pipe them to a more specific article. They're fine in plain text, I believe, here.
A$—I'd link first time only, and A is enough (once it was AU, once AUD). Unless it's unclear, after the first time, you don't need the letter: it's assumed. Tony(talk) 14:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Tony's suggestion, I went through and put spaces between "p."/"pp." and the page numbers (there were inconsistencies). I also made the date format in the references DMY. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the quote see the actual gazette (PDF). The commas are in the original quote, eccentric or not! ;) I think I have clarified "they", pp. was dealt with by Dabomb and I dealt with A/AU/AUD/$.
In terms of the Sevastopol link, the (1854-1855) is a disambiguator as there was another battle in WWII. It is already stated in the previous sentence that it was backdated to 1854 to include the Crimean War, do you think the dates of the battle need to be explicit in the text?
I think that "estimated" is needed in the sentence as nobody is certain how many medals can be made. I don't think "About 80 to 85 more Victoria Crosses could be cast from this source" makes it explicit enough that this is a complete guess on Hancock's part.
I don't understand your "last"/most recent comment. I couldn't find most recent in the article, and the only "last" is in reference to Keith Payne. He was the last VC recipient as no more Imperial VCs will be awarded to Australians so "most recent" would be inaccurate.
Thanks for your review Tony, regards. Woody (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All clear, Woody. Pity the gazetted text is so appalling, but I guess everyone is stuck with it. Who is paid to do it? Tony(talk) 03:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks Tony. I have re-added estimated in there now and left out about and approximately so I think it works without having any redundant words in there. In terms of the gazette, you would hope that they consulted historians and text experts but you never know, it was probably a bored civil servant! Thanks again for your review, regards. Woody (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Commonwealth citizens Australians can join the British Armed Forces so arguably the possibility does remain open (or a British VC could be awarded to an Austrlaian on attachment to British Forces), though now it would be considered a foreign decoration by the Australian authorities. David Underdown (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, hadn't thought of that, though I don't envisage it happening anytime soon, and in my opinion the wording is still valid as is. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets the FA criteria - well done. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review – The three images are quite fine. Good work. NW(Talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - have previously made a few tweaks to the article, but nothing major. This is a well composed and presented article that fully meets the criteria. I do, however, have a few minor comments, but my support is not reliant on them:
"Both the Australian and New Zealand Victoria Crosses are to be made from the same gunmetal as the originals." - considering that both the Australian and New Zealand varients have been awarded, shouldn't this sentence be updated to reflacted that they are awarded from the same source?
"The Australian War Memorial in Canberra currently holds 61 Victoria Crosses, 59 awarded to Australians and two to British soldiers" - one of the 59 Australian VCs is actually Donaldson's VC for Australia, which he loaned to the museum soon after receiving it. This should probably be added in.
The presentation of dates in the citations is slightly inconsistent.
I have made edits regarding the AWM and the metal, but are you sure about the dates? I can't seem to find any inconsistency (Dabomb run a script over it earlier.) Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Woody; they look good. I think it was only ref no. 29 that appears inconsistent. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all of the newspapers, and I fixed the dead link thanks. Woody (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I support this for FA, but have the following comments that I feel should be addressed before it is promoted (nothing major, just style):
Please check the numbering of the in line citations, in the first sentence of the Original medal subsection, they are out of order...I think it would be better visually speaking if they were in numerical order (e.g. currently 12, 10, 11, but they should be 10, 11, 12);
There is some inconsistency in how numbers are treated. For example in the last paragraph of the Original medal subsection, you have "96 Australians" followed by "Ninety", should they not be both numbers e.g. 96 and 90;
In the References section one of the titles is capitalised irregularly;{{Done}} (fixed it myself)
In the Further reading section, the "Register of the Victoria Cross" doesn't quite follow the same format as the other entries;
Good work though and I hope to see it featured on the main page! Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, I think I have got all of your issues. (Oh and use of the {{done}} templates is discouraged so I have disabled it. Thanks again, Woody (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I could not decipher the Statistical note section; is there some clearer way to format that? Without understanding what's going on I have a vague suspicion that this bit is WP:OR.
I think YM was driven to this formulation by the demands of unbending peer reviewers (no names mentioned), who objected to the elongated reference strings that disfigured the text in earlier versions of this article. The precedent is Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, recently promoted FA, in which this format is used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that, but if YM could just explain here the function of it, it would aid the comprehension of us FA reviewers. SGGHping! 09:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It just moves the big group ref to its own section so that it isn't in the main text. N-1 links to the bottom and then under the N1 there are 30 odd refs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the first pic as it won't get past Jappalang anyway. Secondly, does the second one need an alt, because the layout of graph is already in the caption anyway as the caption is needed to explain what the data is already. The last part is not OR. Ring batted at No 9/10/11 most of the time and this can be seen by looking at the data sheet for each match and seeing that he is one of the last three names in most of them YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't entirely happy with the writing, although this is definitely within reach of promotion on that count. Here are a few random suggestions:
"Along with Ron Hamence and Colin McCool, neither of whom played in a Test during the tour, Ring called himself "ground staff" because of the paucity of the trio’s on-field duties in the major matches and they often sang ironic songs about their status." Long sentence, and the last idea doesn't really flow from the previous, does it. Ideal for a dash or semicolon: "matches—often, they would sing ironic ..."?
"As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests, more frequently than usual, fast bowling dominated over spin, and Ring was used primarily in the non-Test tour matches." Longish again, and it's easier for the readers if you dash out the dependent phrase: "As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests—more frequently than usual—fast bowling dominated over spin, and Ring was used primarily in the non-Test tour matches.
I've never seen top score hyphenated, although top-scored usually is. Daniel (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The MCC fielded seven players who would represent England in the Tests,[12][13][14][15][16][17]"—is the raft of six refs necessary for this plain statement?
Ring played in only the Fifth Test, taking one wicket for 44 runs (1/44) and scoring nine runs — This sentence scratches the itch of curiosity, as it fails to specify for both batting and bowling whether it is a combined total across two innings or only one. Is there any way to smoothly incorporate these two facts into the sentence?
Ring called himself "ground staff" — isn't 'ground staff' a collective, and hence it'd need to be 'a member of the' or similar?
For the entire tour, Ring took 60 first-class wickets at a bowling average of 21.81, the most expensive among Australia's frontline bowlers — 21.81 is still a pretty good effort, and I think it'd fit nicely to emphasise that this figure is a good number relative to other tours, but simply the worst for the Invincibles.
As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests — the second 'after' reads awkwardly, although I confess I don't have any immediate ideas for a solution.
Would it be worth including a one-paragraph introduction about Ring's form immediately prior to the tour, which justified his selection, at the top of 'Early tour'?
On the first day, Australia set a world record by scoring 721 runs on the first day, the most first-class runs made in a single day’s play,[10] but Ring was unable to contribute to the surfeit of scoring, making only one. — any suggestions on how to break this five-part sentence up? Its length plus the repetition of "day" makes it read awkwardly.
He then made an unbeaten nine in Australia's reply of 400. He then shouldered — 'He then'...
Ring took 3/51 from 21.2 overs in the first innings, leading the way; most of the Test bowlers were given a light workload — is 'leading the way' a generalised and conversationalist way of saying (in this situation) 'bowling the most overs', or 'taking the most wickets', or both? It's probably better to be specific in that part of the sentence in my opinion.
Can the Derbyshire and Glamorgan paragraphs be merged?
Watkins swung a delivery from Ring to the leg side straight into the hands of Hassett, who did not need to move from his position on the boundary — as a cricket follower, the use of the word 'swung' to describe a cricket shot caused some confusion upon reading, as its a term nearly exclusively used in relation to bowling rather than batting.
He removed Reg Simpson to break the opening stand of 60. The Gentlemen progressed to 3/217 before Ring removed Edrich for 128 — second 'removed' to something else, maybe dismissed?
one specialist spinner in the Tests.[18][22][26][28][34] — worth throwing these five footnotes into that note format you used for the other bulk references?
"Ring was omitted from this match"—slightly awkward "omitted", unless it's the usual cricket lingo. Was it against his will? If so, I'd use "excluded".
Omitted seems to be a general sports jargon. Excluded is seemingly reserved for people getting disqualified or banned for misconduct YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the preceding 1947–48 season"—I though we were talking about that very season. I'm confused.
I was referring to the 1947-48 summer in Australia, that preceded teh UK summer of 1948 because his form in the previuos summer determined whether he was picked or not YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He then took three consecutive wickets as Sussex fell from 5/98 to 8/109 before eventually being bowled out for 138."—He was bowled out, or Sussex was? If the former, please insert a comma after 109.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a great medical article covering all the main topics of this important disease. The article has been greatly improved in the last year and I believe it deserves to be considered a FA. Its strongest point is possibly the high quality of the sources used, but prose has also been extensively reviewed by several editors. Garrondo (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Figure captions: neuron pictures need length scales or length indication in the caption (image width ...). File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg: "shown in pink" is misleading because there is also purple and those two are hard to distinguish. Meanwhile, the figure description page mentions purple and orange. I would unify the description and also change the pink color on the picture itself into some other. File:Aspiration-pneumonia-002.jpg: caption should start something like "A tomography image of xxx showing aspiration pneumonia, a common cause of death in HD" where xxx is lung or whatever (too many abbreviations, and you can't show an illness pneumonea on a picture). Should it be "from HD" instead of "in HD" ? That caption needs expansion explaining what is actually shown.Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what do you mean with length scales.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely right on your point of the putamen image. However I do not know how to modify svg images. For the moment I have changed caption to "shown in purple and orange".--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lung image: caption changed. I have left "in HD", since it is not directly produced by the disease: the disease produces swallowing problems that may or may not lead to pneumonia.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Length scale is a calibrated bar on the image with a tag, such as "0.5 mm". If its too much work to add it, just say (image width 2 mm) in caption, or so. I can edit File:BrainCaudatePutamen.svg and change color as you wish, but can not save the result in SVG. Can save in PNG (or other formats), which as I understand is similar to SVG. Materialscientist (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scale comment will be hard to address but I'll try to contact the authors of the image. Regarding the image change I suppose there will be no problem to change the pink part to the same color of the brain and leave only coloured the striatum, and then save it in png; nevertheless right now I believe it is clear which part is the striatum.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed Dr FinkBeiner, he has been very helpful and prompt with the image, but may take a few days ... L∴V 22:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer is it's 1 micron / pixel - the nucleus of central neuron is about 15 microns, so maybe a 100 micron scale at the side / bottom , and whether to call them microns, micrometers, or µm ? L∴V 17:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, colors are fine now, and I would keep them for consistency with the original figure file explanation. Pneumonia is not explained in the caption (non-specialist like me would never guess where to look at that image). Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of explanation are you thinking of? I am no expert either so we could maybe ask in the medicine project for a better explanation of the image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where and what is "pneumonia" (like "fine gray grains in the center indicate ..") BTW, the image is proposed for deletion, which needs to be addressed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is proposed for deletion, in the GA proccess reviewer said it did not add much, and it is hard to address your comments I have decided to eliminate it as the simpler solution.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References: Some author names start with initials, some with last names, some with 1st names. Please unify.Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to change them.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have given all author names the same format.--Garrondo (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the comma, separating the first and last name, varies. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is fixed now. Give me specific examples if otherwise please.--Garrondo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Style: Hungtintin is either capitalized or not.
It was decided in talk page of the article to capitalize the gene but not the protein.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While only briefing checking the article to make sure the significance of the Venezuelan work was included (it was!), I found multiple instances of strange use of semicolons, and a copyedit problem, suggesting a copyedit needed (a foundation cannot have a daughter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you knew of the Venezuelan project and that it is covered acceptably! I think I have addressed the semicolons, further copyediting still requred, I suspect. L∴V 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the Nancy Wexler / Foundation a little less ambiguous. L∴V 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALT says "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is used only for visual formatting or decoration." The 9 images specified in the source of Huntington's disease are all functional, as they all link to their image pages, so they are not present only for visual formatting or decoration and they all need alt text. The motivation for this is accessibility to the visually-impaired; please see WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added alt text, phew that's a tricky one ! L∴V 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick! You missed the image in History, though. Eubulides (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops missed adding the alt= tag! L∴V 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment...7 per 100,000 people, but is relatively lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - better is ...70 per 1,000,000 people, but is lower in the rest of the world, e.g. 1 per 1,000,000 people of Asian and African descent - this makes the difference clearer, and "relatively" is unneeded since you are talking rates, not absolute numbersJimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have applied. L∴V 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the references, you have a mixture of dmy, mdy and ymd date formats (current refs #89 & #96, for example). You should use one style consistently throughout the references for dates of publication and access. Where references have a PMID, the day and month of publication add no real information. Have you considered simply using year of publication for those cases? --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated the month parameter in those journal references where it appeared. I have also fixed a few other references. I believe its done.--Garrondo (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all done, with the possible exception of current ref #92, which has a PMC ID (and therefore has a guaranteed stable link to the full text) - I personally wouldn't bother with the accessdate there, as it's never going to be used. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you for your review (and to all other reviewers). I have eliminated the access date of ref 92.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the disclaimer that I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Medicine, although not associated with this article. I believe it meets the standard of Wikipedia's best articles. --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
Current ref 67 (HDA research news...) is lacking a publisher.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added Huntington's Disease Association-United Kingdom as publisher. Also added lacking date of website (2009) for the same reference.Thanks for pointing it out.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support in terms of content I did the GA review of this article, and went over the content and references pretty thoroughly. I won't vouch for every tiny detail, but I believe that in this respect the article meets FA standards. I said at the time that I thought the prose style needed a major tune-up to reach the FA level, and I believe that is still the case, although it has definitely improved. A going-over by a skilled copy-editor would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pedigree chart in "Inheritance" uses the label "Wild Type". This term is appropriate for Drosophila and other laboratory experiments. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for human populations.
The photo of the brain section in "Diagnosis" appears to have a copyright issue.
That photo claims to show dilated ventricles. I cannot even see the ventricle on the left side of the picture. I can just about see the ventricle on the right side of the picture. [I don't actually know which is left and which is right because the orientation of the section has not been explicitly stated.]
From "Diagnosis": "the considered implications and relevance of having a confirmed diagnosis mean that less than 5% of individuals choose to do so". Which individuals? Those offered the test? All patients with Huntington's disease?
The section "Diagnosis", subsection "Genetic" has a graph captioned "Expression pattern of the Huntingtin gene". Even when viewing the graph separately, I can barely make out the names on the x-axis. Is it "X72 T B Lymphoblasts" with the highest rating? What is the significance of this? The y-axis is numbered, but with no indication of the meaning. The graph itself does not appear to correlate with any information in the section.
From "Society and culture", subsection "Ethics": "There is greater acceptance opposing permitting testing until individuals are cognitively mature". What does this mean?
1. I agree, 'unaffected' would be in keeping with 'affected male' etc. but not completely sure if affected/unaffected is the correct term to use either.L∴V 09:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the image, also dropping the generation numerals which I believe were unecessary. L∴V 23:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image replaced, thanks to Frank! L∴V 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. It's individuals 'at-risk' but I'll edit later to avoid those annoying 'edit conflicts'. L∴V 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thanks to Axl for his ce and comments of the article. Regarding the image: it was me who uploaded the images inton WP-commons, since I had not completely understood the disclaimer, and only today I have received an email telling me there was a possible problem with it. Reviewing the disclaimer it is true that the image may be under copyright. On the other hand the image proposed by Lee is also not suitable for wikipedia commons; since it says that it can not be used for commercial pourpouses in the lincence. I'll eliminate the article image for the moment . I'll look at the other comments later.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed comments 4 and 6. 6 changed to: There is consensus opposing testing individuals that are not considered cognitively mature, although there are defendants of a parent's right to make the decision.--Garrondo (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5 I guess it is a bit specialist for the article and doesn't quite fit. L∴V 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6 (see point 4)
Comments. I have initiated a line-by-line prose review on the talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Garrondo and Leevanjackson for addressing my points. The adjustment to the pedigree chart has now created a different font style for the unaffected people. Perhaps you could change the affected label, so as to make the style consistent? The new MRI image of the brain is much better. I have adjusted the caption. This diagram of the normal brain may help you to see how the lateral ventricles have enlarged, the caudate nuclei have atrophied, and the cortical matter has also atrophied:-
Thankyou Axl, I have uploaded next version with the same fonts - well spotted! Do you think we should put the above image in as a reference - I agree it would help - but does it look too different for comparisons sake? L∴V 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lee, in one of the links you provided for the image (the first one) explains the image. It says: "Radiologically the heads of caudate are atrophied with enlargement of the frontal horns, along with a more generalised cortical atrophy." I think we should add the link as a ref for the radiologic changes (to explain we are not the ones saying the changes). I would not add the other image. Only my opinion.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point have added page as a ref. L∴V 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point 4, are these individuals "at risk" because of their family history of HD?
There is a chance of another image showing healthy brain on its way - as time permits.L∴V 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref does not explicitely say it, but in 99 percent of cases I would say it is a yes. Genetic testing would also only be used in those cases when even without a family history there is symptoms that indicate the possibility of suffering the disease.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point 5, would you consider removing the graph "Expression pattern of the Huntingtin gene"?
Done (I was doing it as you added your comments :-).--Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more of a placeholder really - I will have a look and massage straightforward prose fixes. Please revert if you feel I have inadvertently changed meaning, and I will post queries below. Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the alternate names Huntington disease, Huntington's chorea, chorea major, in the lead. Yes Huntington's chorea was a common alternative until recent years, but the other two are highly uncommon or archaic (I have never seen it as huntington without the 's), and as such I wonder whether they should be instead discussed in some naming section within the article proper (which they aren't now). Technically all material in lead should be within article proper.
I tend to agree with you, if someone has come from a redirect it will be stated at the top, the list isn't complete either, note Huntington without out the possesive 's is in anticipation of all diseases to be stripped of this which seems to be a growing consensus. L∴V 12:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated chorea major and huntington disease.--Garrondo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Physical symptoms can begin... - is not "Physical" redundant here?
Have refactored sentence to 'Symptoms can begin at any age, with physical symptoms being noticed first, most commonly this occurs between 35 and 44 years of age.' L∴V 12:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion as well as Coronal brain section showing the symptom can we also have a healthy one as a comparison? ϢereSpielChequers 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might be tricky, having got sidetracked on wikicommons categorising mri scans have been unable to find one suitable as yet, I will try asking the provider of the current one, but I sense this might be another protracted image hunt.. L∴V 14:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a chance of another image showing healthy brain is on its way - as time permits.L∴V 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - All images have good descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport This article is quite well-written. I like how most of the sections begin with an "easy" version of the material and then progress to a more detailed explanation. I think this makes the information quite accessible to various levels of readership. I have a few questions and suggestions:
Chorea may be initially exhibited as general restlessness, small unintentionally initiated or uncompleted motions, incoordination, or slowed saccadic eye movements. - Is "incoordination" a medical term? I had to look up this word to make sure it was real. :)
Changed to 'lack of coordination' although I seem to remember some toing and throwing about the exact phrase in the past. L∴V 14:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Huntington's disease mutation is genetically dominant, and is not sex-linked. The change in length of the repeated section can be influenced by the gender of the parent it is inherited from. - I think this might confuse people unfamiliar with genetics. One sentence says "not sex-linked" and the next says "can be influenced by the gender of the parent". As these two sentences come from the introductory paragraph to "Genetics", which summarizes the material for readers not interested in or unable to grasp the specifics presented later, I think it is important to present this as clearly as possible.
Have expanded and reworded to: 'The Huntington's disease mutation is genetically dominant, because either of a persons HTT genes being mutated causes the disease. It is not inherited according to gender, but the length of the repeated section of the gene, and hence it's severity, can be influenced by the gender of the affected parent.' L∴V 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. (I've fixed the apostrophe problems.) Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In these models, HTT has been shown to have several functions: it is important for embryonic development, its absence being related to embryonic death; acting as an anti-apoptotic agent preventing programmed cell death; controlling the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, a protein which protects neurons and regulates the neurogenesis of new ones; facilitating vesicular transport and synaptic transmission; and controlling neuronal gene transcription. - This sentence is a bit too long to follow.
Changed to: In these models, HTT has been shown to have several functions. HTT is important for embryonic development, its absence being related to embryonic death. It also acts as an anti-apoptotic agent preventing programmed cell death and controls the production of brain derived neurotrophic factor, a protein which protects neurons and regulates the neurogenesis of new ones. Additionally HTT facilitates vesicular transport and synaptic transmission, and controls neuronal gene transcription. Better?--Garrondo (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the initial motivation for having a pre-symptomatic test is strong, the considered implications and relevance of having a confirmed diagnosis mean that less than 5% of individuals at risk of having HD choose to do so. - What are the implications? Could we explain this a little more in the opening section?
I don't believe the ref s I've seen do more than speculate as to the exact reasons, so I have tried to list the implications seperate - grabbed from the genetic testing section but have to dbl check ref covers it, and leave any assumptions to the reader. Here's current attempt: 'Genetic counseling is provided to advise and guide an individual throughout the testing procedure and also in the consideration of the implications of having a confirmed diagnosis; on the individuals pyschology, on their career, in family planning decisions, and its impact on friends and family. Although the initial motivation of individuals at risk of inheriting HD for having a pre-symptomatic test is strong, upon consideration, only a minority choose to do so.' L∴V 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still wish that this could be explained in more detail, but ok. I've copyedited a bit. Awadewit (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How far the disease has progressed can be measured using the unified Huntington's disease rating scale which provides an overall rating system based on motor, behavioral, cognitive, and functional assessments, but is primarily used for clinical trials. - I find the "but is primarily used for clinical trials" part of the sentence confusing. Why is this essential to mention? To me, it just interrupted the flow of the sentences.
The age of onset decreases, and the rate of progression of symptoms increases, with the number of CAG repeats. - Perhaps you could remind the reader what "CAG repeats" are?
Changed to: with the length of the trinucleotide repeat. Better?.--Garrondo (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example a woman, named Elizabeth Knap, was judged in the Salem witch trials although she probably suffered from HD. - Instead of saying "judged", could we a bit more specific about what happened?
Changed to: A well known case is that of Elizabeth Knapp, who probably suffered from HD, but in 1671 was accused of witchcraft in Groton, New Hampshire. Finally she was not condemned.--Garrondo (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked a bit myself. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davenport's interested was created by his college friend Smith Ely Jelliffe, who was intrigued by the strong inheritance pattern of the disease - Something is amiss in this sentence.
Less amiss now... L∴V 15:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries' organizations have agreed not to use this information. - This sentence is a bit vague and doesn't flow very well with the rest of the paragraph.
Changed to: Some countries' organizations, such as the United Kingdom insurance companies,.--Garrondo (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added possessive. Now fine. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abortion after prenatal genetic testing with positive results and preimplantation genetic diagnosis in order to ensure that the disorder is not passed on are not free of ethical concerns. - This is a tortured sentence.
How about: 'The use of prenatal genetic testing or preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure a child is not born with a given disease has some ethical concerns' L∴V 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we either have to mention what some of the ethical concerns are or delete the sentence. Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added from the ref: The former uses selective abortion; which is considered unacceptable by some, specially since being a late-onset disorder a person with the mutation will be free of the disease for many years. The latter, in addition to the problem of the low success rate in obtaining pregnancy, doubled in the case of HD, has specific ethical difficulties in those cases when the parent does not want to know if he has the disease.. As always some ce would be great.--Garrondo (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the section. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Media depictions" section is basically a prose list. Perhaps the link List of Huntington's disease media depictions could be made a "See also" link at the top of the section and the section deleted?
Eliminated section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Until the 19th century Huntington's disease was grouped with numerous movement disorders. As with many of these disorders, people with the condition may have been persecuted as witches or thought to be possessed by spirits, and shunned or exiled by society." - This is sourced to a document from this website, which is prepared by faculty and undergraduates. That part of this site is written by undergraduates is a bit concerning. I would also note that the site says "We emphasize that we are not medical professionals" and that the faculty adviser is an anthropologist.
They have been accurate on other information, but I will see if I can find a more specific reference... L∴V 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an historical review by Alice Wexler. I'will add it through the day (I will have to make some changes to comply with it).Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it according to the new ref to: Historians have traditionally said that HD sufferers may have been persecuted as witches or thought to be possessed by spirits, and shunned or exiled by society before the 19th century. A well-known case is that of Elizabeth Knapp, who probably suffered from HD; in 1671 she was accused of witchcraft in Groton, New Hampshire, but not condemned. However these may not have been the case, at least in some places. Not all communities were so ignorant, as the family that prompted George Huntington's description were accepted by their local community, working all their lives until physically unable. Some tweaking would be great.--Garrondo (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is used as a reference to demonstrate that HD is mentioned in particular movies. It is not a reliable source. I would suggest finding a source that lists important HD-related media instead. (That is, if you intend to keep this section.)
Eliminated section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for edits and pointers, Awadewit, I am mostly working through comments chronologically ... I have incorporated some of the sentence on guidlines you pointed out was duplicate - but trimmed excess. Very pleased you found the intros gentle - it's been tricky striking the correct balance! L∴V 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last remaining issue for me is the lead. I've placed an alternate version we can discuss on the article talk page. I think the lead needs to be simplified a bit. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last I checked, IMDB is not a reliable source since most of its content is user-generated, much like Wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't see where in these IMDB links it mentions Huntington's disease. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated the section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment (hopefully I'll get time to do more later): What is the image in the infobox? Maybe the caption should say "An artist's rendering of..." or "An electron micrograph of..." delldot∇. 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, article has progressed quite some since your original GA review pointed the way! From the ref is 'A montage of three images, using a specially modified microscope' which I have added. L∴V 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it should be added in the close up image too.--Garrondo (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it myself.--Garrondo (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you are using the first citation an incredible amount. For a 10 page article, this is rather surprising. Some of these uses are adding the citation where there are multiple citations already or using it multiple times back to back, as in the last paragraph or the second paragraph of "Genetic". You can condense instances of that together. Please do, as the over use of the references really distracts from the ability to read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, first paragraph of "Inheritance" lacks a citation covering the last sentences. By the way, is there a reason why the first source is favored over all of the other sources? Whole sections are mostly reliant on that source. Also, the layout of the section is a little confusing. You have mostly descriptions of the disease, then history of where it appears, then society, then where research is going? There doesn't seem to be any real unity. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lancet article: There are practical and reliable sourcing issues. Firstly is a very comprenhensive (it covers most aspects of the disease), very recent review (2007) from a very high quality journal (lancet), which makes it perfect for our article per WP:MEDRS. Non of the other used references has these same thing. On the practical side its structure is quite similar to that of WP article so it is much easier to find a reference when you search for it. Finally when I came here a few months ago there were many sections almost completely unreferenced or referenced to primary articles, but mostly correct. When I found these review and I saw that it covered most aspects of the disease I decided to use it as the main ref of the article to check for any unreferenced statement and with it we were capable of eliminating almost 50 primary articles. As I have already said I believe that referencing each sentence makes it really harder for anybody to insert any information not backed up by sources and I really believe that such advantage really outweights the distractibility issue; specially for a possible FA article. I would feel that a reduction in the citation style would be against the article verifiability.--Garrondo (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that when you say also, the layout of the section is a little confusing you mean the lay out of the article. Am I correct? If it is the case it is the recommended lay out for disease articles per WP:MEDMOS. All recent disease FA had the same structure. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding ref on inheritance: I would say it is a basic knowledge, but we could search for a basic biology textbook. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference. Axl¤[Talk] 09:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now detailed the lancet references so they include the exact page - this splits the previously used reference up into 10 seperate ones, making for easier reading and checking. The lancet review is an ideal source - it may have been loosely based on the WP HD article at the time, so has a similar flow - but with far more detail and thorough referencing, there are other references but few are free or as general e.g. the Harper/Bates Oxford Monographs book, (which is about $150) so it is best to find one reference that covers most of the ground reliably. L∴V 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All current reported links now disambiguated, thanks. L∴V 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the application for FA status. Axl¤[Talk] 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great ! - thankyou - and cheers for the edits and pointers you contributed :) Just some quick notes though; awadewit has her final point - a more accessible lead that is to be pasted (this may include moving refs from lead - they are currently there to keep a sensible order), Cryptic c62, I suspect, will have a few more copyed suggestions and their is possibility of a MRI scan of a healthy brain somewhere betwixt radiopedia and here to be added. L∴V 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to deal with those refs at the end of the lead. There are now 11 lined up. They should be placed at the appropriate place in the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (either within the article, or at the appropriate place in the lead. As it stands now, unclear why 11 citations at end of lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they were added there because they were the most general refs on the disease; the ones that covered almost every topic. Nevertheless I have moved them to their first appearance. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – a good article that appears to satisfy the FA criteria. The only area where I really tripped over the jargon was in the first paragraph of the Huntington's disease#Macroscopic changes due to mHTT section, but I can live with that. There are a number of red links that all look to be notable topics, so I don't have a problem there. The citations appear okay, but could perhaps be further refined as a nit-picking exercise. Otherwise a nice piece of work. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all of the criteria. Hunter Kahn and I have been working on this article the past few weeks/months, and now feel that it is ready for FAC.--Music26/11 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images both need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did this but please check it; I don't normally do alt texts so I want to make sure I did it right. — HunterKahn(c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. The alt text still needs work, I'm afraid, as it is mostly not about appearance. It needs to be reworded to talk only about appearance and to discuss only material that can easily be verified by someone who can see the image but does not know the area. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (particularly the 3rd and 4th examples). Eubulides (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the alt-text, please check if it's ok now. Orichalcon (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but it still needs work. The alt text makes claims about the visual appearance that a non-expert cannot immediately verify by simply looking at the image. For example, a non-expert won't know the names of the characters, or of the co-creators. Alt text should just describe the visual appearance; it shouldn't explain the image. Here's another way to think about it: if there's any repetition between the alt text and the caption, then something is amiss, as the alt text should talk only about visual appearance, and the caption should assume that you can see the image and shouldn't waste its time on visual appearance. Again, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite funny actually, anyone who passes by takes a stab at trying to improve the alt text. What do you think about the changes I've made.--Music26/11 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. I tweaked it a bit more to follow the guideline more closely. Eubulides (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a few quick ref and format fixes before I can support this. Amazing work, but:
As I understand this is common knowledge to any South Park episode, but could you find a source for the TV-M rating?
Done, added to Reception section. — HunterKahn(c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph in production seems clumped.
I broke it apart. — HunterKahn(c) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than those, fantastic work! I can tell you're attempting to get Season 1 all Featured, likely to make a Featured topic, so good luck with it. The Flash{talk} 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The infobox is very very long. I suggest making the episode chronology like [Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo]] and cutting down the size of the caption. The plot summary section is also a little long in my opinion; can it be cut down to three tight paragraphs by removing details like "Unlike Stan, Kenny is able to shoot animals, and this impresses Jimbo" or the bit about the education film? (not seen the episode yet, but stuff like this doesn't seem particularly important to me to the overall plot) indopug (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the infobox concern, I think. The stuff about the Duck and Cover film could be removed from the plot section, but the reason it is mentioned in the section is because the film is discussed in the cultural references section.--Music26/11 12:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One possible option would be to either shorten the "Duck and Cover" mention down to a very brief mention, or just remove it altogether, but then go into more detail about it and how it is used in the episode under Cultural References. What do you think, Music? — HunterKahn(c) 15:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Indopug prefers.--Music26/11 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Hunter says looks good to me. I suggest this because I feel the plot is tighter and better handled in other Season 1 FAs such as "Damien". indopug (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change. — HunterKahn(c) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker and Stone felt the early animation of the series had strongly improved with the "Volcano" episode" seems a little awkward, especially since "Parker and Stone strongly disliked." is just before it. Not sure how to fix it.
I tried a change. What do you think? — HunterKahn(c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Volcano" and the episodes "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" and "Weight Gain 4000" received an average 1.4 Nielsen Rating, which translates to slightly more than 1 million viewers." Seems kinda random to mention those other two episodes. Why those two, and not other ones? Why mention any others? Probably based on the source, which I can't read.
The reason for this is there was no source that I could find for the ratings of this individual episode, but I did find one saying these three episodes averaged a 1.4 rating. I see what you mean, though, so to avoid confusion I just dropped the 1.4 rating and the referenencs to the other episodes, and said it was seen by approximately 1 million people. Better? — HunterKahn(c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest mixing up "Volcano" and "the episode" a bit more with "its" in the lead. Maybe further down too, but I haven't read that far yet.
I tried to switch it up a bit. — HunterKahn(c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"nuclear weapon attack." might be better as "nuclear attack." Not sure.
"some of the South Park residents dig a trench under Randy's guidance to divert the lava" Maybe "under Randy's guidance some of the South Park residents dig a trench to divert the lava" Not sure if that's better.
I tried a new wording. — HunterKahn(c) 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the hunting group members try to flee only to find themselves trapped" -> "the hunting group tries to flee but find themselves trapped"
The word "felt" is used a few too many times. For example, 'film was featured in Los Angeles; Stone felt, "If they could do it, we could."' Could maybe be changed "Stone said" And "happened after the fart, and they felt it was not funny." could be "happened after the fart, therefore it was not funny."
Drops those and a few felts. — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker said he did not believe Comedy Central would allow it to air" Should it be "Parker said he did not believe Comedy Central have would allowed it to air"?
The paragraph that starts "The "Volcano" episode was in production when the pilot episode first aired on August 13, 1997." is a bit choppy in the middle.
I changed it to "when South Park debuted on August 13, 1997." Better? — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Parker and Stone recorded commentary track for each episode" Should it be "a track" or "tracks"?
"Jimbo blames the Democratic Party for passing laws that he feels are overly restrictive on hunters and gun owners.[9] Upon learning children are in danger due to the volcano, Mayor McDaniels seeks publicity for herself by contacting the television news magazine programs Entertainment Tonight[10] and Inside Edition.[11]" This part is kind of choppy
The sentence "The song "Hot Lava", sung by the Chef in the episode, was featured on the 1998 soundtrack Chef Aid: The South Park Album.[17]" make the end of its paragraph choppy.
I'm not sure how to improve this sentence. Can you give me any suggestions? — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in the Reception section should have some sort of lead sentence. Something like "The episode was received favorably by critics" or whatever you think describes the critics overall.
I think this got removed by accident; it's in the lead but not in the Reception section. I added it. — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - asides from minor touching finishes, this is a nice, comprehensive article. Also, I bet you could add one or two more images. Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Could you give a .html link for this image, rather than just a .jpg link? Other than that, images look fine. NW(Talk) 04:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Music has gone vacation and I'm handling the FAC concerns for now, although I'm not sure the answer to this one. If possible can you tell me more specifically what needs to be done? If not, and if it's not such a big deal that it would hold up the FAC, could Music fix this whenever he returns? — HunterKahn(c) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that this is a minor detail, and I will try to explain what I mean with an example:
I know that might be confusing, but forgive me, it is late. Just pop me a note if you don't understand my (awful) analogy. NW(Talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this fixed? If not, could you further clarify for me, or just fix it yourself? I'm still confused...
Oppose, 1a and 1c. The prose needs work, as indicated by some of the samples below, which should not be considered comprehensive. There are problems with the research, and the one source I checked randomly has been misused in the article, indicating the need for a full source audit.
(Not to be a stickler, but the above user (Peregrine Fisher) noted those were the only prose errors she found ("That's pretty much it"). I believe she is saying that is comprehensive, at least from her perspective. I think I've addressed your below issues, and since this article has gone through a peer review and additional comments here in the FAC, I think the prose fixes we've made would have to be considered comprehensive. Unless you can point out any more errors, which of course we will address and go from there... — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point. Just because one editor provides what they consider a comprehensive review doesn't mean another editor won't see other issues. As illustrated below, I easily located issues that Peregrine Fisher missed. --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstood (I responded to these comments at work so it's possible I was distracted). I thought you were saying that you felt Peregrine's comments were not comprehensive. I thought you were speaking on her behalf. But I certainly didn't mean to suggest her comments should limit your ability to provide any comments yourself. Sorry about that. — HunterKahn(c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
"The episode was inspired by the 1997 disaster films Volcano and Dante's Peak, which Parker and Stone strongly disliked." The "which" is ambiguous here. Consider, "both of which" for clarity.
"The episode also parodied the Duck and Cover educational videos from the 1950s and 1960s, which advised people to hide under tables in the event of a nuclear attack." Same problem here, as "which" modifies "videos" but the placement is illogical. Eliminate the problem by removing the comma and using "that" instead.
The loophole statement requires explanation. Loophole in what?
The loophole is you can kill an animal in self defense, so shouting "it's coming right for us" makes it appear the shooting is in self-defense, even though it is not. I thought this was expressed by the current wording, but if it isn't, can you give any suggestions? — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it means, but I was saying I don't think the text is clear. Consider someone reading this whose country doesn't have such laws. Will they know what your meaning is? --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I've reworded it, although I'm sure it could still use some work. What do you think of it now? !!!!
"During the hunting trip, Jimbo proclaims Kenny as his honorary nephew" Spot the extra word.
Thanks for making it a game. ;) Fixed. — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The boys then see Cartman in disguised as Scuzzlebutt and ... the boys start shooting at him." When you remove the middle clause, you can see the redundancy.
"However, he is unable to do so and this gives Cartman enough time to escape and remove the costume." Try replacing "this" with "the delay" to avoid the ambiguity.
"... because the Volcano film was featured in Los Angeles" What do you mean it was featured in LA?
Changed to "set in". — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The animators of the show spent the first four episodes of South Park trying to get the characters animated the way they wanted." This is awkward: the animators don't "get things animated".
Changed to "perfect the animation of the characters". — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"By 'Volcano', Parker and Stone felt the textures of the episode were improved" The "of the episode" suggests you are referring to Volcano... so "By 'Volcano', Parker and Stone felt the textures of 'Volcano' were improved"?
Dropped "of the episode" and reworked the sentence slightly. — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'Volcano' generally positive reviews." ?
This was added recently as a result of above comments and I think it's pretty obvious a word was accidentally omitted. Resolved. — HunterKahn(c) 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Research/Sourcing
I'm disappointed in the "Cultural impact and references" section, which sadly lacks either. Why call it that if you don't discuss cultural impact of the episode? And I'm unsure what "references" means. The section is really just a list of pop culture influences that made their way into the episode, correct?
I think the title "Cultural impact and references" was used because it not only included the references, but a small account of how the popularity of the episode endured beyond just this episode (the shirts, the famous lines, the game). We used "Cultural impact and references" for this specifically because that is what other South Park articles use and we wanted to maintain consistency, but if you have a suggestion for a different title I am open to it. — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as why you used the heading, I figured as much. However, we need to make sure the heading reflects what is actually there, over being consistent with other articles. Maybe "Cultural references"?
I have no problem with that. Fixed. — HunterKahn(c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the first source listed as a CD? Isn't it a DVD?
No, it's a CD. As it says in the last paragraph of the production section, the commentary tracks were released on a CD seperately from the DVDs because the networks wanted to censor Parker and Stone and they refused. — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly checked one of your sources and found that it doesn't support what you attached it to, which doesn't bode well for the remaining sources and indicates that a full review is needed. You write that Cartman's "'Democrats piss me off!'" is "especially popular among ... fans" and cite the Lowry Variety article, which says no such thing. It merely says the line is "memorable", which is a far cry from what you wrote.
I could be wrong here, but I feel that the source is sufficient for the wording in the article. It may not overly state that it's popular specifically with South Park fans but I think the context of the article makes that pretty clear. Plus any South Park fan knows that this is the case, which obviously by itself wouldn't be enough to warrant an inclusion, but Ii felt applying this citation to it along with a little bit of common sense was sufficient. That being said, if you still feel it's a problem I'll remove it. But I don't think it's at all fair or sensible that this one small reference should sink the entire FAC (especially if it's removed). — HunterKahn(c) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the source is sufficient to back up what you've written. Lowry calling something "memorable" is just stating his opinion. He was in no way stating that the quotation is popular among the South Park fan base. It may not be fair to judge the other sources on this one, but it is sensible. No one said anything about sinking the FAC—I just suggested that if the one source I randomly checked was misused, the others should be checked. I will be looking deeper into the sources in the next couple days. --Andy Walsh(talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, sorry if I misunderstood. In the meantime, what do you feel should be done about this particular reference? Should it be removed altogether, or do you think it can be reworked? — HunterKahn(c) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query - Would you mind sending me the article text for refs 14 and 15 (Martin and Casimir)? You can e-mail them to me. --Andy Walsh(talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If you need others, let me know. — HunterKahn(c) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article, mostly well-written.
Right at the top: two misleading "alsos": "It also marked the first of two appearances for Scuzzlebutt, who became a popular minor character and appeared in the mobile video game, South Park 10: The Game. The episode also parodied the Duck and Cover educational videos ..." I'm looking for where we've been told before about first appearances, and then about parodies ... can't find them. This is a matter of false cohesion; simply removing the two offending words will make the narrative run much better. (I think ... try it.) Then further down: "The plot was also inspired by the large amount of hunting Parker and Stone saw ..."; but "inspired" does not appear beforehand. Why not "Another influence on the plot was the large ..."? The "also" is also odd at the opening of a para,, since also is such a strong back-reference and has to jump across the para break. Tony(talk) 09:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your issues have been adressed.--Music26/11 08:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are currently two images of the volcano in the article. Are both necessary? Theleftorium 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not, they have different purposes. Kakun (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean? Do you mean there's a legal problem? The second image compares between the film and the episode, the first one deals with the episode itself. Kakun (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NFCC#3: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Theleftorium 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One just shows the volcano and the other shows another type of information, the lava ball coming out of the volcano comapred to the lava ball in the film. If you are still convinced it should be removed, please wait for another opinion. Kakun (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Agreed with Nergaal. Kakun (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't think that new fair use image is going to cut it. It's kinda ORish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's OR but I removed it anyways. Kakun (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about original research, there's actually a source to the caption within the article. Kakun (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that image meets the non-free content criteria anyway, as it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Theleftorium 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly for non free images, but picking which meteor in the episode looks like which meteor in the movie is what seems ORish. Maybe I'm being overly strict in my intrepretation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't try to do that, that movie had lots of balls. Anyway, I removed it, if someone decides to put it back he's welcome. Kakun (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now fulfills all the criteria for an FA. With lots of help, including from MemChu's organist, I also believe that all the issues/concerns from this article's previous FAC have been addressed. The close paraphrasing problem is now solved, thanks to Awadewit, who has approved moving forward with this FAC. The images are much improved. The "gaps in content" (architecture, earthquakes, staff) are now closed, thanks to the research assistance of Erp. Even Scartol contributed, by creating the article's attractive tables. There's even a video of the above-mentioned Robert Huw Morgan playing one of the church's organs. The improvement of this article has been a real labor of love for all of us involved. I believe that the article is as pretty as the church is, and deserving of that silver star. --Christine (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, as Scartol knows, I su--I'm really bad at tables and coding and such. Makes it looks much better, I think. Doncha love the collaborative nature of the project! --Christine (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tables (formerly galleries) now have alt text, but this still needs work. For example, File:Memchu hopedetail.jpg's alt text is "hope detail", which says almost nothing about appearance: it should be something like "Pointed bottom of a colorful mosaic labeled "HOPE" whose margin has a head with flowering ivy. The mosaic is in a spandrel framed by stonework featuring the head of a woman." (or something like that: someone expert in architecture could no doubt do a better job). Also, the images that were not in galleries all need alt text. For example, the image in the lead infobox needs alt text; please see Template:Infobox religious building/testcases for a suggestion for that one. Eubulides (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant, since this is the only time I've seen something like this requested during an FAC. I don't understand, though, why you would request something that my browser doesn't even show. Ah, well, I obey. --Christine (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for your browser; it's for the browsers of visually impaired readers who cannot see the images (see WP:ACCESSIBILITY). Please try to pretend that you're someone new to the topic who is briefly explaining what you see to someone over the telephone. Don't interpret the image or explain where it came from (that's for the caption, or the main text).
The current alt text still needs some work, I'm afraid. For example, for Image:Memorialchurch1903.jpg the alt text is currently "Stanford Memorial Church, as it appeared prior to the 1906 earthquake. Notice the clock tower, which was never replaced." Almost none of this alt text describes visual appearance: only "church" and "clock tower" do that. The alt text should be reworded to describe the visual appearance only. For example, "Facade of church, in front of a clock tower that is another story higher than the facade".
Ooohh! Ding--the light bulb goes on. It's an accessibility thing. As we used to say in grad school, the ADA rules!! Sorry, and thanks for the explanation. Hope my improvements are adequate. If not, could someone else improve on my attempts? --Christine (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my explanation was so bad. It's not an ADA thing, it's a W3C thing, but you've got the basic idea right. Thanks for working on it. I tweaked the alt text you added to try to conform a bit better to WP:ALT #What not to specify. However, two images (marked "alt=??") are still lacking alt text; could you please fill those in? (One of them has two captions but no alt text; I expect that one of the captions was intended to be the alt text, but can't tell which one, which is a sign that the alt text needs work.) Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There, now I've got it. Thanks for catching the ones I missed. Done, I think. --Christine (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thanks for doing that. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I copyedited this article several months ago, and I'm impressed by all the additional research and work that has been poured into it. I wish we could eliminate the horizontal scroll bar, but those images of the stained-glass windows are just too lovely to shrink. Assuming the alt-text specifics are worked out, I see no reason why this shouldn't be certified as an FA. Well-written, exhaustively researched, and lovingly polished. Kudos to all involved! Scartol • Tok 15:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't support this yet. There were umpteen errors screaming out for correction.
Real solid mistakes about the events of the 1906 earthquake and the process by which the building became damaged. Half a dozen mis-statements in that category at least. I believe I have fixed them.
Twice the present facade was described as having a "quatrefoil" window. It doesn't. That was removed in the 1913 rebuilding.
The alt descriptions, which had been laboured over (I know that) simply hadn't had enough looking to get them really right. The figure of God (or possibly Moses) was described as an "angel". The figure of an angel (Cherubim if you like) was called "head of a woman". chancel windows were called "clerestory" windows. They are not.
A great deal of the information that was present was badly organised. If you are starting on the personnel, stick to it. Don't suddenly shove in the dimensions of the building. They don't belong there.
Things that were placed in order were often not in an order that was logical ie size, importance, chronology.
The word "edifice" was used without understanding.
...... I have given the article a bit of an overhaul, but I'm sure it still needs correction.
Formatting. Placing picture side by side is effective if they are the same size exactly. If you do this with pics of different shapes and sizes, it looks ghastly. It is better to just have a small gallery and be done with it. Layout is important to the general effect of your article.
Can I suggest that you reread the article very carefully, because I can be certain sure that I will inadvertently have introduce typos, gaps, things you don't like and perhaps an error or two along the way. I'm a very sloppy typist for a start, and I use British spelling that you might want to fix.
If I cvan help with architectural concepts/terminlogy, drop me a message. Amandajm (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda, thanks for your input. I've noticed your edits and the above comments, but haven't been able to address them because I've been swamped with actual real-life work (for which I'm actually getting paid) and family obligations. It's my hope that I'll get to it before the weekend. Thanks for your patience. --Christine (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I started looking at some of the newer edits to this article, and although I'm only at the start of my review, I already have a question. When I re-submitted this article for FAC, every statement made in it could be backed up by reliable sources, which parallels my understanding of what an FA should be. It was obvious, though, that this article's main editor (that would be me) has never viewed or set foot in the church, so many of the descriptions of its appearance and architecture were lacking. I depended upon the descriptions of others, most notably Robert C. Gregg in his book, Glory of Angels. Gregg's book was invaluable in the final improvement of this article in preparation for this FAC. Amandajm's additions, however, have obviously been written by someone who knows the church. So here's my question: does a description of a physical object that's the subject of a WP article by a viewer constitute OR? One of the examples of similar FAs provided during this article's last FAC, St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery, seems to do the same thing, although not as extensively. If it's not OR, then much of Amandajm's edits can stand; if not, we're gonna have to restructure them. --Christine (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please fix the citation errors. On a very quick runthrough, I spotted copyedit and MOS needs. I left some inlines, and suggest a tighter copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning descriptions. Your average person can look at a Notre Dame de Paris (for example) and say "The cathedral has three doors, two towers, a rose window in the middle and rows of statuary". Someone with a knowledge of medieval architecture will describe the style of the rose window as "Rayonnant" and refer to the statues as being in a "gallery".
This description:
The facade faces the Inner Quad, and is connected to other buildings by arcades which extend laterally. The entry is through a narthex or porch extending across the building. The nave has a single aisle on either side, separated by an arcade with a clerestory above it. The crossing is formed by a structure of square plan which once supported the central tower. Over it is a shallow dome supported on pendentives and rising to a skylight. Arches separate the central structure from the nave, transepts and chancel. The chancel and transepts are apsidal. There are galleries in the transepts and an organ gallery above the narthex in the nave. The sanctuary in the chancel is raised on steps.
...is based on primary sources (ie photographs of the building), with the exception of the first two facts which were already written into the article. This is all very simple stuff.
There is cited reference to the style of architecture of Stanford having been inspired by the Piazza of St Marco. This, of course, (and most significantly,) includes the facade of St Mark's Basilica. It is St Mark's that is reflected in this church, not in its shape, but in its mosaics and stone carving. Although mainly dating from the Romanesque period, St Marks stone carvings and mosaics, as well as the mosaics and large panel paintings by late medieval artists such as Cimabue, Duccio, and others, are generally referred to as Italian Byzantine in style. In other words, the 'known source' of the decoration at Stanford is described as Italian Byzantine, therefore the style of decoration at the MemChu is also Byzantine.
However, a cited source describing the decoration as Byzantine would be a good thing to have. I'll look through the online sources to see if and where the word has been used.
The other stuff is not OR. I just happen to know the correct terminology for what I'm looking at. If I made a claim like '"the style of the mosaics resembles that of the Sacristy of Westminster Cathedral", then I would be saying something so specific that it would definitely be Personal Research, unless referenced to another source.
Amandajm, you are introducing unformatted citations;[61] articles cannot pass FAC without correctly formatted citations (see WP:WIAFA), so please assure that your edits conform with the criteria. If you are uncertain of how to do so, it may be wise to discuss edits on talk first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unformatted citations are the least of the problems. Anyone who knows how to format them can fix them. Having a citation in place, is better than no citation at all. Sandy, if you know how to format citations, why not just do it, while I get on with the research? Why bother leaving a messages that takes longer to write than correcting the problem? The links are there. Go for it!
The PR problem. I found sources referring to the Byzantine nature of the decoration. I also took a careful look and juggled some of the wording, in order that what was stated complied with the available sources.
There was one addition of mine which was decidely PR. It concerned the chancel being similar to those of the churches of Ravenna. I deleted this. Everything else is a straightforward statement of what is clearly visible. It is not interpretive in any way.
There is a quotation about the glass of the large facacde window which says something like "there is facetted glass set in like glass". It sems to be a mistake. Could the writer check this quotation and see what it really says?.
Fixed the error; the correct word is "gems"--inset like gems". Thanks for the catch. --Christine (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the article of St Michael's Golden Domed Monastry, that you mmentioned about. There is a paragraph which describes a previous (partly speculated) state of the building. There is only one citation, but I would believe that the entire description came from the same cited source.
Other than that, there is quite a lot of historic and interpretative material in that article that has no given source. To make an unsourced statement that "the design is based on that of the Church of So-on at Somewhere" is not the same as looking at the building and saying "it has four domes clustered around a larger central dome. They are onion-shaped and gilded."
The article also has a stupid contradiction at the beginning of the history. It presumes that the reader thinks/knows somethinmg, and tells the reader it isn't true, without the reader having a clue! I'll leave them a message. It really isn't FA stuff! I don't know how it got there.
Just checked the dates. That article has been an FA for 3 years. Standars have gone up since 2006. Amandajm (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be supporting this, when I have finished digesting it becasue it s very good. However, I keep thinking in certain sections that I have read this before, but I suppose when history and architecture are rightly seperated that is going to happen. This phrase "the Rev. Scotty McLennan, has stated that although she "built an unambiguously Christian church, with Jesus' outstretched arms of love at the very pinnacle of the mosaic facade outside, and Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection gloriously portrayed in 19 large stained-glass windows, ... there were rabbis and priests and imams speaking [at the church] right from the..." I lost interest in what the boring man was saying and never reached the end of the quote; let's leave things like "Jesus' outstretched arms" out of an encyclopedic page, no matter who said it. Giano (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, G. I figured the easiest thing to do was to just delete the thing. Which, as a "touchy-feely" type, was really hard for me to do! ;) --Christine (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Amandajm: In the Plan section, you wrote the following: "There are deep galleries with swept balustraded fronts..." I'm assuming there are typos here. I changed it to my best guess: "with swept balustraded". Could you make sure this is correct? Also, should "baulustraded" be wikilinked, since (I'm assuming) it's an architectural term? --Christine (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "swept" that means curves rising or falling in Baroque terms; if you look here [62] they are concave or convex (I can never remember which is which). Giano (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response "Swept balususutradeded fronts" is not my doing. However, they do appear to be balustraded. And they are concave.Amandajm (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, someone who knows what they're doing needs to change this, please. I've never said that that person was me, so I appreciate those of you who have filled in my deficiencies. --Christine (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am now fully tuned to the page, it is very long - too long; I think the Rev Scotty needs only a mention, all that about his books and so forth can be shunted off to a page of his own, that and all the other priest/Chaplains stuff is making the page to clumbersome. If they all have pages of their own, all that need to be said is when they were incumbant. Why not start a page Priests of Mem Chu or whatever?Giano (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: The prose size of this article is 42kb, which is a pretty average length. Scartol • Tok 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but the page drags a little there, as some of these people already have their own pages, is it necessary to have so much about them there? Those 2 sections could be realy tightened - it does seem heavy reading and is not really strictly about the church. Giano (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, G. I've been pondering about it, though, and I vote to keep the section in. It's there because sometime in this long process, someone recommended that the article have a "Staff" section because they felt that there needed to be something about MemChu's current ministry. The church and its business is still a vital part of the university, through its staff, and its article should reflect that. I'm sorry you find it so boring! ;) --Christine (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, keep a staff section, perhaps grinning priests just make me nevous, but this whole paragraph "McLennan, who is a Unitarian Universalist minister, was an activist neighborhood lawyer"[49] in Boston before becoming a university chaplain, first at Tufts University.[49] At Stanford, McLennan has taught courses in ethics and business. He is author of the books Finding Your Religion: When the Faith You Grew Up With Has Lost Its Meaning and Jesus Was a Liberal: Reclaiming Christianity for All and co-authored Church on Sunday, Work on Monday: The Challenge of Fusing Christian Values With Business Life.[50] Garry Trudeau, who was McLennan's roommate when they were students at Yale University, based his Doonesbury character, the Rev. Scot Sloan, in part on McLennan.[49]" Has nothing to do with the subject watsoever, and needs to be shunted to his pwn page - It almost sounds as though you are plugging his books (I'm sure with catchy titles like that, he will hit the 100 best sellers, without your help) What I'm trying to say is, it is dull and of no interest to anybody disinclined to click the link about the man. Just introduce him as an author and old student and let the blue link do the rest. The same with the rest of them, keep it short and punchy. Giano (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're too funny. Grinning priests make you nervous. Your humor and good graces have changed my mind, kind sir. I deleted most of the above, but kept the activist lawyer bit and the Doonesbury connection. Should I make similar deletions for the rest of the staff? --Christine (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No that will do, if that's how you want it - it's much improved and so much easier to read- it will need updating from time to time though. Lemme have a last flick through and I'll support. Giano (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted this which may need calrifying: "Members of the university community use the sanctuary for "quiet, for reflection, and for private devotions" - do they actually use the sanctuary? The "unordained" in the sanctuary, isn't that unusual? Shouldn't they stay chancel-side on the sanctuary steps? Giano (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The sanctuary is not used. --Erp (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I am about to support, I see someone has made this edit [63], I won't revert in case the editor in question is a principal editor of this page, but it looks dreadful, the MOS does not demand that all images (especialy on those concerning arts and architecture) have unspecified sizes. The small images look silly and spoil the pages appearance and no longer assist the text in an illlustrative manner - which is the point of them. MOS rules are not blanket enforcable.Could Sandy or Roaul confirm this's it's one of those thigs that seems to confuse people.Giano (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you tell me to, I will revert. I'm not afraid to do so. --Christine (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone who knows the place re-write this for clarity "Behind the communion table, in the church's apse, contains a raised floor originally used for commencement ceremonies, as well as a mosaic reproduction of Roselli's "Last Supper",..." and whilsy doing it lose the "as well as". Sorry to keep nit-picking - the sun is beaming through the new oculi at its looking pretty good. Giano (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sweetie, it's all right. Aren't you supposed to be picky? ;) At any rate, I changed it to: Behind the communion table, in the church's apse, is a raised floor, originally used for commencement ceremonies, and a mosaic reproduction of Roselli's "Last Supper". Golden mosaic niches have been placed at the right of the communion table. Does that work for ya? --Christine (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Raised floor", "ceremonial purpose"......that's a dais isn't it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understood it to mean mezanine - so it needs to be clarified. Giano (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "to the right....." who's right - clergy or leity? Better east - west etc. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are actually two raised levels in the chancel. The first starts with a semi-circular stair, on the east side is the pulpit and on the west side the lectern (both are just visible in the picture linked above). Further south is the straight altar rail and stair to the second level, the sanctuary, where the marble altar and behind that the Last Supper mosaic are. I have never actually seen the altar used in a service, generally a communion table is set on the first raised level, if the service includes communion, and that is also where most performances I've seen are. --Erp (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it does! SUPPORT. Giano (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Position of Communion table. Don't use this as a reference point at all. The chancel is the chancel. It architecturally part of the building. That is the reference point. So we say that the floor of the chancel is raised by three steps. (it is almost alweays three, but the number can be verified by looking at the plan.) As for the raised bits under the pulpit and lectern, it is so nnormal and unremarkable as to hardly require description.
For the record the chancel floor is raised by 7 steps in MemChu. The back half behind the altar rail is raised another 2 steps. --Erp (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen (per this edit [64]) this plan File:Memchu.svg, it needs to be incorporated and used as a reference, why has it not been? I am all for this being a FA,but I can see no excuse for this not being 'very used - is there a reason? Giano (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was an argument about possible copyright problems. See end of first FAC archive discussion, I think it is possible ok but I think we need the experts' opinions --Erp (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, funnily enough I know someone who is very good at drawing plans - I beleive I noticed him "supporting" somwehere below me a moment ago. Giano (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - might take me a few days - till Monday say if Sandy/Raul etc. can keep this open until then. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be so marvy if you did that. I've been giving virtual kisses during this FAC; JC, if you drew a plan, you'd get one, too. As far as keeping the nom open 'til Monday, that's something that gives me pause, since it means more time for more hands, which will make things more complicated. Is there any way this article can pass with this pending? I mean, will not having a plan prevent it from passing before Monday? And regarding the support below, I'm changing my nickname of this article to "'my' pretty little article" to "'my' lovely little article. ;) --Christine (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely more hands (and eyes) are to be welcomed? Anyway - it might not take me that long......--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely article by the way, despite the infobox. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Holding, pending plan. Also, the section regarding retrofitting..... First sentence says the building was extensively retrofitted. Then second sentence says the building was rebuilt. You can't really do both as a 'retrofit' rather implies there's something there upon which to 'fit'. I'd just say the building was rebuilt with the new measures to guard against future earthquake damage. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a major reconciliation of the "interior". Hope it meets with approval. Amandajm (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the 'retrofitting' problem meself, plan on the way in 1hr. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 3 - Hopefully these can be fixed quickly.
File:Memorialchurch.jpg - The license for this image is CC-by-SA 2.5, but the website does not indicate that license. Perhaps I missed it?
I have sent an email to the photographer to release the correct license. --Christine (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case he decides not to (he's a professional photographer and might be reluctant to do so), you might want to think about other image could be used there. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue, since I just received an email from the photographer releasing the license. Could someone please direct me what to do next? Do we go through OTRS, like with the Morgan file? --Christine (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OTRS is the way to go. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request at OTRS has been made. --Christine (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Robert Huw Morgan Bach FugueG.ogg - OTRS permission is not yet sufficient. Note the tag: "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read as ticket 2009062010003299 by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file.
Dr. Morgan released the correct permission, but the OTRS guy didn't make the change to reflect this. I've resent a reminder requesting that the change be made. --Christine (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the change has been made, so this concern is addressed. --Christine (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Memchu mosaics.jpg - We need to add information to the image description explaining why the mosaics are in the PD.
Please forgive my denseness, but I'm not certain how to address this. Could someone else take care of this?
Thanks, gotcha. Done. --Christine (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to check, were the interior mosaics made by the same people at exactly the same time as the exterior mosaics? (I see you have copied the info from the image I linked above, so I am assuming that is the case.) Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were indeed made by the same people and at the same time. The exterior mosaics had a couple of reworks in the 1910's as the initial setup due to window style change and removal of the dedication to a side panel after the earthquake didn't satisfy the Board of Trustees. The interior ones didn't have much done beyond repair work. I need to reread the article myself to make sure there is nothing I know is wrong.--Erp (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading article now. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - As Christine mentioned, I worked a bit on this article, but its transformation since I last saw it is wonderful. The additional detail about the architecture is excellent. In my opinion, it is well-sourced, comprehensive, and well-written. I will fully support as soon as the image issues are resolved. Awadewit (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my typos etc. There are still quite a few red links to various people. Do we need a few more stubs on them, or are they not yet suuficiently notable for Wiki articles? Can someone decide? They look messy at present! Amandajm (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I just read and jiggered with the organs.... My goodness that Organ Morgan (see Under Milk Wood) has an overabundance of enthusiasm! Just a couple of good quotes was enough! Amandajm (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Huw Morgan is an enthusiast (and a native Welshman). I gather on the gossip line that he is hoping for a fifth organ for the church soon.--Erp (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plan completed - please let me know if any additions or alterations are required. I'll place it in the article somewhere appropriate. I've had to infer the locations and swings of some of the doors, and I had insufficient information to include the window penetrations, but this should be sufficient for our purposes. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of windows, it would probably be a bit cluttered. One thing is that the aisles (E) might imply there is no center aisle (the wording in the paragraph also implies this). I have the feeling another word is needed instead of 'aisle'. I think the swing of the side doors under the stairs are going the wrong way.--Erp (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People being "walked up the aisle" is a popular misconception - you're walked up the nave .....that's not just a aphorism for the honeymoon. (the centre aisle is really the bit between the columns with the high roof = the nave) The aisles are definitely the walkways to the left and right of the nave, usually under the lower roof. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - is the infobox absolutely essential? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Oh what a lovely beautiful plan! As for the info box.... I hate them! But because the TOC is rather long, the info box just sits there and doesn't disrupt the text and pictures below it, even on a wide shallow screen. So in this instance I'm prepared to leave it there to keep the lovers of info-boxes happy. I must say that I would love to visit this church and hear the Romantic "Rolls Royce" organ and the Maserati organ and the Continuo Organ and t'other organ! Wow! And how great those stained glass windows look! Now that I know how to line them all up like that, I have already used that formatting elsewhere. Amandajm (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Architectural type: Church" <rolls eyes>, this doesn't even make sense. Building type might, but given the name of the article includes 'church', there's absolutely no value in it whatsoever that I can see. The geographic location is repeated just a few lines down from the usual coordinates in the top right. Romanesque, Byzantine, pre-Raphaelite styles are listed, but does that really express the 'hybrid' nature alluded to in the article. Usual problems with infoboxes, which usually work well with subject with established taxonomies such as mushrooms, plants, subatomic particles etc. really not adding anything of value to arts articles. I'm tempted towards a bold removal, sorry Christine.......reaching for the edit button.........gonna....have......to.....loose.....it.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, I'm likely in a minority view here, so please revert if you feel appropriate, my support is not contingent on the removal of the box. I just think the lead is better illustrated with an exterior and interior view, rather than an arbitrary collection of random facts of dubious use and value. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you removing the infobox, really. I lean towards your viewpoint about 'em. I figure if an article is lovelier without it, it's gone. Lovely articles may not be a WP policy, but it's one of mine. When Sesame Street gets closer to FA, I'll be fighting against its infobox, since it uglifies the thing. I think that losing the infobox in this article makes its lovelier, but I wish we had another image for the second one, one that shows a view of the nave, since we've already got a wedding image later on. I'm busy today, so Jooper, if you want to take care of that, and as long as it doesn't affect the FAC process, knock yerself out. --Christine (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True but the wedding is incidental really to the image of the interior architecture. I'll have a look in cold storage though.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and kind of matches the colours of the first image which is nice. Will somebody double check the licensing, I think I've got it right....but.....--Joopercoopers (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (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 article went through FAC recently, where it was tweaked and improved with the much-appreciated help of several editors with FA expertise. Hopefully it is now ready. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I worked with Crum375 to resolve my issues during the last FAC and further after it was archived. Everything I had was fully resolved. --Andy Walsh(talk) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concern has been resolved as well. Some references are still missing access dates, but that's it. An excellent piece of work on a most unpleasant subject. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and all the help. Regarding access dates, my own rule is to include accessdate on any online citation which is not a reliable news site. In the case of news sites, they have a publication date, and the main issue there (and elsewhere) is link rot, which is very frustrating. Almost every couple of days a link either dies or goes into a subscription-only mode. I have just re-run the link checker and fixed the broken links, so we are OK for the moment. Some links have been picked up by archive.org, but many haven't, so it's an ongoing battle. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a really nice article, I would be pleased to see it reach "featured article" status. Harlem675 08:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Nicely written. Just a few niggles:
"new owners/operators"—is there an alternative to the slash? I think MoS says to try to minimise, especially when it's not a toggle situation. There's another slashed couplet further down.
I hate them too, but I can't think of a way to get rid of them without either losing information (e.g. drop "operators"), or making it more cumbersome (e.g. "owners and operators"). Any suggestion is more than welcome. (The other instance further down is "passenger/journalist", and there is also one "and/or", for a total of three slashes in the main text.) Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"And" would surely be the answer. Would anyone thing owners and operators were different?Or simply "ExcelAir"? Tony(talk) 06:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your last suggestion is best, since "and" makes a long sentence even longer. Using plain "ExcelAir", as you suggest, is also a compromise since it adds repetition and provides slightly less information, but on the whole it may be best, so I put it in. Crum375 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I normally ask for items to be delinked, but here, BST could do with one, if there's a useful, focused page at hand.
BST is simply linked (to UTC-3) in the lead, for brevity. Then, when it first appears in the body, it is presented as "BST (Brazil Standard Time)". A footnote goes on to explain: "All times mentioned in this article are Brazil Standard Time, UTC-3, unless otherwise noted." All subsequent occurrences of BST are unlinked. Are you suggesting a different strategy? Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for not following. Does "sure" mean the BST presentation/linking strategy is OK as it is, or do you think it needs modification? If the latter, can you elaborate? Crum375 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's usually standard for the acronym to be spelled out and linked on the first appearance, followed by the unlinked abbreviation in parenthesis. Here, "Brazil Standard Time (BST)". Dabomb87 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the first instance in the body to your order (acronym second). The problem with doing the full expansion in the lead is that the lead sentences are very complex already, and adding a full acronym expansion there with those extra words, for something which is of trivial significance, reduces legibility for no real gain. Instead, it's simply wiki-linked in that lead sentence, and has the full expansion (and an explanatory footnote) where it's first mentioned in the body, where there is more "space". But having said that, if others here think the full acronym should be expanded in the lead sentence, I'll defer to their judgment. Crum375 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Embraer jet, despite sustaining serious damage to the left horizontal stabilizer and left winglet, was able to continue flying, though its autopilot disengaged and it required an unusual amount of force on the yoke to keep the wings level." Didn't like that sentence much: two contrastives in "despite" and "though". "sustaining" could be removed.
I removed "sustaining" per your suggestion. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Immediately after the Embraer's emergency landing at the Cachimbo air base, BAF and Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) officials detained and interviewed its flight crew.[14] The officials also removed the two "black boxes"—Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR)—from the Embraer, and sent them to São José dos Campos, São Paulo, and eventually Ottawa, Canada, for analysis." But perhaps this? "Immediately after the Embraer's emergency landing at the Cachimbo air base, BAF and Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) officials detained and interviewed its flight crew,[14] and three days later removed the two "black boxes" (the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder), sending them to São José dos Campos, São Paulo and eventually Ottawa, Canada, for analysis." Unsure. And possibly "later" instead of "eventually", which implies a delay.
I believe the Embraer's boxes were sent to São Paulo immediately, not after three days. I have changed it to the following, to eliminate the perception of a delay: "The officials also removed the two 'black boxes'—Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR)—from the Embraer, and sent them to São José dos Campos, São Paulo, and from there to Ottawa, Canada for analysis." Is it any better? Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
charged by Brazilian Federal Police with "endangering an aircraft", a charge that carries a penalty of ... — do check for repetitions like this; possibly ", which carries ..."?
I fixed that one per your suggestion. I try hard to avoid them, let me know if you see another one. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check that every abbreviation is used enough to bother the readers thus? I see that Cockpit Voice Recorder is spelled out after I've coded CVR from a previous section. Is it worth it?
I have removed the expanded form of CVR in the "Recommendation" section. In the case of other abbreviations, such as "FDR", they are defined not just for usage within the article text, but also for possible use inside the references or footnotes. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"state of manufacture" × 2 in the same sentence. Please audit for this type of thing.
Here is the full sentence: The NTSB, in accordance with the provisions of ICAO Annex 13, participated in the investigation representing the state of manufacture of the Boeing, state of registry and operator of the Embraer, and state of manufacture of the Honeywell avionics equipment installed in both planes.[2] The goal of this paragraph is to explain the legal connections of the NTSB to the accident, prioritized by importance. We need to get across that the NTSB was legally the SOM of the Boeing, SOR of the Embraer and its operators, and SOM of the Honeywell avionics on both the Boeing and the Embraer. The connection to the two aircraft is mentioned first, because it is the most important, and within that, SOM is more important than SOR. Then the (less important) avionics is mentioned, which applies to both aircraft. If we somehow combined the two concepts, e.g. "SOM of the Boeing and the Honeywell avionics on both aircraft", it would have three drawbacks: it would lose the logical presentation order (aircraft first, then equipment); it would refer to the Embraer before it's defined in that context; and it would (arguably) be overall more cumbersome. I am open to suggestions, however. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined a few more. As I see it, para "choppiness" is a balance between separating distinct ideas and creating visual clutter. For example, in the "Embraer flight and communication sequence" section, there is a chronological description of events, and lumping too many of them into a single paragraph would be confusing and reduce legibility. If you have any specific paras which you feel can be merged with no harm, let me know or feel free to fix them. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your comments and suggestions. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several image concerns as a whole:
File:Br-map1.jpg: what source do the flight paths follow (put the sources in the image page: "Source" or "Description")?
Added source in Commons. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Embraergol737.png: what source does the depiction (two jets on level course fly straight past each other, no evasive actions taken) follow?
Added source in Commons. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:H4-BRS.jpg: File:DOD-H4.pdf is gone; please supply the link to the page where the document is hosted to allow verification that this extract is from American federal material.
The original site where it was hosted in 2006 is no longer there. I have kept the original high resolution PDF file, though, which is clearly marked as U.S. Fed. Gov. material. I can email the file to anyone interested (it's 4.3 MB). There was also a discussion thread with Steve Smith about it in the previous FAC. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would put it that the original authors are the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.[66] Some sites with the Enroute Charts.[67][68] Do you still have the original url (web.archive.org might have archived the link)? Failing that, please format the source properly with details using {{Cite journal}}, {{Cite book}}, or provide the full title, publisher, date, author (if any specific), and document number (if any) instead of the filename. Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the redlink from the source and added all available publication info, using the {{citation}} template (since it's not a book or a journal). I did this for both this image as well as the H4-Teres extract below. The PDF file, which is a high resolution digital version of the Enroute High Altitude chart, has the following on the information side panel: "(c) Copyright 2006 by the United States Government. No copyright claimed under Title 17 U.S.C. DOD Flight Information Publication. Enroute High Altitude Caribbean and South America. H3-H4." I can't find the original URL where it was hosted. Although you could well be right that the NGIA produced it, there is nothing on the chart to indicate that (it just says "DOD" generically). Crum375 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed on Commons. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Waldir Pires1.jpg: point "Source" to the page that is hosting the image, not to the image itself.
Fixed on Commons. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting feedback; other Images are appropriately licensed or verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Crum375 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written and informative. Covers all the main aspects of the event. My only complaint would be to merge some of the very short paragraphs, particularly in the lower mid sections.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 10:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I hate visual clutter too, but I try to keep separate ideas physically separate. Can you list specific sentences that you feel can be merged without forcing disjointed ideas together? Crum375 (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once I stumbled on this and nominated for the GA. And I see it's as deserving of the FA promotion than ever. igordebraga≠ 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Who could resist the charms of an 18th-century woman who...erm...well, I'll leave it to you to read exactly what she did, only today she probably would be paid lots of money for doing it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment: Wonderful queasy subject. Just a few odd points at present:- Various smallish concerns have been addressed and I am happy to support. I'd love to see it on the front page! Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overuse of quoted material - I'm particularly concerned by the 180+ word blockquote near the beginning of the article. Most of this, I think, could be paraphrased with just the odd word or phrase quoted directly
The quote is well out of any copyright claim, but it exists as a contemporary introduction to Toft, and her story. Although the article would seem to be a biography, its more about the hoax and the subsequent scandal. I think quotes are important in this regard, certainly in my mind they help me to better understand the mindset of the day. Just as the public first read about the story 280-odd years ago, the modern viewer reads the same curious report. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
I am half-convinced by this reasoning. If no other editor is concerned about the extent of the direct quotes, I'll say no more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caption for the Cuniculari image is way, way too long, and contrary to WP:CAPTION
I've reduced it slightly. The caption contains text that I could find no other place for in the article, I thought it better in the caption as the reader can compare it with Hogarth's illustration. I can also remove the 'blasphemous parody' bit, but I need the descriptions of the Tofts to remain there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
The reduction isn't really apparent. I find the overblown caption distracting – why exactly can't you find a place in the text for this material? According to WP:CAPTION, a caption is "a short text message"; also: "More than three lines in a caption may be distracting". We are further told: "Do not tell the whole story in the caption." I really think that this needs addressing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
The only real place I can put a physical description of Toft is at the point where she is introduced as the protagonist, in 'Account'. The problem for me is that if I do so, I have to use St. Andre's description - and he hasn't yet been introduced. I feel its better to use that description once St. Andre has been introduced to the reader, and especially so alongside an image of both her, and her husband (and St. Andre for that matter, who is also in the image). There are three sentences in the caption, and I don't believe that anything is lost by having that information there - in fact I think it being there makes the article easier to read. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Have a look now - I've shortened it considerably. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw several sentences that could be interpreted as editorial opinion, for example: "The timing of Toft's confession could hardly have been worse for St. André, ..."
St. André had staked his professional reputation on the affair, the subsequent disgrace I feel removes any hint of editorial opinion here - if he had waited a few days, and not published his account, he could very well have escaped relatively unscathed as several other surgeons did (Manningham escaped by the skin of his teeth). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Something like "The timing of Toft's confession was very awkward for St. André, who had staked his professional reputation on the affair" would, in my view, be neutral. "Could hardly have been worse" reads like POV. I can live with other slightly POV-ish wording, but I believe this one has to be softened. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
How about this? I've tried to keep it short (the 'more fanciful' part refers partly to Maubray's The Female Physician and his Sooterkin theory). Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it more attention later, but thanks for brightening my day. Oh, and there is a dablink that needs fixing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the link - I'd left it there as I don't know which Henry Fox it is. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no other issues with the article other than the above, and will be happy to support when these are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent choice! I myself considered writing this article, and one on another person of interest, George Psalmanazar, but I never got around to it. Glad someone put the time and effort into this! Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present but needs to be rewritten. The current alt text basically just copies the captions, which isn't right. There should be little overlap between alt text and caption: the former should only describe the visual appearance, and the latter should assume you can see the image and should not waste its time describing visual appearance. See WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few minor changes but the pages you link give no guidance for the description of drawings and paintings. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Thanks, that's much better, but a bit more work is needed still. Drawings and paintings use the same rules as other illustrations typically (unless the art itself is the topic). Phrases that should be removed from the alt text, because they can't be verified simply by looking at the images: "Toft", "Methodist", "satirise the story", "Frenchman", "of the doctor's earlier life". Phrases that could be removed in the interest of brevity (see 2nd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples): "A coloured portrait of a", "An portrait of a", "An engraving showing", "A drawing of a". Typos: "An sequence". Eubulides (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's better, and I struck the phrases you fixed. How about the remaining phrases? Also, it might help to give a few more details of some of these delightful illustrations, e.g., something like this for St. André, "Three-quarters portrait of a middle-aged man in an 18th century red and blue frock coat with a black tricorn hat under an arm. He wears a white wig and ruffled shirt, and gazes sadly downwards with his hands slightly raised." Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? I'm afraid I can't go into too much detail on the second Hogarth image, that would require an article of its own (as many of Hogarth's illustrations do). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better and better. I agree about the detail. I still see two phrases that cannot easily be verified by a non-expert who can see only the image, and which therefore need rephrasing or removal: "the State Crown of George I", "Methodist". Less importantly, perhaps "Frenchman" should be "French surgeon" (since the visible caption in the image says that)? Eubulides (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, and thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed 'Frenchman' to 'French surgeon' Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image reviewFile:Nathaniel st andre.jpg - I couldn't get the source on this to work. Notice that the license says "This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years" but the author is unknown. If we can't locate the author, we should change the license to PD-1923 and establish that the image was published before 1923. (I've worked on the rest of the images and they are all fine now.) Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Click the edit button on the image description and use the url there - for some reason it won't work if you click it. No idea why. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I also fixed the licensing. Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments Toft is always a fun story! I'm excited we have such a good article on her!
Prose, part 1 - The lead and "Account" section need to be copyedited. Here are some examples of why:
I think the lead can be better - it is weighted down with detail right now - just tell us the essentials of the story. Not who sent letters to whom.
Local surgeon John Howard was called to investigate, and upon delivering several pieces of rabbits wrote letters to several people, some of which came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, surgeon to the Royal Household of King George I of Great Britain. - This sentence is awkward.
Already a mother, several months earlier she had become pregnant, but as a peasant in 18th-century England she had no choice but to continue working in the fields. - Is the clause about her already being a mother necessary? It seems a bit awkwardly attached.
I think so - (IMO) some readers might assume that motherhood was unknown to her. I think its important people understand the modern perception that she did it for money and attention, and not because she was mentally scarred by the miscarriage. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toft complained of painful complications early on, including in August the expulsion from her body of various pieces of flesh, one "as big as my arm" (possibly an abnormality of the developing placenta causing the embryo to stop developing, and the ejection of clots and flesh). - Almost a run-on.
This has been edited down a few times, but I'm no physician and am not certain which parts of the medical description I can remove. Can you offer any help? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the version I rewrote: Early in August, she expelled several pieces of flesh, one "as big as my arm". This may have been the result of an abnormality of the developing placenta, which caused the embryo to stop developing and blood clots and flesh to be ejected. - I just don't like "expelled" - any thoughts on that? Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote several letters to Davenant, notifying him of progress in the case, some of which came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, since 1723 a Swiss surgeon to the Royal Household. - Almost a run-on
The word "investigate" recurs throughout the article. Could another word occasionally be used?
I never notice these things until they're pointed out to me. You're quite right, so I've replaced several. Some uses weren't quite correct anyway. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prose, part 2 - There are a few places that need further explanation.
The pictorial satirist and social critic William Hogarth was notably critical of the gullibility of both the Methodist Church, and the medical profession. - The Methodist Church is suddenly introduced at this point in the lead and the point is never explained in the article.
Hogarths criticism of the Church isn't directly related to this story (more to the Cock Lane ghost) so I've deleted that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maubray was a proponent of Maternal impression, and also warned pregnant women that over-familiarity with household pets could cause their children to resemble those pets. - I think the article should explain what maternal impression is, as the idea is really bound up with this story.
How about if I re-word the sentence to remove the 'and also', to join the theory and his warning? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we need to explain the theory. Clearly, Toft was relying on this theory when she made up her story. Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can say that. None of the sources I used state in certain terms exactly how Toft's story matured. Bondeson goes furthest, giving possible explanations, but then casting doubt on each. Toft was an illiterate 18th-century woman, I doubt she or her peers would have known of The Female Physician. I think it more likely that Maubray latched onto the story as proof of his own crackpot theories. The best I could do would probably be to paraphrase Bondeson's work, but I'm slightly uncomfortable doing that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest adding that explicit connection to the article. However, this idea (not necessarily Maubray's specific theory) was widely available and known during the 18th century - it was actually quite influential. It turns up in a lot of literature, particularly in chapbooks for the poor, for example. Anyway, I really think that we should not allude to theories like this, which are clearly relevant to the topic of the article, without explaining them. All it would take is a sentence. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? You can change 'widely held' to 'common' or 'popular' if you like. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St. André therefore desperately wanted the two to attend Toft; their Whig affiliations and medical knowledge would elevate his status as both doctor, and philosopher - The Whig reference is not really explained to a reader unfamiliar with 18th-century politics.
Could you add something into the article itself about the Whigs being the ruling party and that is why his status would have been improved? Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look? Its short and perhaps slightly clumsy, but I think that to expand further on politics would be straying off topic for this article (I have included a link elsewhere to Grub Street, another I'm working on, that article contains quite a lot of relevant political info). Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness and/or structure:
This article is ostensibly a biography - should it have sections about what is known of Mary Toft's life? Right now, everything is about the hoax.
I'll address the above points later, but the story of Mary Toft is pretty much the hoax - she was a peasant woman in 18th century England, little else is known about her. I do recall some information on a family tree, but the only salient information I think I could add is her illiteracy (her confessions are like text-speak). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make sure. Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (of course, there will be things) Third paragraph of "Aftermath" could be split into two. The first, second, and third sentences of the fourth paragraph in that section seem not to go together. Perhaps put together a linking sentence at the beginning and then list events that happened to her. The page kinda just dies with Pope. It seems a little odd that Pope ends it although his is dated earlier than the others. You need to find some kind of conclusion or way to summarize to end it at the last piece of contemporary statement. I don't know how, but I am sure someone like Malleus can come up with an idea if you can't think of one. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look re the three sentences? Unfortunately I'm not sure how to end it quite as you suggest - I'd like to write something like "Pope aptly summarised the affair with the following verse" but I'm unsure if that's suitable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a critic who praises Pope's lines, then you could end like that. Be glad I like you - "a rudimentary answer to this question is suggested by one of the most brilliant and witty satires of the Mary Toft affair" from here. Also, here are some other sources I found: 1 and 2. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a think about how to do this, and decided the best way would be to add a short section detailing the general piss-taking that Toft received. I've integrated the ballad into that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No idea how much of it is accurate, but it on good faith. This was a fun read, and educated me. Would be good to have on the front page for pure novelty if nothing else. If there's a snag I don't much like all the red links, and not sure how many of them are likely ever to get an article. Otherwise, great job! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to create articles for each - Sooterkin will most certainly be one. Nearly everything in the article is verifiable online, you can see much of the original documentation hereParrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; I'm going to put this in Culture and society, but if others think it belongs in Health and medicine, it can be moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominating on behalf of Kafka Liz, who is off wiki for a while. We nomed this article a few months back but it went down in flames for a number of reasons. It has recieved a few detailed reviews since then and benefited from several combs by all involved. Thanks to Ricardiana and Fowler&fowler especially for so much insight, time and effort. Other than that, looking forward to engaging with other editor's suggestions and comments. Ceoil (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know which River Dove it is, or is this one of the ambiguous place names in the poems? Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know, better off not linking it. We shouldn't be intentionally linking to disambiguation pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that we don't know, it is that it is a deliberate ambiguity in the poem. Note the sentence in the article: "Similarly, no insight can be gained from determining the exact geographical location of the "springs of Dove"; in his youth, Wordsworth had visited springs of that name in Derbyshire, Patterdale and Yorkshire." Knowing this, what do you think we should do? Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The explanatory footnote is good, in my eyes. If you wish, you might unlink the amiguous link in prose, and link each specific River Dove mention to their respective article. See what I mean here. Of course, that raises its own issues. It's totally up to you. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the disamb link and added in two of the river links to the footnote. The Westmorland Dove river does not have a page, or one that I could find. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good compromise. Thanks for the quick thinking! Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was an interesting post on the sub-article talk a while back[71], worth pondering. I might ping Wetman on this. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm very close tosupporting this. It's well written and exhaustively researched. I have a few nitpicky items which I've posted on the article's talk page, because they don't seem important enough to oppose the FAC over.
There is, however, one exception: The tenses shift regularly, from "Wordsworth characterised..." to "Wordsworth complains...". (There are numerous other examples as well, involving critics and others.) I feel strongly that the tenses should be standardised before I can vote to support. Scartol • Tok 13:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything on this list has been resolved, the tense issue among them. Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Sorry for the delay in my response! Scartol • Tok 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question:I am very close to supporting; I have a question - why doesn't A slumber did my spirit seal have it's own article yet? It is one of only 5 Lucy poems, the others all have short researched articles that are linked and are helpful to the readers understanding of the set....Modernist (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine job all...Modernist (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a stub. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava is helpfully expanding the stub as we write. Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this piece of beautifully crafted prose with just one comment:
"The expiration of the lease in Alfoxton soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live even closer." The previous para talks of the two living within walking distance of each other; accordingly, we do not know who lived at Alfoxton (which has not previously been mentioned). Also, I expected Alfoxton to be a town or village and was surprised to discover it was a building. Suggest this read "The expiration of the Wordsworth's lease of Alfoxton House soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live even closer." hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The expiration of Wordsworth's [[Alfoxton House]] lease soon provided an opportunity for the two friends to live together." to clarify. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—very nicely written. Tony(talk) 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I've trimmed the length of the first caption, but it still winds and wraps awful bad. Can the pic be a little larger? Or can some of the information be relocated into the main text? Same for the other captions: tiny pics and one-to-three-word lines. Bad look. See the Palmer pic. I recommend possible combinations of three measures, as hinted at above: trim, relocate, enlarge. Why, for example, do we need "Wordworth's" in the Palmer caption? I'm trimming it now, but more needs to be done. Tony(talk) 06:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS I presume that in the title, lower-case "p" is appropriate. You don't immediately learn whether the title for the collection is Wordsworth's. My trimming of the Palmer caption neglected to insert "The". Should it be there? Tony(talk) 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. I've trimmed the lead caption, and inserted a 'The' in the text for the Palmer image. Ceoil (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanatory note - "The Lucy poems" or "The Lucy Poems" is used by scholars when referring to the grouping. "Lucy poem" is a more casual reference to poetry about the Lucy themes. Rather subtle and the latter is mostly used in comparisons with other works. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened some of the captions even further. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Benjamin Robert Haydon 002.jpg - National Portrait Gallery image. I assume these are still fine to use; I haven't looked into the legal threat business for a while.
They are fine, yes. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added to category and gallery. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Margaret Oliphant Wilson Oliphant.jpg - Under FfD at the moment, but looks like it will be kept. If someone could close that discussion and move the image to commons and do everything there, that would be good.
Deletion discussion initiated under an attempt to delete images from the NPG. All votes are for keep. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:SamuelTaylorColeridge.jpg - The image at the NPG has slightly different tones. Which do you think would be more suited for use?
I'm not sure which scan is closer to the original. Has anyone seen the original painting? Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coleridge was not feverish nor was he purple. The first image is closer to the depiction of Coleridge in multiple books. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, do you mean copies of the painting in books (as, of course, the painter could have chosen to represent Coleridge any way he wanted)? Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean reproductions of the portrait. They are slightly more brown than red, but they are closer to the Wiki coloration than the NPG. NPG images have also had some other problems, especially with shadowing and the rest. A rather curious situation that one would think would be corrected. Someone like Durova might be able to elaborate on that point, as she is big on restoration of images. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images look good, except for Margret Oliphant. I don't think that the issue with that image is sufficient to merit blocking promotion. NW(Talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep the pic of Oliphant, but I dont feel strongly about it. Thanks for the review NW. Ceoil (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. And in my opinion, you should be able to keep the Oliphant image; those FfDs should all eventually close as keep. NW(Talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS#Ellipses: some ellipses are spaced, others not. Is that intentional? ("Strange fits ..." and "A slumber...") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a fix to this, I would suggest that all of the short titles be provided without ellipses. Many of the poems are known by the short titles, so it wouldn't be a problem to have them used after the first instance (with full titles in the subheadings, of course). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I'm on a really old computer though this weekend, and ctl F is not working for me. Can get to it about 15 hours, after my beauty sleep and a short drive. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trust y'all can fix this minor issue later (don't have a brawl!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meets all criteria in my opinion. The article recently went through WP:GAR where many additions were made. I invited many of our medical types and non-medical types to look over the text over the past month. All images are free; it was a challenge for me to find the TIPS image. I look forward to everyone's comments -- Samir 07:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images all need alt text as per WP:ALT. Also, I suggest moving one of the images up into the lead infobox, as this will be more likely to cause a naive reader to look at the article.Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text added to all images. -- Samir 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also image added to lead infobox -- Samir 09:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead infobox's image also needs alt text. The Pathophysiology diagrams' alt text doesn't sufficiently explain appearance to a visually impaired reader; see the diagrams near the bottom of WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. A nit: alt text typically shouldn't begin with phrases like "Image of".Eubulides (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have placed ALT text on the schematics as: "Diagram: portal hypertension leads to splanchnic vasoconstriction, which decreases effective cirulatory volume. This leads to ascites due to renal sodium avidity and HRS due to renal vasoconstriction" and "Diagram: ascites, diuretic-resistant ascites and HRS are a spectrum. All occur in portal hypertension. Diuretic-resistance occurs with splanchnic vasodilation. When it progresses to renal vasoconstriction, HRS occurs." It is a little lengthy but explains the two images well. I have added the text: "Two part stained slide of altered cells of the liver on top labelled as alcoholic cirrhosis and cells of the kidney on the bottom labelled as being normal". Thoughts? Should the schematic ALT texts be shortened? -- Samir 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if anything lengthened a bit. I adjusted them and the lead-box alt text. Thanks for the help. Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eubulides, appreciate it -- Samir 04:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dealt with -- Samir 03:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a basic test that medical articles should pass, which I call the "Johnny test". Mom: "The doctor says that your uncle has something called hepatorenal syndrome." Johnny: What's that? Let me look it up on Wikipedia." Can Johnny get a useful answer? To some degree yes, but there's too much jargon. The first paragraph of the lead, at least, should give Johnny an overview he can understand, without jargon. How about something like this:
“
Hepatorenal syndrome (often abbreviated HRS) is a life-threatening but treatable medical condition, in which the kidneys fail to function properly as a result of cirrhosis of the liver, which may be caused by alcoholism, injury, or infection. Patients with HRS are very ill, and if untreated the condition is usually fatal. Even with treatment, less than 50% of patients survive. The only long term solution is transplantation of a new liver. The aim of treatment is to keep the patient alive until transplantation is possible, using medications, and sometimes the surgical insertion of shunt to relieve pressure on the portal vein. In some cases periodic dialysis is necessary.
”
I'm not an expert and probably got some things wrong here: I'm mainly trying to illustrate the level I believe the intro to a medical FA should aim for. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, needs some tweaking. Working on it, need a little but not much time. Thanks -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how does the lead read now? I think it is very good personally -- Samir 06:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, concise and informative but easy to understand. Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is an excellent and comprehensive article, but I agree with the above that the prose needs simplifying. For example, the phrase 'in the setting of' appears 8 times by my count, and sounds like doctor-speak in a way that may be off-putting to laypeople. As a minor aside, the two diagrams have jpeg jaggies; convert to SVG? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Thanks Opabinia. A pleasure to see you back around. -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of those diagrams tomorrow, if Samir won't mind. I'm surprised he didn't ask ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the best, man! Thanks dude -- Samir 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on it, some family issues got in the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the prose fixes. Samir, your vectorized versions still look a bit wonky to me - the text edges don't look clean. Is that just me? Good to be back, although it may not outlast travel next week, or the subsequent arrival of my new computer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not your computer; it is a bit wonky here also. I'm hoping Fvasconcellos gets a chance when he is free. -- Samir 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will—should be done by tonight. So sorry about the delay, some RL stuff got in the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: sorry it has taken me a week to come and comment on this excellent article. It covers all the important aspects and I cannot detect any omissions or factual problems. I was still hoping that the following issues could be addressed:
There's a fair number of primary sources, and I'm not entirely sure if each of these is backed up by a secondary source affirming their relative prominence in the evidence food chain.
The word "Type" as in "Type 1" is capitalised. Could you clarify if this is in keeping with the WP:MOS (can't seem to find the relevant point).
Clearly, if you have HRS, you'd like to be in Barcelona. Is there a source confirming that this seems to be the world capital of ascites/HRS currently? JFW | T@lk 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JFW -- yes I agree we are top heavy on the primary cites. I think we reference all of the major review articles. I will tighten the citations -- need a bit of time but not too long. The "Type 1" vs. "type 1" convention is not standardized in the literature. Couldn't find anything in WP:MEDMOS. The portal hypertensive basic research, the database work on portal hypertensive complications, and the terlipressin data are all from Barcelona. The midodrine/octreotide work was from Italy (Padua) and the TIPS work is from Toronto. MARS work and the transplant data are from a number of centres. -- Samir 04:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To follow-up: (1) primary sources are now backed by one of the major review articles as secondary sources; (2) "type" has been changed to lowercase as the majority of review articles have it lowercase; (3) I can't find a reference for Barcelona as the major centre for HRS research, probably best if we do not reference that imo -- Samir 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, clearly ready for FA. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From "Signs and symptoms": "The urine produced by individuals with HRS has a very low concentration of sodium, and typically does not contain cellular material when analyzed by microscopy. Detailed criteria for the diagnosis of HRS have been defined based on laboratory data and the clinical circumstances of the affected individual." These features are neither signs nor symptoms.
From "Causes", paragraph 2: "iatrogenic precipitants of HRS include the aggressive use of diuretic medications". Is this correct? Isn't this a cause of hypovolaemia?
From "Diagnosis", paragraph 2: "treatment with 1.5 litres of intravenous normal saline". Doesn't saline cause worsening ascites and oedema?
From "Diagnosis", paragraph 3: " there is impairment of the ability of the renal tubules to concentrate urine in ATN, leading to urine sodium measurements that are much higher than in HRS". In ATN, tubules are unable to concentrate urine. Also, the urine sodium in ATN is high; higher than in HRS. However is it correct that the impaired concentration leads to high urinary sodium?
I like the diagrams in the "Pathophysiology" section.
Regarding the photo in the "Prevention" section, it may be helpful to say that this is an endoscopic view of the inside of the oesophagus.
From "Prevention", paragraph 1: "removal of ascitic fluid may improve renal function if it decreases the pressure on the renal veins." Are you sure it's the veins, not the arteries?
Hi Axl. Thanks very much for looking things over for the article.
For signs and symptoms -- Rewritten. I have removed the urinary findings as they are rightly not signs and symptoms (and are mentioned elsewhere). I also re-wrote the last line to make the point that signs and symptoms do not make the diagnosis of HRS
Causes para 2 -- yes diuretic medications are a common trigger for the hemodynamic changes in cirrhotics that lead to HRS
Diagnosis para 2 -- yes the way to distinguish HRS from pre-renal failure is to "force" euvolemia by giving 1.5 L of NS to an affected individual (in pre-renal failure, the renal failure would improve and U Na would rise)
Diagnosis para 3 -- re-written. Agree, I worded it wrong and it was confusing before. Hopefully it reads better now.
Prevention -- yes large volume paracentesis is supposed to decrease pressure on the renal veins (arterial pressure would not be affected) leading to improved renal function. This is classic teaching handed down from Sheila Sherlock's original text on liver diseases, but there has been little work evaluating it in the recent literature. -- Samir 17:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Samir, thanks for clarifying (and educating me!). I support the application for FA status. Axl¤[Talk] 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will begin now to take a look and likely make some straightforward copyediting changes as I go. Please feel free to revert any that inadvertently change the meaning. I will note queries below. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas, appreciate it. -- Samir 05:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I am impressed - you've navigated the tightrope between medical exactness and plain english very very well! I was reduced to minor nitpicky things. It is comprehensive and I can't see any reason not to SupportCasliber (talk·contribs) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review – Everything is good now. NW(Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific thanks NW -- Samir 05:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just for the future, when you upload images like this one, could you point your links to the exact flickr image instead of the photostream and upload the images to Commons rather than Wikipedia? Thanks, NW(Talk) 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full supportwith Comments - What on earth does this mean, "The minor criteria are laboratory in nature"? And here, "Some viral infections of the liver, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C can also lead to inflammation of the glomerulus of the kidney", as far as I can tell, the reference only refers to chronic hepatitis B virus infections. And this, I think, is a mixed metaphor "Contributions by Murray Epstein cemented splanchnic vasodilation and renal vasoconstriction as hallmarks of the syndrome"— but no big deal.Graham ColmTalk 14:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, I rewrote the two sentences in a clearer manner [73][74] and added the reference to a nice 2001 review of renal diseases in hepatitis C. [75] Thanks -- Samir 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a boring article about a boring man who did some boring things. I'm bothering with it only because I'm trying to make Premiers of Alberta into a featured topic. On the upside, the article is quite short. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the tag, it's in the public domain because its creator died more than 50 years ago (in 1938, to be exact). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least, that's why it's in the public domain in Canada. It's in the public domain in the United States because it was in the public domain in Canada as of January 1, 1996. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Another finely written article. I really only have two concerns:
The description of Stewart's relationship with UFA as being "frosty" seemed a bit odd. It's stated that he was a member of UFA, opposed their politicization, but that he still worked well with them after, and that UFA refused to run a candidate against him, or attack his government. Suddenly, as a federal minister, his relationship seems much worse, and full of ill will. There appears to be a gap here where the relationship turned sour. Or, perhaps, a little clarification that his relationship with the Farmers' government deteriorated upon becoming a federal minister?
His post-political career seems mighty thin. Is there nothing that can be said of his participation with the organizations he chaired? Or any private business ventures? Resolute 01:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point, good point. Does this help? Part of the problem is that there's no source that comprehensively covers his relationship with the UFA as Premier and as federal cabinet minister: Jaques and Thomas don't deal with his federal career in any detail, while Foster and Wardhaugh don't say much about his career as Premier. Reading between the lines, I think he felt a little betrayed that the UFA sought to replace his government after he'd been so accommodating towards them. To your second point, I haven't been able to find anything, and at this point I'm not sure where to look (I'm almost certain it would have to be in primary sources of some kind). Note that by the time he left politics he was close to seventy; I surmise that he wasn't all that active post-retirement, though that's just a guess. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think on the first point, it's the word "remained" that I object to. It implies a degradation of a relationship that isn't explained beforehand. Probably just changing it to "his relationship with the UFA was frosty..." As to the second, I can't imagine the needle in a haystack that searching through newspapers would be, with the possible exception of checking after the date of his death for an obit that might add more. It is an odd section though. In short, it says "Stewart sat on two councils then died" in the first paragraph, while the second is a one sentence rehash of the entire article. Now THAT is summary style! ;) Resolute 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced "remained" with "were", and inserted one more sentence (literally the only one I could find in any of my sources) in the section on his later life. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm satisfied with the article's quality and comprehensiveness. All images are PD, references look good to me. Resolute 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources: all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy yet. Examples from the top:
MOSLINK recommends that major countries such as Canada/ian not be linked.
Fixed.
as his replacement. And another causality that is wrongly used as intransitive: "the UFA politicized during Stewart's premiership". (was policitized?)
Fixed.
Consider a new sentence for "When Sifton ...". I'm picking up a slightly tendency to overuse semicolons where a stop might normally be used. I say this even though I'm a supporter of semicolon use. See "; even so".
I have been known to average more than one semicolon per sentence; I'll do a cull.
"Unable to match the UFA's appeal to rural voters, Stewart was defeated at the polls and resigned as premier." Does that mean he was personally defeated in his electorate, or his government was defeated? Isn't resignation as premier a foregone conclusion in either case?
Clarified that it was his government that was defeated. And no, resignation as Premier is not foregone - see Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King's decision to remain Prime Minister after losing the 1925 election, for example. In a Westminster Parliamentary system, the Premier remains Premier until he/she either resigns or is defeated in a parliamentary confidence vote. While it's customary to opt to resign after losing an election (the assumption often being that defeat in a confidence vote would be imminent), it's not automatic. Moreover, it was still less a foregone conclusion in this case, since there was thought that Stewart might lead the new UFA government (which I didn't think warranted a mention in the lead, but which is covered quite thoroughly later one).
"an agreement that transferred control of Alberta's natural resources from Ottawa to the provincial government"—silliest thing the federal government EVER did.
Sorry, I'm feeling dim - I'm rereading this, but I'm not sure that I see the problem.
It was a meta-comment: Alberta hogs the lion's share of oil-shale revenue, which many people feel should be shared more equitably through the dominion.
"in 1935, so too was Stewart"—clarify here that he lost his seat.
Who was Macdonald? Suddenly he bounds into the text ...
Hamiltonstone addressed this.
Causality treated awkwardly again: "After marrying Sneath, he converted to her Church of England faith.". Sounds forcible.
Not certain that I agree here.
Sorry, I misread it as "converted her to". It's fine.
Ref 1 repeated six times in a row in one para, having made five consecutive appearances in the previous para. Then 3, 3, 3. Can you attend to these repetitions throughout? Better one ref number at para's end, unless there are particularly contentious statements during the para that need to be specifically marked. (But they're mostly trivial.)
My own view is (obviously) in line with Hamiltonstone's. I think dense referencing helps guard against the tendency for new material of uncertain provenance being added. Using a single reference per paragraph makes it easy for unreferenced material to be added to that paragraph while appearing to be supported by the reference at paragraph's end. Since reviewers are divided on this question, I'll hold off on making any change until consensus develops.
Dense referencing is no such guard against subsequent insertions that are not attributable to the source. So sentences 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have a [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], and senctence 2 has no ref? You still have to check periodically, and as a FA you'd have it on your watchlist. What the density does do is clutter the text and irritate the reader. I strongly suggest that you ration the boring repetitions of the ref number to one or two, placed possibly at the end of one of the more important sentences during the para, and at the end (usually, one at the end is preferable, unless it's a long para or has a contentious statement within it). This is a signal to the reader that everything in the para is attributable to that source, as a default. Please have a look at a few other FAs to see how it's done. Like overlinking, over referencing makes the text look unprofessional. WP's editors are expected to exercise judgement here, in the normal practice of academic/research text, rather than slavishly covering their asses by plastering numbers after every single sentence.
OK, if this is a sticking point, Steve I'm happy to defer to Tony's greater experience with these things. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've now removed all consecutive instances of identical references in the same paragraph. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"in which he defeated Conservative William John Blair handily"—the last word is colloquial. "easily defeated".
Fixed.
Needs an independent copy-edit throughout. Referencing needs scrutiny for tedious reps. Tony(talk) 14:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've arranged for a copyedit from User:Roux; hopefully it will meet with your approval. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments leaning tosupport
Excellent scope, structure and good general style.
The range of sources seems a little narrow for someone who appears to have been quite a high profile figure, but it may represent all the sound scholarly material available.
It does. For context, during this period Alberta's population was well under a million, so Stewart headed the government of an entity that, population-wise, was the size of a small city. Moreover, provincial premiers during this era, in contrast to now, were figures of relatively minor importance, since it was only the advent of the welfare state (during which government spending on areas of provincial responsibility, such as education and health, increased radically) that elevated them to effective full partners in Confederation. He has never been the subject of a book-length biography, and the material available on his premiership is in line with comparable figures. I was surprised not to find more on his federal role, but I've done a thorough survey of the material available about the King ministry and Stewart barely figures in most of it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copyediting in early parts, but have to stop now - I only hope they are improvements rather than the opposite. I'm not of the same view as Tony, though: I favour dense referencing, even if it is the same ref. If the article gets sliced and diced, that way the refs stay with the material they source - not so likely to be the case if one has one cite at the end of the para. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Your work definitely improved the article, though it added a semicolon to an already semicolon-dense piece of work. I might revert your change in wording from "insurgent Liberal" to "rival" as it pertains to Boyle, since the latter wording implies to me a greater relationship between Stewart and Boyle than actually existed. I'm mulling it over. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reveting that is fine. Other points:
I copyedited the intro to railways para, but it has a problem - the rest of the para doesn't actually explicitly mention Stewart's role. The people clamoured for their railways, then a bunch of business stuff happened. Where is Stewart in this? Also in same section "drainage of northern areas" lacks context. Are we talking swamps, snow melt, sewerage for towns? Is this readily (and briefly) able to be rephrased for more clarity?
To the first point, assuming you're talking about the first paragraph of "Party division", it's intended to set the stage for the rest of the section. The Liberals of 1917 were a house divided for reasons essentially unrelated to Stewart, and those reasons need to be explained if his Premiership is to be understood (his minor role in the railway scandal is covered earlier, under "Earlier political career"). To the second, the wikilinked article states that "Many agricultural soils need drainage to improve production or to manage water supplies", which is what we're talking about here (I presume that snow melt would be the major cause, along with rain). I could specify "agricultural drainage", if you think that would help. Otherwise, I'm open to alternative wordings. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The problem is the first para after the heading 'public works'. The railways stuff just isn't linked to Stweart, other than saying it occurred during his premiership. Unless it somehow actually involved him, it probably isn't notable for this article, and if did involve him, we should hear about how. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, that should have been obvious. I've inserted his name in there to add some clarity to the connection, but ultimately any action of the government is attributable to the premier, even if he's not specifically mentioned. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for some reason i hadn't grasped that the government was acting to intervene in purchasing the company. The insertion of the time has triggered some understanding. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know when Stewart joined UFA?
No - we can infer that it was between 1909 and 1919, but that's as good as it gets. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the UFA was not satisfied with the government's record: in 1918, it found that.." The "it found that" sounds odd in this particular context. "it claimed that", or "it argued that" might be better, depending on the detail.
Addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Though he emphatically denied that there would be an election in the spring of 1921 (the last one had been held in June 1917, and four years was the normal life of a legislature in Canada), Stewart eventually called one for July 19". Huh? July isn't in spring - this sounds like it was right on schedule. What have i missed?
The "Though" is probably misleading. I've reworded a bit - see what you think. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Lakeland College historian Franklin Foster, in his biography of John Edward Brownlee,..." This is the first mention of Brownlee, so we need to know who he is (ie. why would this be relevant to Stewart?) As this will lengthen the sentence, I suggest a full stop before "Lakeland College historian..."
Clarified. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice ending.
I'm a supporter of promotion to FA once the above issues are dealt with. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but I still see things that need tweaking, apart from the over-referencing. (I removed a few from the top, and now I see Cite Errors in the Notes: sorry, can you fix? And was there some way of doing it better?)
"Newly-politicized" – see MoS on hyphens.
Somebody seems to have gotten this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist)
"It has been my fight ever since I became a minister to see that the farmers of the province were having a square deal," he remarked, – MoS requires the comma to be after the closing quotation marks (unless the comma is actually in the source.
The comma is part of the quotation. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit unusual not to put "p." or "pp." plus space, before the page numbers in the Notes. I support I can live with it.
"As MLA" table: a reason to repeat "Turnour N.A." for each one? It's kind of crowded already.
Link to "Jasper—Edson". You'd put it out of its misery by moving it to a new title with an en dash. The em dash is wrong, and looks very odd.
Steve (User:Steve, that is) seems to have taken care of this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Born in Ontario, he had moved west for economic opportunity, become an important political voice in an emerging province, and then gone to Ottawa to be that province's national voice. As Mackenzie King eulogized him, "in more respects than one, Mr. Stewart's career mirrored the development of Canada itself."—By the time you get to "gone", you've lost the sense of "had", don't you agree? I think here the "had" needs to be repeated twice. But on a larger structural scale, the last, short para doesn't seem to belong here: it's not about the title (Post-political life), but is rather a summary of his entire career – better in the lead, if at all. Why not insert Mackenzie King's statement in the lead, too? But I don't think we should have to go to the physical source to work out what King meant: what were these several respects? If you have it at hand, please consider explicating them in a brief list within the sentence.
I thought the last para was a bit short, so i'm happy with the suggestion about giving it slightly more detail. But as to it being in the wrong place, i don't agree. I think a lot of WP articles, including high-quality ones, suffer from a lack of a sense of an ending - something particularly appropriate in bios. Take the last para away and one loses the poetry of the ending, and a great quote from King. And I think the King quote really has added meaning coming after the other rather unkind opinions we are provided, that King expressed in his diary - an effect that would be lost were this material moved to the lead. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hamiltonstone about the paragraph's location, for essentially his/her reasons. In addition, the quote's from a eulogy, which it does make some sense to place in the same part of the article as the death. As for what the respects were, that's what I was trying to get at with the first paragraph of the sentence: Stewart was born in one of Confederation's original provinces, moved west at a time when encouraging western immigration was among the federal government's major priorities, took the leadership of Alberta when it was emerging as important, and joined the federal government where he played a role in placing it on the same plane, constitutionally, as the other provinces (with regards to natural resources). Admittedly, this relies on the reader being somewhat acquainted with Canadian history. I could spell all of this out, and it would expand the paragraph, but it might be a bit much for something that's only tangentially related. Thoughts? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be worthy of promotion when fixed. Tony(talk) 09:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments A nice article about a boring man, but it wouldn't be FAC without a few nitpicks (:
came west to Alberta where are you? I'd prefer went
the pair would have eight children maybe the pair would eventually have eight children? - you can ignore this
Could you check that every "however" has a useful function and isn't just padding?
I had the same problem interpreting the final paragraph. Would changing the order of the two sentences help, so we can see the context first?
I shall think about Charlie when I need to sleep... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, and I'm glad to have cured your insomnia. I've changed "came" to the more perspective-neutral "moved", and removed one of the howevers. I'm going to need to think more about the last paragraph. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the last paragraph, but I'm not really crazy about the result. Thoughts from all who have expressed views on the subject (and indeed from anyone else) welcome. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I really liked it. That was the kind of shape I thought it should have, so: well done. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meet FA criteria. Although this is a relatively short article, it's comprehensive of the entire storm, including the large difference between warning centers. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I like this article pretty much, but there is one thing that I can see right now that might cause some problems. When you do the difference among warning centers, you say: The Japan Meteorological Agency uses 10-minute sustained winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses 1-minute sustained winds.[12] The conversion factor between the two is 1.14.[13] JMA's peak intensity for Faxai was 100 km/h (65 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 120 km/h (75 mph) 1-minute sustained.[2][13] The JTWC's peak intensity for Faxai was 75 km/h (45 mph) 1-minute sustained, or 65 km/h (40 mph) 10-minute sustained.[14][13]. That seems good, but with the conversions between 10 and 1-min winds are the problem. The JMA only reports in 10-min winds and the JTWC only reports in 1-min winds so would that be OR? --Anhamirak 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→ "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Anhamirak; the quick reply from JC; and the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - The two public domain images are fine. Could you please complete the licensing migration for File:JMA Faxai 2007 track.png? Thanks, NW(Talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review, I'm a bit confused as to what I need to do exactly for the track map though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think NuclearWarfare meant to tag the image for relicense to CC-BY-3.0, which I did. --anoddname 11:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, AnOddName got it. Sorry I missed this earlier, but thanks for doing that for me. NW(Talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since I made that pic, I switched it to the proper license ({{PD-self}}). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Theres nothing missing from the MH, Impact or Preps and it looks good.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDone; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text to the lead image, to help you get started. Eubulides (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A Japan Airlines flight heading to Narita Airport"
"The storm traveled towards the northwest under"
Link and maybe spell out UTC on its first appearance in prose.
"The JTWC also began issuing advisories on Faxai"-->The JTWC also issued advisories on Faxai
"Around that time, the JMA upgraded Faxai to a severe tropical storm with winds reaching 95 km/h (60 mph 10-minute sustained)." The noun + -ing construction is awkward; see this excellent guide on how to fix it.
"In the following advisory issued by the JTWC, however, they upgraded the depression to a tropical storm based on the development of a well-defined central dense overcast." Why "however"? Is this a stark contrast to what might be expected?
No link for "sustained winds"?
"All Nippon Airways cancelled all day flights between Tokyo and the Izu Islands"
"Areas around Tokyo were notified about heavy rains" "about"-->of the
"Residents were advised to stay indoors during the storm, especially after sunset, avoid possible flying debris." Is there a missing word? "especially after sunset, avoid possible flying debris" sounds strange.
Spell out JST
"The rainfall in Miyakejima came close to surpassing the record daily rainfall for October 27." "came close to surpassing"-->almost surpassed
"Damages from cyclone totaled to "
"Three crew members had neck injures, one of whom also was cut in her thigh."-->Three crew members sustained neck injures, and one was also cut in her thigh. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but "Differences among warning centers" seems to be too small. It either needs some of the information about the differences moved down, or to just have the heading removed and be part of the previous section. I say this simply because it aesthetically puts forth a breach between two sections that seem to be close together. Two or three sentences from the last paragraph of the previous section could be pulled down if you want to preserve the "Differences" section. Also, the line "took off from Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport and was heading to Narita International Airport," could simply be put "Airport, heading to Narita International Airport,". The "and" distracts from the purpose of the sentence. "was hit in the head" By what? The woman? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with most of that, aside from your final comment, which I'll leave to the nominator to sort out. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled with the prose.OK now; I've made a few little tweaks; do watch your omission of "to" or other little grammatical words in long sentences in which two clauses are joined by "and"—here, the fix was grammatical to convey the causality more smoothly. If you're to continue to present nominations, can you take steps to tighten it up, and/or to work with good writers on articles?
Which ENGVAR is it? I see "travelled" and "traveled".
"One woman sustained serious injures, and five others received minor injuries."—No male was injured?
Probably remove "also" in the lead, as redundant, and join the two sentences with a semicolon ("injuries; the plane").
"($1.5 million USD)." Is that the correct placement of the currency signifier? You can probably dispense with "US" as the international default—check MOSNUM. And the D is definitely redundant. Why link it? And there it is further down, linked as well ...
"Three crew members sustained neck injures, and one was also cut in her thigh."—last clause a bit weird (sounds like chicken for lunch).
"esidents were advised to stay indoors during the storm, especially after sunset, and avoid possible flying debris." Probably "to" before "avoid". Tony(talk) 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up these examples, and will try to preform a more thorough copyedit in the morning. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a. The prose quality is fine, but it isn't "engaging, even brilliant". Rather, it's quite dull. It's researched from a handful of meteorological reports, most or all of which should be considered primary sources. From a brief search in ProQuest Newspapers, this storm doesn't appear to have made news an any English-language sources other than a blurb in London's Independent. As such, I'm not even convinced that it meets notability guidelines for having its own article, unless you can produce evidence that secondary sources, English or otherwise, covered it. --Andy Walsh(talk) 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how they could be considered primary sources to be honest; it's not like the storm self-published. That said, the article definitely meets notability requirements, both by WP:WPTC and Wikipedia-wide standards, but notability issues are irrelevant to FAC. I don't think there's really anything we can do about its dullness. Personally, I find the article fascinating, but to each his own. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are primary sources because they are first-hand data written by people who are paid to record it. By nature, limited prose can be written from them, and no analysis, interpretation, or critical commentary is possible. This is where the dullness comes from—we have essentially a weather report in article form. It's short because no English-language media covered it. To compare, would you accept an article about a crime that was written entirely from the police reports or court documents? No. It would be dry and, likely, not comprehensive. --Andy Walsh(talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Last time i checked the Independent and Bloomberg were English-language media so that takes out "It's short because no English-language media covered it." Also as JC said it passes all the notability critera for WP with secondry sources. Jason Rees (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was hyperbole. I acknowledged The Independent above; the blurb is 62 words. I'm still not convinced this even meets general WP notability requirements. And Julian, notability is indeed relevant at FAC. From the criteria page: "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes." --Andy Walsh(talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify: Notability is not my only, or even primary concern. --Andy Walsh(talk) 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The storm is notable, it killed one person and caused $1.5 million in damages. It definitely has enough sources to make it notable. Since notability is not your primary concern, can you clarify on what your primary concern (quibble in this case) with the article is? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble? At any rate, my primary concern is that the sources are almost entirely primary, making this little more than a re-hash of weather reports. As such, it's lacking any analysis, interpretation of data and events, or commentary. Also, I can't take your word for it that the storm is notable. For these two reasons, secondary sources are needed to balance out all the primary sources. --Andy Walsh(talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that is bad how? It makes all the information in the article reliable. I'm a bit confused as to how the secondary sources are needed, what do you mean by balance out? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy here entitled Wikipedia:No original research. From it: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." The page is thorough in its explanation of why we don't rely on primary sources. --Andy Walsh(talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in response to Laser brain's snide attacks on my support on my talk page, FAC is not about notability concerns. Therefore, mentioning notability at FAC is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← I'm genuinely confused. Staff writers at news agencies are paid to cover news events. Does that make the Associated Press a primary source? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no matter, I've withdrawn my opposition. Have fun. --Andy Walsh(talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for this article, I changed the BT link to the ATCR which is easier to read and understand. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Although I'm not opposing, I do note that this article is on the small side for a FA. I urge those in the storm project to identify more meaty storms for working up to nomination. Tony(talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comment: After my and others' actionable concerns have been addressed, I'm fairly certain this meets the FA criteria. I sympathize with Andy's (Laser brain's) comments to a degree. Notability and whether a certain article "deserves" to be an FA are valid but messy issues that have arisen several times. However, the truth of the matter is that bare bones meteorology (basically what this article is) is not interesting for many, and when you aren't interested, the article won't engage you no matter how well-written it is. Although "brilliant" prose is part of the criteria, if there's nothing that can be done to address the problem, then we just have to accept that and make the article as good as we can in all other respects. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat-involved support - I feel Dabomb87 hit the proverbial nail on the head. Granted, I'm familiar with the text to an extent where I an unable to identify any issues, but I'm confident it meets the criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has received quite a lot of work, and I think it's ready for FA status. Most of the preparation was done several months ago, though then I held off nominating for a variety of reasons. I am satisfied the important points about this figure's life are now covered in reasonable depth, while the article has benefitted from the copy-editing and review talents of several other users, most notably Malleus Fatuorum (talk·contribs), Ealdgyth (talk·contribs) and Hamiltonstone (talk·contribs). You will note that the interesting but dubious saga-material about this figure has been included but not incorporated into the article by placement in text boxes. This is a good solution to the problem this poses, while it follows a growing convention in mainstream history writing to make use of such boxes (after the manner of Norman Davies) for such purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review:
File:Edward the Confessor 1042 1066.jpg is in the public domain one way or another, but my thought is that as a reproduction of what is effectively a two dimensional work it should be tagged differently, as User:PHGCOM may not have had any rights to it in the first place to release into the public domain.
Disagree with image review. The object is not two-dimensional. I had an image of a 4000 year-old shallow bas relief rejected as not PD-old because it was deemed to be 3-D and therefore the photographer's copyright, which seems bizarre, but technically the photo is the uploader's copyright to dispose of. jimfbleak (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether the threshold of creativity is met in photographing a work. For that purpose, I can't see how either a coin or a shallow bas relief would be considered as three dimensional. Do you happen to have a link to the discussion where this occurred? Anyway, it's public domain one way or another, so this isn't a huge deal, but I'd like to make sure the tagging's done right. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay then. Striking this issue. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:EmpireNorth.JPG is derived from File:Cnut 1014 1035.jpg, which is tagged as being in the public domain in all jurisdictions in which copyright term is life of author plus seventy years, but the file has no information on the lifespan of the author (it's also unclear whether William R. Shepherd is the cartographer of that map, or the editor of the atlas, or what).Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William R. Shepherd died in 1934 and appears to have been the cartographer and author, so still scrapes in the 70 year limit jimfbleak (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image in question isn't a big deal to the article. Just there to nice it up. I can easily replace it with another. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the concern has been stricken, the explanation that Shepherd died in 1934 and scrapes the 70 year pma is not correct. Shepherd is American and the atlas is an American publication; by US copyrights, publication date is the primary criteria. Luckily, the map in question was published at least as early as 1911 (allowing hosting on Wikipedia). A German company (its country of origin) holds the copyright, but they have never identified authorship, hence allowing the assertion of {{Anonymous-EU}}. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments (minor: expect to switch to support)Support
This article has developed well, since its already good standard when I reviewed it at GAN.
That is a fabulous "sources and background" section.
2)...that Siward's attack may be interpreted in the context of royal aggression". Can this be more explicit in some way - is the point that Siward's attack may have been an action undertaken on behalf of his king against a rebellious Eadulf? My point is to go beyond saying "in the context of" and explain that Siward was siding with one against the other - if I have read this correctly, of course!
3)"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that Siward had to call up reinforcements, but despite this, King Edward was successful..." The phrase "but despite this" here leads us to expect that, despite using reinforcements, Siward was unsuccessful. Better I think would be: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that, although Siward had to call up reinforcements, the campaign against Earl Godwine was successful and led to his temporary banishment."
4)"dating to 1053 x 1055". I'm not familiar with this symbol - what is being denoted here, a date range?
5)"...Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, recension D:" There's that word again :-) Have you considered using the word "version", but wikilinking it to the entry on recension?
6)The very last para of this section on the "Expedition against the Scots" seems out of place (the one beginning "The Annals of Lindisfarne and Durham, written in the early 12th-century..."). This seems a discussion of the event that belongs near the start of the section, rather than after the analysis that precedes it. But I may be wrong.
7)"Siward died more than a decade before the death of Edward the Confessor, but despite this the Domesday Book recorded ..." I'm afraid as an ignorant person, I didn't get why this was "despite" anything. Something to do with chronology of events?
8)I work on two different computer monitors. On one the text in the text boxes is small but (just) readable; on the other it is literally too tiny to form legible letters. Add to that the possibility of a vision-impaired (not blind) user, and I wonder if something can be done about the text box character size? I realise this may create a layout issue, particularly for the long passage under "Emergence and rise to power under Cnut", and it may be that that passage would be best edited in some way. It is a colourful story, but not the shortest of extracts.
1) Wikipedia article take their names after certain conventions. In articles of this nature and time period, these are hardly ever the best for the text of articles, thus I find it that I mostly use redirects or pipes. "Uhtred the Bold" is his nickname and probably how he is best known. Maybe that article should be renamed, maybe it shouldn't, but I just thought it made more sense to call him Uhtred the Bold in this Northumbrian context than "Uhtred of Bamburgh". Not a biggie though.
I musn't have made myself clear. I am happy with Uhtred the Bold, it just wasn't wikilinked at all. Don't want you to change the name in the article, piping is good. I just wanted a link. I ran a search and didn't find it earlier in the article. Did I miss one? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2) reworded
3) reworded. The "despite this" was used for "despite having needed to call up reinforcements, Siward's side still won"
4) this "x" is used by historians to indicate that something cannot be dated to a specific year. Here "1053 x 1055" means [dates to] some point between 1053 and 1055 [inclusive].
Suggest change to "between 1053 and 1055". hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5) Recension is the standard terminology in relation to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It is less ambiguous than "version". Actually, rendering it "version" might be thought misleading. I think if someone's gonna ponder the point, rather than just skim over it, it is worth learning the meaning of the word. Learning the English language is after all a life-long experience. While I don't ever support making things unnecessarily obscure, the rough meaning of "version" will surely be picked up from the context.
6) I will rework this later, probably using a new source (Aird, Normans and St Cuthbert)
7) The Domeday book records property owners and the values of property 1) on the day of King Edwards death and 2) in 1086. Thus, if Siward died ten years before Edward, he wasn't alive on the day of Edward's death. I added the date 1066 to make the contradiction clearer
8) Adjusted. Had to merge two paragraphs, but this worked out ok.
Cheers for the comments. I drop a note here when I'm done with 6). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I trust you will deal with 6 and my minor other points, and have switched to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. I think I've addressed the remaining points. Take a look and judge for thyself. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support - Much improved. The article currently has many problems. The largest being poor phrasing and organisation. Explanations throughout the article seem confusing and badly ordered.
The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:
Siward or Sigurd (Old English: Sigeweard) was an earl in 11th-century northern England. The Old Norse nickname Digri ("the Stout") and Latin translation Grossus ("the Fat") are given to him by near-contemporary texts.[1] The English name Siward or Sigeweard was cognate to the single Old Norse name written variously as Sigvarðr and Sigurðr.
Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations?
Siward's origins and early life, covered by some saga-like tales, is obscure to historians.
Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing.
Probably of Scandinavian origin, perhaps a member of Earl Ulf's kindred,
We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses.
Siward emerged as a powerful regional strongman in England during the reign of Cnut (1016–1035). Cnut was a Scandinavian ruler who conquered England in the 1010s, and Siward was one of the many Scandinavians who came to England in the aftermath of that conquest.
This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name.
By 1033 Siward was in control of what is now Yorkshire, governing southern Northumbria as earl on Cnut's behalf. Siward's entrenched his position in northern England by marrying Ælfflæd, the daughter of Ealdred, Earl of Bamburgh.
Again, confusing. Would be better as: "..Siward was in control of southern Northumbria, that is, present-day Yorkshire, governing as earl on Cnut's behalf."
After killing a different Earl of Bamburgh in 1041, Siward gained control of all Northumbria. He exerted his power in support of Kings Harthacnut and Edward, assisting them with vital military support and counsel.
"a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.
Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.
Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.
Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long. The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is:
Cnut died in 1035, while his son Harthacnut remained in Scandinavia. As Harthacnut was geographically unable to take the crown for himself in good time, Harold Harefoot was able to take the kingdom for himself. Although he successfully resisted trouble from the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready — Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later known as King Edward the Confessor) — Harold died just as Harthacnut was preparing an invasion.[43] Harthacnut reigned in England only two years before he himself died and was peacefully succeeded by Edward in 1042.[44] Frank Barlow speculated on Siward's position during this period, guessing that Siward assumed "a position of benevolent or prudent neutrality".
This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.
Another example: The section "Expedition against the Scots" has this passage:
The origin of Siward's conflict with the Scots is unclear. According to the Libellus de Exordio, in 1039 or 1040—a year before Siward attacked and killed Eadulf—the Scottish king Donnchad mac Crínáin attacked northern Northumbria and besieged Durham. Within a year, Mac Bethad had deposed killed (sic) Donnchad.
Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.
Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"? Xandar 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Lead: Is confusing, concentrates too much on naming, and doesn't mention Siwards legacy or connection with York. It also fails to emphasise Siward's power as a man who ruled much of England and was capable of defeating kings. Looking at individual sections:
This is valid I think. I've reworked it, though I don't know how you want me to fit York in. I can't think of a way. :(
We have no idea who Earl Ulf is, and he doesn't seem important anyway. Just confuses
Earl Ulf is introduced in the text. The article summary in the lead links him. And yes, he is important as his kin-group is the strongest one in Denmark after Cnut's own, and indeed his descendants (as pointed out in the text) ruled Denmark after Cnut. :)
Far too much detail on naming for the lead. The last sentence is not needed, and if Grossus is a translation of Digri, why do we need two different English translations
Hmm ... the normal translations of both words aren't identical, but I think it's fair to say that Grossus here means "stout" more than "corpulent", so I've merged the translations to avoid the possible confusion you rightly point out.
Mixed tenses and do we need this at all? it tells us almost nothing.
Don't see that. Yes, I wouldn't have written it in if we didn't.
This information is presented back to front, which again confuses the reader. FIRST say Siward came to England with Cnut, then say how he became a strongman. Also, why not say that Cnut is "King Canute"? He is still far better known by this name.
We don't know that Siward came to England with Cnut. His first appearance in reliable sources comes when he is already a regional strongman. Put King Canute in brackets btw.
"a different Earl of Bambrugh"? That just adds to confusion. "Ealdred's successor as Earl of Bamburgh" would be better. Or "a subsequent Earl of Bambrugh". Also "support" is used twice in the last sentence. Also the sentence doesn't explain who Kings Harthacnut and Edward were - ie. successor Kings of England after Canute. they could be kings of other countries, as written.
Yep, I agree. Fixed this.
Sources and background. Should be split. Sources section is too long and impenetrable, and will put people off reading the rest of the article. The background section itself needs re-organising into a more logical sequence. At the moment it is bitty, jumping from subject to subject in no chronological order, and interspersing explanations of what a thegn and ealdorman was.
I split this. I don't see the problem with the sources section. Could you elaborate? The explanations of earl and thegn are there because another reviewer asked me to put them there. I don't really know what to do; removing it might cause the other reviewer displeasure. I think the order in the background section is otherwise fine and logical: one para for England of the time and one specific to Northumbria. That makes sense ... no?
Ancestry. Far too long and confusing. Less is more here. All it needs is the boxed text, a brief explanation and mention of the fact that some others had similar ancestral claims.
OK. Trimmed it.
Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. Starts with a long recount of a story, which is already in box text and which you admit is fanciful. This needs to be cut. The section on Eril of Lathr is very confusing and over-long.
I've put most of the in-article stuff here into the footnote.
The rest of the historical account also needs a lot of work, copy-editing and making it clearer. Names are often dropped in without explanation of who they are or what their importance is. And important events are not sufficiently explained. An example is: ... This does not say how long Harefoot was in control or the date of Harthacnut's take-over. The passage could be better written something like "When Cnut died in 1035, there were a number of rival claimants for his throne. These included his son, Hathacnut, and the nobleman Harold Harefoot, as well as Alfred Ætheling and Edward (later, King Edward the Confessor), the exiled sons of Ethelred the Unready. Isolated in Scandinavia, Harthacnut was unable to prevent Harold Harefoot seizing the crown for himself, however Harefoot died in ....etc.
I've fixed this a little, and incorporated your suggested rephrasing. Regarding name dropping ... what names to you feel need more detail to be helpful?
Is Eadulf the Scottish king, or Donnchad mac Crínáin? In fact Eadulf was last mentioned two full sections above this one. Introducing him here, without his title or any context is very confusing. If there is a linkage between the killing of the Duke of Bamburgh and the Scottish invasion, it should be spelled out. Again if Mac bethad killed the person who attacked Northumbria, why is this a reason to attack him? It is unclear.
There is no known linkage between the two events. This suggestive [subliminal] style--common in historical writing-- is one I'm fond of, works better if you follow the story. It was quite easy to change this though, and I have done so. This should be a more explicit read now.
Why is Saint Olave's Church, York, referred to in the article, without explanation as "Galmanho"?
Usually a church has two names, one of the saint and one of the place. E.g. St Paul's Cathedral is also London Cathedral (though that's ambiguous now). Should have just written "St Olaf's at Galmanho", which is what I've done now.
The changes you've made so far are a big improvement. Some issues remain though. I haven't time to do a thorough run through now. I will get back with more detailed responses, hopefully tomorrow. Xandar 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still quite a few problems with the prose. I may make a few smaller corrections myself, rather than list everything here, and you can see what you make of them. As to my read through:
Lead
It might be useful to add something like: "Several historic sites in the English city of York have connections with Siward."
Sources
"non-representative" - why not "unrepresentative"?
"annalistic" Confusing word. Why not "annal-style"?
"compilations of John of Worcester (compiled between 1124 and 1140)," Compiled used twice.
Background
"Beginning in the reign of Cnut, and lasting through Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the reign of Edward the Confessor, Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs." Would read better as something like: "Siward's career in northern England spanned the reigns of four different monarchs. It began during the reign of Cnut, and lasted through those of Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut into the early years of Edward the Confessor."
"poor hereditary links to the West Saxon royal house". "weak" links might be better.
"In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon official who ruled a territory, usually a shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king. The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century." Too much digression to explain word-meaning breaks up the narrative of this passage. I would suggest:
"In England, it fell to a handful of newly promoted "ealdormen" or "earls ".[12] An ealdorman was an Anglo-Saxon official who ruled a territory, usually a shire or group of shires, on behalf of the king. The term was, by Cnut's reign, interchangeable with the Scandinavian word earl, which supplanted the former by the end of the 11th-century"
"(though there were other earls)" This bracket phrase is ugly and probably unnecessary.
Ancestry
"Historians generally claim Siward to be of Scandinavian origin, something supported by the Vita Ædwardi Regis which says Siward was "[called] Digri in the Danish tongue" (Danica lingua Digara)" Better to say "which states that" rather than "which says".
Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut
"There is little known about Siward's arrival in England," This is very vague. Why not put the more specific; "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown."
Thank you! All good suggestions, and I have implemented them. I did add "and context" to "The exact date of Siward's arrival in England is unknown", as more than just date was meant, and the next piece about the Vita Waldevi wouldn't make sense otherwise. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I think we've dealt with most of these points. I've also made some clean-up edits to the article - which is actually easier than listing all the points here. Whilst doing this I noticed two very vague sentences:
In the English affairs under Edward the Confessor section: "Besides the help of their retinues, this act was carried out on the "advise" of the three earls." I'm not sure what this means? The retinues were the armies? We already know they joined in the attack. "advise"?? Does this mean "advice". or something else? Why the quotation marks?
In the Death and legacy section: "This, or something else about Siward's career, made the Anglo-Saxonist Frank Stenton declare him "not a statesman, but a Danish warrior of the primitive type." Again very vague. If there is no connection its probably best not to try to force a link with the previous passage, and just use Stenton as a summing up. Xandar 23:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The advice part was there because the ASC says Edward carried this action out on their advice. I suppose it isn't necessary, so I removed it. I followed your second suggestion too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Well I think that concludes my concerns with this article. It is certainly improved enough for me to withdraw my objection and support. Xandar 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving the article! Let me know if you can think of more ways to improve the article.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks.Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta be honest, never previously heard of that. But I've had a go at adding alt text. Deacon's sockpuppet (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 1st cut. Still needs work, I'm afraid. Alt text should describe only appearance, and should not say anything that's not immediately verifiable by a non-expert sighted reader who's looking only at the image. For the first image File:Death of Earl Siward (cropped).jpg for example, the current alt text says "Face of Earl Siward from Smetham's 1861 painting" (my italics), but almost none of this alt text describes the appearance of the image. Only the italicized word talks about visual appearance. This italicized word should be kept and the rest of the alt text replaced with text that talks only about visual appearance. For more, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples (especially the 3rd example). Eubulides (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much better, but it still needs work. File:Death of Earl Siward (cropped).jpg has alt text "A bearded man wearing a helmet", which is OK but a bit terse for the lead image. How about "Head and shoulders of bearded man in the gloom, wearing a medieval helmet"? The alt text for the 2nd image, Image:EmpireNorth.JPG focuses on unimportant visual details "red color" while omitting the most important gist of the image: namely, where were Cnut's dominions? The alt text for the 3rd image doesn't say that it's a copper coin, which is the first thing you see. The alt text for Image:Death of Earl Siward (Smetham).jpg contains details like "Smetham's 1861" which are not visually apparent, and words like "painting" which aren't needed. Could you please have another go? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning toward supporting. It's looking good on a surface reading. A couple things:
"The region however was more fragmented than this might indicate." Quite an ambiguous "this"; I'm not sure what you're referring to. You have a bit of a penchant for "this", but the others are mostly clear.
Should the long quotation in the "Career under Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut" section begin with "[A]fter"?
Yes, I think the logic of the point Bolton was making (namely, that the picture often given of two ealdorman controlling the whole region is wrong) was being followed more closely than the article text. I've adjusted here.
Is this something that is done? I gotta be honest, never noticed that. Good device! Yes, as you can probably guess, "a" is in lower case because I started quoting the text midway through a sentence.
I'll watch out for "this" in future. Writing takes longer than reading, so the writer and reader operate in a different time-zones. I thought I sorted most of such repetitions when I warped into the reader time-zone, but I didn't catch a proliferation of thises. Is this particularly noticeable? ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is looking good. Thanks for all your hard work! --Andy Walsh(talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—'Tis good. Tony(talk) 09:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_ribbon.png){kind=link}
![[59]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/New_River_Gorge_Bridge.jpg){kind=link}
_volcano_(south_park)_comparison.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[62]](http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/C1705165967/E20080627173700/Media/Stanford%20Memorial%20Church.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}