Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. (more info)

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegates, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

– Table of Contents

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents

Nominations

Attachment theory

Nominator(s): Fainites barleyscribs 23:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article. It has undergone a comprehensive peer review by Delldot and a subsequent check-up. It is a huge subject but I hope this article conveys the essentials. I am aware it is somewhat long - but it's not alone in that. Fainites barleyscribs 23:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Done Piaget. Will do alt text. Fainites barleyscribs 07:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

History of the Montreal Canadiens

Nominator(s): Resolute 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


With the Montreal Canadiens' centennial anniversary fast approaching, it was my hope to bring a related article up to featured status in the hopes that it can appear on the main page on December 4. The team article has already appeared in the past, so this article became my choice. It discusses the 100 year history of the franchise, and should be complete, has plenty of images, well cited, and yes, uses alt text.  ;). It has gone through a peer review, and I'd like to thank Steve Smith and Issac Lin for their assistance in copyediting. I look forward to all comments. Thanks, Resolute 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Well written, well researched. Will be perfect for the Main Page on December 4. Maxim(talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Badnjak

Nominator(s): VVVladimir (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I think that it is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched regarding its subject, which is in short supply among the current featured articles. It went successfully through GA review, after which it was significantly expanded and extensively copy-edited. It is neutral, duly cited throughout, and illustrated. I also hope that this nomination will receive a constructive criticism, through which the article could be even more improved. Thanks, VVVladimir (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Loihi Seamount

Nominator(s): ResMar 14:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Well, this is this article's third nomination. After the most recent unsuccesful nomination I went on a long break from Wikipedia, well now I'm back and ready to try again. This has been my project" since the first of March, so I've officially been "working on it" for 6, going into 7, months. ResMar 14:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text; please see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Alt text???? Well that's new. How old is this guidline, a couple of weeks??? Never seen it before...are al images now required to have an alt text? ResMar 18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back to Wikipedia. Support for alt text was added to the MediaWiki software last October, the WP:ALT guideline was updated a couple of months later, and it has been required for FAs since July 1. If you'd like help or suggestions please drop a line at WT:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Dammit. Knowing my shoddy word work it's going to be discussed a thousand times over before I get it right. ResMar 18:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. ResMar 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe not a thousand times, but at least once. Thanks for adding the alt text, but it has a couple of problems:
  • Some Much of the alt text duplicates the caption. For example, the alt text "Bathymetric mapping of Lōʻihi, with an arrow pointing to Pele's Pit in the center." nearly duplicates the caption "Bathymetric mapping of Lōʻihi; the arrow points to Pele's Pit." Alt text should not repeat the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. This is because the alt text and the caption are both read aloud to visually impaired readers who use a screen reader.
  • One image still lacks alt text, namely File:Loihiflank.jpg (please use the "Photo alt" parameter of {{Infobox Seamount}}).
Eubulides (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. ResMar 19:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that edit added alt text for the image that lacked it, so I struck that comment. However, its changes to the other alt text entries did not address the repetition problem. For example, for Image:LoihiBathemetric.jpg a screen reader will read the alt text and caption aloud, resulting in unwanted repetition something like "Link Bathymetric mapping of Lōʻihi, with an arrow pointing to Pele's Pit in the center. Link Bathymetric mapping of Lōʻihi; the arrow points to Pele's Pit." (alt text italicized); the repetition obviously is not helping the visually impaired. (Please see WP:ALT#Repetition for more details about this.) To fix this, please edit the alt text for that image to something that gives useful info about visual appearance but does not repeat the caption, e.g., "A north-south ridge, trending slightly east of south. Pele's Pit, at its peak, is about 1000 meters below sea level; further south the ridge gradually descends about 3500 meters to the sea floor." Similarly for the other images. Eubulides (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it. is this alt thing supposed to describe the image or elaborate on the caption? I can't do both. ResMar 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. ResMar 13:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much better. It's pretty close to being done. There are a few remaining points.
  • The alt text "See caption." for File:LoihiBacteria.jpg doesn't communicate the striking visual aspects of that image, namely, the green slimy growths on the rocks in the main image, or the entwined spirals in the inset. Please put those details into the alt text (there's little point putting them in the caption, as they're obvious to sighted readers).
  • The phrase "found on the flank of Lōʻihi" can't be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at that image; please remove or rephrase it as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.
  • The alt text for the two maps File:LoihiBathemetric.jpg and File:Loihi 3d.gif concentrates too much on irrelevant details such as "blue" and "orange" and too little on the gist of what the maps say. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more on this. I suggest replacing the 1st map's alt text with the "north-south ridge..." suggestion above, and the 2nd map's alt text with a simple "3D rendering of the same map as before". By the way, why have two maps of the same thing? Wouldn't it be better to have just one map?
Eubulides (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. However I am not going to remove the second image because it is in fact different from the first one (I REALLY don't feel like removing any images because then the page will start to look bare). ResMar 23:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I don't have a strong opinion on the two-map issue. I tweaked the remaining alt text problems that I saw, and the result looks good to me. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - Well Res, I owe you a lot so I'll help with the review. Each possibly "challengable" sentence requires a citation.
  • Volcanoes in the Hawaiian Islands arise from the Hawaiʻi hotspot, and, as the youngest volcano in the chain, Lōʻihi is the only Hawaiian volcano in the deep submarine preshield stage of development. - rm the comma after and, not needed
Done. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • At its summit, Lōʻihi Seamount stands more than 3,000 m (10,000 ft) above the seafloor, making it taller than Mount St. Helens was before its catastrophic 1980 eruption.- This is an American article, so the figures should be ft then mtrs, throughout the article. I know this is one tedious task to complete, but please be sure to convert all the figures to proper format.
Um, Cer, a whiles ago we were told to convert it to meters, and now I have convent everything back into feet? It's not really an issue as long as both are shown. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Lōʻihi's north and south trending rift zones create a distinctive elongated shape, - better with an WP:ENDASH between north and south, rm the and
  • Lōʻihi's north and south trending rift zones create a distinctive elongated shape, from which the volcano's Hawaiian name, meaning "long," derives. - cite?
Done. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The seafloor under Hawaiʻi is 80-100 million years old and was created at the East Pacific Rise, an oceanic spreading center where new sea floor is created from magma erupting from the mantle. - cite?
Entire paragraph falls under one citation, at the end. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • When scientists investigated a series of earthquakes off Hawaiʻi in 1970, they discovered that Lōʻihi was an active member of the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain. - cite?
Again, at the end of the paragraph. We had a problem with overcitation before similar to what you want me to do and simplified it. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of the samples were found to be of ancient origin; the oldest dated rock is approximately 300,000 years old. - cite?
Again, citation at the end of the paragraph. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Most earthquake swarms at Lōʻihi have lasted less than two days; the two exceptions are the 1991–92 earthquake, lasting several months, and the 1996 event, which was shorter but much more pronounced. - cite?
Already cited. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The majority of the earthquakes are not distributed close to the summit, though they follow a north-south trend. - cite?
End of paragraph. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Lōʻihi Seamount's first depiction on a map was on Survey Chart 4115, a bathymetric rendering of part of Hawaiʻi compiled by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1940. - cite?
Already cited to Garcia at end of paragraph. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • At the time, the seamount was non-notable, being one of many in the region. - cite?
Already cited. We can't cite very single fact in the article directly, when it's far more feasible to give a ref at the end of a paragraph of text related to it instead of notching 3-4 of these refs inside of the paragraph.

More later.

I think the prose needs work too in general. It is somewhat choppy, I'd suggest asking one of the copyeditors I previously recommended. ceranthor 12:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Choppy? If this FAC fails on vauge intangible ideas I will knock myself in the head. Anyway Ark already copyedited the article as did Vid (multiple times), me, Avenue, JKBrooks, Mattisse, and Micheal Devore. Truth to tell you I REALLY think that further copyediting wouldn't be feasible, it's already had multiple going-overs. ResMar 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford

Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because those who have been kind enough to read or review the article have said that it's nearly there. Thanks to Malleus Fatuorum for extensive prose work above and beyond the call (any remaining infelicitations are my fault, of course), Joopercoopers for creating the fantastic plan used as the lead image, Giano for looking at the architectural details discussion, Rodw for his extensive comments on the article, Pyrotec for the GA review, Ruhrfisch for the peer review, Jonathan A Jones for visiting the college to take some requested photos and various Flickr contributors who relicensed some images for Commons when I asked. I'd like to thank my agent, my wife, my fellow actors... I've had a go at improving my earlier ALT text (and added it to {{Jesus College, Oxford}}, but that change hasn't come through in the alt text tool yet - have I done it right?) Further help on this, and anything else, is welcome. If nothing else, readers of the article will know far more than they ever realised that they didn't want to know about the physical appearance of a college that produced such distinguished alumni as Lawrence of Arabia, Harold Wilson and me (shome mistake, shurely?) BencherliteTalk 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the references is generating a "Invalid type (application/unknown) for .pdf file" error in the external links checker, but the file opens without difficulty for me.
Full disclosure - notified Giano of this FAC as he requested me to do. BencherliteTalk 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment based on quick read. Clearly a very full account of the buildings, but rather short on architectural description or comment. I found several pithy comments in: John Julius Norwich, The Architecture of Southern England, Macmillan, London, 1985, ISBN 03333220374, some of which could usefully be worked in, and no doubt there are other sources. More talk of/links to Crenellation, Dutch gables, mullions and hood moulds etc is needed. A description of how Oxbridge staircases work is needed I think, and details of how many there are, and how many sets of rooms etc are in the various parts. The only thing I could find is a brief description at Mob Quad - perhaps a section should be added at quadrangle. The first photo of the buildings comes rather late, & the photos, as opposed to the prints, generally are of sections rather than panoramas. If it was me I'd add a gallery, or a couple of 4 pic mini-galleries in the text - but then I always do that. There's room in the lead section for a nice photo before the plan, which is very useful but not the most inviting lead pic. There are several photos already on Commons which would be useful if added. Where the dates of construction &/or rebuilding are clear these should be added to photo captions. The college seems a prime example of Gothic survival (I'm fairly sure I've seen it - the chapel in particular? - mentioned as such, but who knows where), but I don't think this is linked. There's no caption on the photo of the doorway or whatever in the "principal's lodging" section. I'll give it a fuller read-through later. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Bencherlite, you cheeky blighter, I told you to tell me when this was going through. So, as revenge, please find the start (and now the end) of some comments on the talk page... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks to both for your comments, to which I'll respond in detail / act upon next week, after a weekend of family duties! I've ordered the JJN book from abebooks.co.uk, so should have that early next week as well. BencherliteTalk 07:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Amagi class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk · contribs)


The Amagi class was part of an ambitious plan by the Japanese to increase the fighting power of their fleet to be on par with the United States. However, their signing of the Washington Naval Treaty forced the battlecruisers to be redesigned as aircraft carriers. Only one ever saw service in this role (Akagi) because the other (Amagi) was severely damaged in Tokyo's 1923 earthquake. Thanks for any reviews you can provide; Parsecboy and I will respond as soon as we are able to and comments or questions. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - images need alt text (per WP:ALT!) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've added some alt text, though they might require some massaging to be up to standard. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • New alt text looks good; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Smart's asylum confinement

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because the previous FAC failed from lack of reviews. It has had two people perform thorough checks through afterward. The sources are all clean and I can provide any information needed. The page represents every major piece of criticism on the matter and performs an analysis on a very interesting experience that changed Christopher Smart from major poet into someone who forever lost his place along side of those like Alexander Pope and Samuel Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Note - The page lacks disambiguation wikilinks needing to be fixed, has alt text, and images have been checked in the previous FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments: Interesting article, I shall be reading it in greater depth shortly. For now a couple of things:
    • Is there a reason "mental asylum(s)" isn't linked?
    • "confined in a private madhouse" isn't madhouse colloquial? Would a private psychiatric hospital not be better?
    • "Smart was diagnosed as "incurable" wouldn't "Smart's condition" be preferable, especially on account of it being mentioned just before?
    • "Mr Potter's asylum" this asylum isn't mentioned before, could detail be added that it was also in Bethnal Green?
    • "All that is known of his years of confinement is that he wrote poetry." would that be in the first asylum, the second or both. Or do you think it's implied?
    • The section on "Release" seems to be ordered slightly oddly for me. It starts with his release, saying that he "left the asylum", but doesn't linger on it. This made me think, as it continues with the meetings with a parliamentary commitee on the subject of his release, that he hadn't been officially released by this point. Maybe it's just me, but even so, could you clarify it a bit for me? ;)
  • That's all for now. Hopefully you won't be short of reviews this time around, you certainly deserve them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
1. A link would do very little for an individual as the word is best found in a dictionary if someone needs to know it. However, if you want to link it feel free. 2. "private madhouse" is from the sources. It was not a "private psychiatric hospital" nor did they have "psychiatric hospitals" 200 years ago. It was not even a hospital. It was literally an individual's home that took care of people who were considered "mad". 3. -Smart- was literally diagnosed as incurrable, not his condition. That is how it was perceived back then. The person was ill, not the person had an illness. 4. I haven't heard any information that Mr Potter's house was in Bethnal Green or that any later biographers knew anything about it except that it was a house owned by one "Mr Potter", and was later referred as "Mr Potter's house". The only time it is mentioned as being at Bethnal Green was by Smart's daughter who was too young at the time to really be a reliable source. She gets many details of the events wrong. If you have any further information missing from the article that could establish where the house was, I would like to see (and would make updates). 5. To be honest, we don't know at what time Smart wrote his poetry while in asylum or how much he wrote while in asylum. Instead, we have two poems that are definitely written sometime during those 7 years and many poems and translations that were possibly written during that time. Jubilate Agno has been suggested to start at various times. It is possible that a lot of his poetry is also missing, which makes it further harder to establish when what was written and where. We don't even know where he was first held. There is also speculation that he was in asylum before his official admittance into St Luke's, which causes further problems. 6. The section on the release starts off with his daughter's claim of the events of the release and then goes into what scholars claim are the events of the release. I reorganized the section a little to make it more clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the swift explanatons.
    • 2. A note of this should be included in the Background then, or as a separate note. At the moment it's flown over as if everyone is familiar with the term private madhouse. The case for this is made more important by the lack of any article or mention of it on Wikipedia.
    • 3. Again, some kind of note would be good, after "An institution like St Luke's, run by Battie, held both "curable" and "incurable" patients." would be most appropriate.
    • 4. No I was merely going on the information given by the young daughter.
    • 5. Okay, fair enough.
    • 6. Much improved.
  • More comments:
    • The first image; could it give the approximate production of the painting (circa. 1745), and some kind of context (i.e. produced before his confinement)
    • "his mysterious "fit"" I can only assume refers to "disturbed mental state", although how this translates to fit I'm unsure.
    • "Smart's own testimony that he "blessed God in St. James's Park till I routed all the company" (Jubilate Agno B 90–91) as representing his religious madness is equally dismissed as resulting from drinking, as he was known for pulling pranks and the Board of the Green Cloth, the government body that controlled St James's Park, would treat most disturbances in the park as resulting from madness." is an awkwardly complex sentence. My suggestion is "Smart's own testimony, that he "blessed God in St. James's Park till I routed all the company" (Jubilate Agno B 90–91), representing his religious madness is equally dismissed as a result of drink; he was known for pulling pranks and the Board of the Green Cloth, the government body that controlled St James's Park, would treat most disturbances in the park as resulting from madness." MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know how to explain private madhouse, as there is no real definition beyond a place where they kept people that were accused of being mad. Each one was very different, as there were no regulations and, as partly discussed in the page, they were just starting to reform the whole "madness" system. It could have ranged just from a normal house operating as a home to a place being used like a prison. We lack details on all of the places besides St Luke's, and even then some. I'll see what I can do to try and make it easier for this point and the point about "incurrable". Ottava Rima (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (striking out interchange with main editor and will start new comments later - hamiltonstone (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)) This is impressive scholarship, but has some issues. I may have to pop in and out erratically.

  • Background: The views of Szsz and Foucault are respectable, and reliable sources. However, there is an issue of clarity in the context of this article; and an issue of undue weight. Taking the first, less significant matter first: the para beings "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view;..." This needs to be clarified - i believe this should read "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view of the nature of mental illness and of societal responses to it;" This is improtant in recognising that these authors are addressing mental illness / madness in general, not specifically Smart's condition, nor British 18th century regulatory reforms. The second issue is that, while the work of Szasz and Foucault (and others) in recognising the social construction of madness is very important scholarship, I do not think it reflects the prevailing contemporary view (and certainly not the prevailing contemporary medical view) of madness. I confess that, while I have proposed a revision to adderss my first point, I am not sure I have a proposal to address the second, except to say that other contemporary views about the nature and treatment of conditions such as experienced by Smart would appear to be desirable.
  • Asylum: "...many of his friends, including writer and critic Samuel Johnson, began to write in the Universal Visiter to fulfil Smart's contractual obligation" What contractual obligation? This lacks context.
  • "His praying began in regular intervals but slowly devolved into irregular praying..." Devolved?? Appropriate words might be "developed", "degenerated" or "altered".
  • The lead makes references to the commencement of Smart's confinement in May 1757, but the section "Asylum" actually does not. It begins with some further background, and then in a fairly vague manner brings us to the point "Hunter reports that Samuel Johnson visited Smart during the latter's confinement", which appears to be the first explicit statement that he is in an asylum (or similar). This needs to be made clearer (as it is in the lead).
  • "There are other possibilities" By this point i am confused: other possibilities in respect of what? What is the subject here? And indeed, because I was confused, I became less confident that i had grasped the subject of the preceding para. I think there needs to be some editing to mae the subject of sections and paras more clearly defined and signalled. This might include ditching some of the text (esp. Johnson's quip) about The Universal Visiter, as i can't see its relevance. Why not simply begin along the lines:
  • "Smart, though confined to asylums, at no time ever believe himself to be insane. His friend Johnson did not share Smart's opinion. Johnson had begun meeting with Smart before his confinement, assisting Smart in meeting contractual obligations to contribute to The Universal Visiter (or however editors wish to express this). Johnson wrote "for poor Smart, while he was mad, not then knowing the terms on which he was engaged to write ... I hoped his wits would return to him", thus demonstrating Johnson's own interpretation of Smart's circumstances as being "madness". Another theory suggests Smart's actions were a result of alcohol, and had nothing to do with a mental imbalance.[ref] This may also have been related to the actions of Smart's father-in-law and publisher, Newbery. Newbery may have used the imprisonment of his son-in-law as leverage to control the publication of Smart's work and as a warning to others who worked for him not to cross him. Smart may have been imprisoned for embarrassing his father-in-law in some way, which could have resulted from an incident in which Smart would drink.[ref] Hester Thrale reinforced this latter possibility when she claimed that Smart's "religious fervor" tended to coincide with times that Smart was intoxicated.[ref]..."
  • 20th Century and contemporary: "Ainsworth and Noyes are not completely skeptical about Smart's diagnosis when they continued..." mixed tenses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonstone (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
As per your first objection, those two are used by sources who have written on Christopher Smart's asylum confinement. There are no other experts or individuals on the matter used by Christopher Smart's sources. Therefore, anything but mentioning of them would be a severe breach of original research. I follow Keymer's analysis to a T, including his description of scope and the rest. To make the changes that you propose would violate not only multiple policies by basis philosophy that is done at Wikipedia. As per that, your first objection can only be considered unactionable.
Your second - "What contractual obligation?" His contractual obligations to write in the Universal Visiter. This is implied in the statement that they were writing to meet his obligation. Any more detail would take paragraphs to explain and would be severely off topic. Your third objection seems to have no real merit - devolved is a synonymy of degenerate, a word you chose. To say that one is acceptable and another not would be inappropriate. Your fourth point - "By this point i am confused" The grammar has a colon. That means that the other possibilities will be explained. Your own sentence above complaining about this sentence uses a colon and operates in the same manner. The topic was clearly the same topic as the previous sentence - asylum, which is the section header. The rest of the phrase after the colon even makes this clear. I fixed the tensing. However, your other statements are inactionable and would require the violation of multiple policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, taking some of Ottava's points in order. You have clarified for me that Szasz and Foucault explicitly discussed Smart. Therefore, I suggest the section begin "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view of Smart's confinement;" I think this clarification is desirable because an alternative interpretation (which I indeed mistakenly took) is possible; and the cited Szasz source is his general work on Madness (ie. as a reader, checking the title of the cited source did not encourage me to think that Szasz really had been writting specifically about Smart). This is a minor clarification that i think will help readability. You then remark that you "follow Keymer to a T", yet footnotes 6,7 and 8 are not to Keymer. If you are citing Szasz and Foucault from reading them / seeing them cited in Keymer, the footnote should reflect that. If not, then I'm not sure what you meant by "follow Keymer to a T", but I'm assuming there's no issue, so that's OK. Then we come to the "contractual obligation" point. Once i had read more of the article, it became clear what that contractual obligation was about; my point is that the reader needs the information at this particular point. Since this is the first time it is mentioned, it does need explanation. I cannot agree that it "would take paragraphs to explain and would be severely off topic". It would take approximately one sentence and would avoid mystifying the reader. Next: "devolved" is not a synonym of "degenerate" in this context. The common meaning of "devolve" is "to transfer or delegate"; you I think are seeking a word that implies a change in Smart's 'condition', specifically some form of deterioration. On your next point, i see what you are saying, and i think I was thrown by the practice, which I would avoid, of beginning a paragraph with a sentence that stylistically reads as a continuation of an existing para. "There are other possibilities:" does not stand in its own right as setting out the subject - the "other" is referring back to an earlier point. But the additional difficulty is that the previous para does not make explicit that we have entered a discussion of theories about why Smart was confined.
  • Ottava, your response to my suggestions felt somewhat terse. I am sorry if i am not adequately articulating my concerns; I'm doing my best to assist with what I have found to be a difficult text to read. I do not doubt the quality of the scholarship, which is outstanding, but I still have concerns about clarity and readability. I hope to come back and assist further in time. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My responses always come of terse, but mostly because I write hastily as I am busy with too much to really think about what I say. 1). Anyway, I see that I wasn't clear - Szasz and Foucault do not specifically address Smart's condition in those works. However, critics (i.e. biographers) in Christopher Smart criticism -use- those two works and apply the theories to Christopher Smart's case. In order to avoid original researcher, I followed Thomas Keymer's argument step by step (he was the model for the page). I introduced some of the perspective on the two and on Battie from other biographies. If you want, I can provide copies of the pages from Mounsey and Keymer and you can see that the quotes from Battie, Szasz, and Foucault are directly quoted in those works. The line from Keymer bridges the two in the article: "This description agrees with Smart's 1760s writings on the subject in which, according to Thomas Keymer ..." I do not have to cite Keymer when I am quoting from another source even if it is quoted in Keymer. That would be silly and would keep a reader from finding the original quote and verifying the original quote in context. I merely use Keymer's and Mounsey's text as a guide for what to include. 2) "The common meaning of "devolve" is "to transfer or delegate";" Definition 2 of dictionary.com "To degenerate or deteriorate gradually:". I would hope that the dictionary could be seen as reliable, as it uses both degenerate and deteriorate in the definition. 3) I have expanded the sentence to read "There are other possibilities beyond madness or religious fervor that led to Smart's confinement". I hope that clarifies. 4) I mentioned expanded the contractual obligations to "to fulfill Smart's contractual obligation to produce content for the magazine". However, he was obligated to produce content for the magazine and not allowed to produce content for any other magazine for a term of 99 years. He was contracted with another individual and the story behind it is very complicated (as are the terms of the contract). The contract was seemingly broken when the magazine ended after a dozen issues. It is a highly complex issue and I worry about any further detail on the matter as it would snowball. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks, and thanks for your note at my talk page. Couple of points. From WP:CITE: "It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source." Unless you yourself read Szasz in original, do it as "Szasz (1972) p. xxx cited in Keymer (2003) p. xx." Re the dictionary definition: I am most surprised by dictionary.com, and am sticking to my guns on this one. The Macquarie Dictionary (a large Australian dictionary ) does not have this as any possible meaning of "devolve"; ditto the Concise Oxford. Devolution is used to have a meaning similar to "degeneration" only in biological contexts (ie. in contrast to evolution). I have never seen "devolved" used in the manner used in the text here - surely it is preferable to use a word that will be immediately understood? Your little expansion re the contractual obligation thing is exactly the sort of clarification I was looking for, and is fine. Hopefully i will get back to this article another time. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you want, I can get my camera out and take pictures of both Foucault and Szasz. I also have Scull's The Most Solitary of Afflictions, which is another great work that I could have added. They are necessary for my own work (I wont get into that, as it is off topic). I am confused by Macquarie - devolve should be in all dictionaries since it is from the latin (volver - circle or rotate, and de means to cycle back). De is the opposite action as e (i.e. "evolution" and "devolution", sometimes also called "de-evolution"). Regardless, I will just change it to degenerate, even though degenerate has a stronger negative connotation than necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Not sure if we are at cross-purposes on some things here. You say "I can take pictures..." - i assuume that means you have Foucault and Szasz there: in which case, everything is fine - i just thought your earlier comment here was saying you had sighted then in another source. On devolve, again we might be at cross purposes. The word is in the dict, but not the definition you found at dictionary.com. And if you want something less strong than "degenerate", you could try "deteriorated" or even just something like "changed". hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It must be an Americanism. "Changed" would not have the connotation of falling apart. "Devolve" is just used from my experience (obviously, American) as a polite way of saying degeneration. It doesn't matter, as some people would consider rambling around in the street, harassing people, and asking them to do stuff a "degeneration". "Deteriorated" would imply a more physical/health condition than a mental/social condition. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - Wow, reading the above comments demonstrated how much thought some people put into articles. I really don't think that I could buckle down and go into that level of depth on an article that I was not involved or highly interested in.
  • My concern is a bit more practical. I noticed that in the text, the abbreviation Mr. was written as "Mr" with no period. Now I am no english major, but this seems to be, well, wrong. The same issue occours with the abbreviation "St" which I have never seen without the dot in a professonal context.
  • Secondly, I took minor issue with the wording of the header "Reaction" as it seems slightly misleading. Most of the text below could be better described as "Analysis." Reaction tends to imply a period of time closer to the event. This is especially true for the 20th century and contemporary section.
I expect to throw in my support soon, I need to read it again though. Nezzadar (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with you about punctuation after "Mr" and "St". However, the subject deals with a British individual so follows British punctuations. It is an annoyance. I changed the heading to "Analysis" because it seems like a good neutral way of describing the section. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I read and copyedited this a while ago - the degree of material for context is tricky, but I feel the article has the right amount of background material to provide context without it being superfluous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • I have undertaken some copyediting and attempted some clarifications of obscure or ambiguous phrases.
  • The background is good, but it lacks a key first sentence I think—something like: "Christopher Smart was an English poet who was confined to asylums during a time of debate about the nature of madness and its treatment."
  • "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view:..." Can we add a few words about precisely what it is about which modern critics have a more cynical view, as well as making clear they are referring to cases such as Smart's when being discussed? I am thinking: "Modern critics, however, have a more cynical view of why society confined people such as Smart in asylums:..."
  • "...during the previous century that he was placed in St Luke's." I think what is meant here is "...during the century prior to Smart being placed in St Luke's." If so, it should be amended.
  • ""Commission of Lunacy" was taken out against Smart..." The nature of a commission for lunacy needs a brief explanation - a few words as a subordinate clause in this sentence.
  • "was confined by Newbery". This sounds as though Newbery was administering St Luke's Hospital and needs revision. Is the point here that Newbery made the application for Smart to be confined? If so "It is possible Nwebery sought Smart's confinement..." would be a better wording.

More another day, but generally I feel the later parts of the article are stronger. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A Weekend in the City

Nominator(s): Rafablu88 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


For all the talk about nominators having to be polite, welcome to the most imperfect process in the history of mankind. This clearly meets the criteria so support. That is all. Also, don't oppose and leave it hanging forever even though your improvements have been made. I'm sick and tired of that happening. Rafablu88 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

<conversation unrelated to article moved to talk page>

Update Fixed 1 disam. link, all ref links working, alt text good. Rafablu88 19:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments: You're lucky I'm not put off by your rudeness and disregard for an important process. My issues:
    • I'm definitely not disregarding an important process. The fact that I work tirelessly to get stuff here should tell you all you need to know. Just generally not happy with filibustering and negligence. You obviously are neither especially as you took the time to comment even though you had similar issues as the users above. For that, thanks. Rafablu88 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem. It's just I would consider the "nomination rationale" you left slightly… flame-bait-ish? I would have gone about nominating in a different way than yourself, even if I had the same reservations, tis all.
        • Got your attention and comments didn't it? ;) I'm not complaining. Rafablu88 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
          • But a pair of boobies would have got my attention, doesn't mean it's a good nomination rationale!
            • I'll bear your preferences in mind for next time. Rafablu88 21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Despite missing their hometown of London" seems slightly inappropriate. Hometown, to me, refers to somewhere that the reader is likely to not have heard of, usually because of its size.
      • I don't fully understand the issue here. It's merely pointing out that London is Bloc Party's hometown and the info is integral to what is explained later about the album. Rafablu88 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • My issue is simply that hometown seems an odd little word for such a well-known and large place as London. I can't think of an alternative, and it's not a big deal anyway. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
    • "Multi-instrumentalist Gordon Moakes" would something more specific such as "Band member" or "Backing singer" be more appropriate? "Multi-instrumentalist" makes it feel as if he's giving outside commentary (until the quote is read).
      • DONE. Rafablu88 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "high-profile producers like Jacknife Lee" low-profile enough to not have a wikilink?
    • "delivery of their staccato indie rock" would assume "indie rock" or a derivative thereof needs to be wikilinked, considering other music types (dance music) are.
      • The above two points: Both are linked in the lead (which I usually treat as the rest of the article) and I don't link things again unless it's songs in the track list, charts, or equipment (all done for user ease). Rafablu88 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Really? I've never understood why wikilinking terms repeated in the lead and main text isn't enforced. Are we all under the illusion that people are going to read the entire article? They're almost certainly not; many people will probably just use the TOC to navigate to a section of their interest/need. Hence why I'd consider wikilinking those terms. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
          • Linked them but I still think it's unnecessary because I'm sure everyone reads the lead before the rest and so has seen the links regardless of the section they click. Also going under that assumption would mean linking every term the was new in every section regardless if it's been linked before just because A. Billy ADHD can't be bothered to try being fully enlightened. Rafablu88 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
          • This is DONE btw. Rafablu88 21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "The title comes as a tangent to the central theme of the album, "the living noise of a metropolis"." is it usual for the title of an album not to be discussed until the Promotion and Release? I thought this would have gone in Origins.
      • The record name was only picked after the final mix at the end of 2006 was done. Even so, I tend to put the cover art and name info immediately after the release date to totally inform it. Rafablu88 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "First single". This occurs a number of times (one of which I fixed). I honestly can't see why they aren't prefixed with "The". Surely if you have "The next single" then you ought to have "The [number] single"?
      • It's come up before and may be a British English thing but I've changed it nonetheless as it's not a massive deal. Rafablu88 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I just considered it proper grammar. How bizarre.
  • More comments:
    • Jacknife Lee needs to be "Garret "Jacknife" Lee".
      • DONE. First mention in Origins. He goes by Jacknife generally though. Rafablu88 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • This article refers to Bloc Party as an Indie rock band, whilst the article on the band itself gives them as simply a rock band.
      • WP:OTHERSTUFF, but anyway that article's infobox clearly gives their genres and I'm sure you can allow a band to change their musical style drastically in a given album.
        • As far as I can tell the place that link took me to had no relevance to my issue. The infobox gives the genres of the album, not of the band. It's not a case of me allowing a band to change musical style, a lot of bands and musicians do that. My point is: we can't change the band's genre to whatever album we're detailing. And you shouldn't change the genre of the band on their article without reaching a consensus either… (I noticed) MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
          • The point was that we cannot use other articles or previous FACs to prove right or wrong here. For all you and me know, that article had been vandalised repeatedly (and it had by an IP, that's why I changed it back). If it said "Bloc Party are a neo-psychedelic band" on that article, would you expect me to write that on this one, too, even though it's totally bogus?? But more to the point here's Allmusic: INDIE ROCK! Rafablu88 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
            • The page you linked to lists their genre as Rock/Pop… Can I just say you've shot yourself in the foot? But whatever, I'm not going to raise the roof about the issue if you feel defensive. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Umm, when we use allmusic we tend to use the specific genre because most bands/albums on wiki would be "rock/pop" if we followed the major grouping instead and that would sound off and not wholly accurate. Rafablu88 21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
              • But just so we're here: Search for bloc party rock/pop yields 81, Search for bloc party indie rock yields 899 Rafablu88 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
                • Sorry but that's just a laughable way of asserting something. For example, "Sarah Palin hot" returns more results than "Sarah Palin politician"… Anyway, enough said on the issue.
                  • That's the way we always proceed, especially in articles up for deletion. Also I don't see the similarity between your example and mine. I doubt anyone would want to say "Sarah Palin is a hottie" instead of a "Sarah Palin is a politician". The terms have no relation with each other in the same way as "rock/pop" and "indie rock". Rafablu88 13:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
          • On another note, I believe all your points have been tackled. Would you care to strike them so that the FAC overlords can see everything is in order. Rafablu88 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Studio Sessions" image. Can "(L-R)" be expanded, I haven't ever seen an article where it's been abbreviated. Also "Tong's drum kit is surrounded by a booth and each component has its own miking set-up" resembles the Alt text, and isn't what I'd consider an appropriate caption.
      • I reworded it slightly. I don't know what the problem is if both alt and real are the same especially when real has to explain what is seen in the photo (booth and miking setup which are written in the text too) in the same vein as alt. Rafablu88 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Okereke's lyrics juxtapose the apparent meaningless monotony with the seemingly epic experiences in a city environment, from waiting for a train, struggles with racial identity, terrorist attacks, and desperation on a dancefloor." it sounds so pretentious. Do there need to be 13 words to describe how someone is showing that there can be great and meaningless experiences in a city? The second section should be "from waiting for a train, struggling with racial identity and terrorist attacks, to desperation on a dancefloor". On that note, what is "desperation on a dancefloor about?".MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • God knows. But that's how they explained it to Filter. And yes, they are pretentious, but I did reword it slightly. Rafablu88 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I've reworded it further, your revision as far as I could tell just changed the "from" to "to". Hopefully my revision is considered an improvement. I'll explain why I've changed it in the way I have if it's not clear. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I've simplified it even more. Rafablu88 21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text is quite good, thanks. I fixed one relatively minor problem by removing the phrases '(from "BLOC PARTY.")', "tarpaulin", and "singing" from the alt text of File:Okereke Barcelona.jpg, as these phrases cannot be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability). Eubulides (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now, mainly on prose grounds. A few general points first:

  • Overuse of semicolons rather than sentence breaks or connectors makes some sentences too long, and hard to follow.
    • I'll split a few ASAP. Rafablu88 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Halved the number, which now is in single figures for a 51.4kb article. Rafablu88 17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There is considerable specialist language in the article, and while most of these terms are linked, some are not. What, for example, is "sonic inference"? What are "vox sessions"? Also, a sentence should be broadly comprehensible without the reader having to use links repeatedly. Sentences such as "The miking scheme was crucial to prepare the drum tracks for the looping and processing Lee planned for them using production program Logic; different types of mics were used for each component of the drum kit" need to be reworded in a more reader-friendly manner.
    • It was meant to be "interference" and changed it to "voice". I'm sure the kids are down with that lingo. I'll scout for any more, although I did that during peer review when I added more detail e.g. about distressors which don't have a wiki page. For the sentence point, see the reply to your first query. Rafablu88 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • All tech points are either linked or explained in enough detail short of actually copying from their respective pages. Not much more I can do. The sentence has been fixed and the flow is better. Rafablu88 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • This sentence was an example. Have you checked through for other instances? Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, obviously. Especially in conjunction with your first point which you've struck out. Rafablu88 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • MOS point: no-break spaces should be used as appropriate.
    • I know what they are but have no clue how to use them. Someone needs to help out here. Rafablu88 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Right, had a look at MOS but still have no clue where to or not to put "no wrap". Rafablu88 18:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You don't have to use no-wrap. Look in this edit window at "12 men" Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll give it a runthrough. Rafablu88 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • DONE. Rafablu88 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Specific prose issues: these are examples taken from the first two or three sections. The whole text needs careful checking to identify and fix other problems:-
    • "sextet" is a singular term, therefore "a sextet was hired"
      • British English, a singular entity can use the plural if it contains more than one member, i.e. "the band were", "Everton FC are an English football club" etc. It's come up before over and over and over again. Rafablu88 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I know it's come up before. That doesn't make it right in all instances. "...a string quartet were hired" sounds ugly and wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Changed it, but I'm sure the Queen would have something to say about you calling her language ugly and wrong. Rafablu88 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "by using the theme the themes of life and leisure" [sic]
      •  ??? It's not in the article. Rafablu88 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • No, because you changed it! (your edit, 13.30 2 September)
          • Before you'd commented I might add, so no need to exclaim. Rafablu88 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
            • There will sometimes be a timelag between my noting a point and posting it, because I have to multi-task. If in that gap you spot and correct your mistakes, well and good. But don't try and pretend (by ???) that the mistake didn't exist. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

**"A low-quality rip of A Weekend in the City leaked in November..." It presumably didn't leak itself, so "was leaked". Who leaked it?

      • DONE. The January one had it already. Must have missed it. Rafablu88 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "A high-quality version was leaked in January 2007, which was confirmed by Okereke." What exactly did Okereke confirm?
      • DONE. The contents. Rafablu88 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Your text reads "A high-quality version was leaked in January 2007, whose contents were confirmed by Okereke." Contents are not a "who". And it's still not clear, for either of these leaks, who did the leaking. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Rephrased it. And if I'd known who leaked it I would have written it. The source mentions noone as is the case with internet leaks. I don't think "leaked by deranged internet pirates" would be encyclopaedic or verifiable. Rafablu88 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
            • My point was that sometimes people leak things themselves, as a form of test-marketing.

**"released in the rest of the world" seems an odd way of describing the general release of a album. "Released worldwide" might be a more orthodox expression.

      • Nope, because it was released in Japan the week before, hence saying "worldwide" is erroneous. Rafablu88 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have spot-checked a few citations: "Bloc Party wanted to expand their sonic palette without losing the cathartic delivery of their staccato indie rock.[15]" What part of ref [15] are you saying supports this statement?
    • It's number 16 and it says: "We've retained some of that jerkiness [from Silent Alarm] but we didn't want to do anything that we've already done. There's a lot of gentle stuff, but we don't want to have a gentle record. Moakes says some of the cuts the group have come up with sound not far from the edgy, dream-rock..." Rafablu88 16:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It was [15] when I went through - you have added a further reference meantime. However, that's beside the point. The sentence is clearly an imaginative interpretation of the source, and should be rephrased to reflect what was actually said. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • DONE. Again the ref edit was made hours before you commented. Rafablu88 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • POV warning: "The highly honest approach..." Whose words are "highly honest"? If they are from the source, they should be in quotes and attributed. If they are POV they should be withdrawn.
    • The polar citations used to prove the statement are:
    • Allmusic: "A Weekend in the City, an unashamedly ambitious, emotional album", "On A Weekend in the City, Bloc Party is sadder, wiser, and more heart-on-sleeve than ever -- almost embarrassingly so", "He's become a striking lyricist, conveying ambivalence and yearning in remarkably direct terms"
    • The Guardian: "Unfortunately, grand statements are not earnest frontman Kele Okereke's forte", "There's barely a song that isn't kneecapped by one of Okereke's lyrical clangers. Just one reference to "crosswords and sudoku" kills Waiting for the 7.18 stone dead, while Hunting for Witches, about fear of terrorism, is so gauche that you might find yourself feeling kindly towards John Reid"
    • Rafablu88 17:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The phrase "highly honest approach" is your own. It certainly isn't "proved" by these sources. You should reword. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • God forbid for allowing some poetic license. I've changed it to "direct" which is satisfied by both sources. Rafablu88 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please contact me when you think you have addressed these points. The list is not comprehensive, and should be used as a basis for identifying other problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments:

  • Your "God forbid" response, above, is a little worrying, if it implies that you would place poetic licence above accuracy or encyclopedic style. I trust this is not the case.
    • No. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit concerned that you have 15 separate citations to a single page of the Murphy article, and 12 to another page. The 15 citations to page 36 seem to cover a lot of information. Can you confirm that all the information cited to these pages is found there?
    • Yes. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Can you confirm that this is the Murphy article you are using as a source? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, but seems to be a bit truncated for the internet, not just image wise. The one I have in the magazine is a longer spread. Rafablu88 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Can you fix citations [13] and [18] (Murphy - see reflist) Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Way ahead of you Brian. ;) Rafablu88 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I said earlier that my main concern was the standard of the prose. I have now read through (fairly quickly) the remainder of the article and have found numerous further problems. If you have got there first, and fixed any of them, I apologise:-
    • "The track ostracises right-wing newspapers..." – "ostracises"? The word means "to exclude or banish from a group or society". I guess you mean crticise or castigate, or something like that.
    • The second part of this same sentence needs rewording, to clarify the subject of "which"
      • Both DONE. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Please look again at second part of sentence: "and action" or "an action"? Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
          • "An" Rafablu88 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • If a crush is unrequited, it's a one-way affair. An unrequited crush cannot be "between" two people
      • DONE. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • By merely removing "unrequited" you have changed the meaning. Did the lyric deal with the unrequited crush of one boy for another, as you previously implied, or was the crush mutual, as you now imply?
          • The older one, changed it. Rafablu88 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Normal usage is "East London" not "east London". The sentence is clumsy anyway with two "ands" - needs reworking
    • Please look at the construction of the sentence beginning "Many songs detail..." Apart from being overlong, the grammar is wrong at the beginning.
      • DONE. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • The structure is still wrong and the meaning remains ambiguous. Your use of "following" is the main problem. If I am guessing the meaninig correctly, it would be better to place a full stop after metropolis and begin a new sentence: "This resulted from..." etc
          • DONE, differently. Rafablu88 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "a drunk and promiscuous night out" A night out can be "drunken", but not "drunk" (as in, for example, a "drunken stupor")
      • DONE. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "difference with" → "difference from"
      • DONE. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ambiguous: "Layered vocals are often used to resemble choral sections in A Weekend in the City" My guess is that you meant: "In A Weekend in the City, layered vocals are often used to resemble choral sections"
      • DONE. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "It sold 148,000 copies in the U.S. by August 2008" needs to be "It had sold..." etc
      • Someone didn't like "had" on the Silent Alarm FAC and I removed it, but DONE. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "...a maelstrom of anger and confusion." These graphic words from the source should be in quote marks
      • DONE. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "the publication included it in its 1000 Albums To Hear Before You Die list compiled in November 2007 by praising the band's "ambitious indie soundscapes packing a sizeable political punch". The "by" should be replaced by a comma.
      • No, because that would leave an -ing verb after the comma. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Then you should find another way of reworking the sentence. The inclusion in the list was a separate action from the praise, not the result of the praise.
          • DONE, differently. Rafablu88 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Tours and rerelease section: this is mostly information which is not about the album which is the subject of this article.
      • No, the first paragraph details the tours FOR the album in summary style (i.e further promotion), which also have an effect on sales, charts, etc. The second paragraph explains the promotion before the re-release in the same vein as the actual release was covered in "Promotion and release". The section is a historical facet of the entity in question and is needed for completeness. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
These prose concerns reinforce my view that the article needs to be copyedited thoroughly, by someone other than you, to help bring the prose to the standard required for featured articles. I will be happy to look at the article again, when that has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
God bless vague assertions. I'll ask around. Rafablu88 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, on the question of vague assertions, quote "This clearly meets the criteria so support. That is all." Without really trying, I have found a dozen or so prose faults. The article has improved considerably as a result of this review process, but would clearly benefit from another pair of eyes than yours, and that is what I am requesting. Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just yanking your chain Brian. You're a good sport. Rafablu88 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment—I find the table-y and list-y sections at the bottom half of the article rather overwhelming, especially the track listing. Only the original track-listing (and that global one with the extra song, in this particular case) is ever really notable. Considering that these days albums are sold by different retailers with all sorts of bonus tracks and variations, I don't think it is particularly notable or necessary to list down all of these various formats. The track-listing for the additional remixes/live-DVD doesn't belong either.

  • Yep, summarised DVD stuff. Bonus tracks are needed though as they were created during the same studio sessions (i.e. the "30 sound checks" mentioned in Origins). Two of them even made the preliminary track list. Rafablu88 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for the release history section. How is a collection of release dates and catalogue dates of any interest to the general reader? Remember WP:NOTCATALOG, Wikipedia is not a "complete exposition of all possible details." All important record labels and dates have been already covered in the prose anyway.

  • No, see Wikipedia:Albums#Release_history. Plus, I'm sure the reader would appreciate all the info compacted to a table for such a staggered album release-wise. Rafablu88 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Release history" sections are in no way mandatory (most album FAs do not have and do not need them), and you're better off conveying that information in prose, anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Firstly, I never said it was mandatory. It's up to editors' discretion and I took the decision that it was so staggered release wise in terms of dates, labels, types, catalog no.s that the table was clearly beneficial. Not all the information can be contained in the prose without sounding forced and superficial. Sorry if it's making other FAs look deficient, but maybe they should have one too, especially the older ones who have had a re-release in the 21st century. Rafablu88 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CHART: "The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." indopug (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • You're right. Cut down to 10 English-speaking/major markets and 1 auxiliary chart. Rafablu88 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose (but easy to fix) rationale on "The Prayer" sound sample is inspecific. I've tagged the file. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Bloc_Party_-_Banquet.ogg passed on the Silent Alarm FAC with the same rationale after User:Jappalang reviewed, and was preceded by the advice of the same user on HeartbeatLOTP.ogg on the Fantasy Black Channel FAC. Plus, I have yet to see a non-free file which has FOUR citations proving its use and importance to the article at hand. The deletion template is unwarranted. Rafablu88 14:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The deletion template is perfectly warranted. Please see WP:NFCC #10c, and note that it says "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item". I've re-instated the warning template to the file, as the problem has NOT been fixed. In the version you prefer, the rationale could be used to justify its existence in ANY article. That's not good enough to pass #10c. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
        • DONE. Please strike your oppose. Thank you, Rafablu88 14:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Further—
  • Within a paragraph, a citation is assumed to reference all the text preceding it (apart from quotes). So you don't need to use the same ref over and over again in adjacent sentences. I just you remove all of these instances of over-referencing to enhance readability. [ Sample edit].
    • Sorted them out. I'm glad it's come up. I've thought about doing it but always scared someone is gonna go "oh, massive oppose, under-referenced". Rafablu88 09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that non-free image of the recording process really necessary? It isn't very clear either, with the drums and the mikes around them tiny in the background. Besides, I don't think there isn't anything particularly unique about this recording setup to warrant a fair-use pic.
    • Well, it's not clear because a) it's a screenshot and b) it has to be small for fair-use. It's not just about the drums miking either, it's the booth as well. I think overall it's unconventional and unique enough to warrant inclusion, especially with what is said in the adjacent text. Rafablu88 09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Radiohead are not a post-rock band, and Snow Patrol are not world-renowned. Not as much as U2 anyway (which is what the sentence inadvertently implies).
    • DONE. Rafablu88 09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that you don't choose to include the most reputed music magazines' reviews in the infobox and in the Reception section? While notable, why use Drowned in Sound, PopMatters, Rockfeedback wand Stylus, when you can have Spin, Mojo, Q and a major newspaper like the Times instead? I doubt it will be difficult to find these reviews online.
    • It's all subjective isn't it? You say tomaytoe, I say tomatoh. I always proceed through Metacritic's picks, the aggregate score (to show a correct rating spread), and Ealdgyth's notability guidelines. Plus now in the 21st century post-print times, people like Spin, Mojo, Q etc are behind in terms of review quality, length, and perception. Most of their writing is just stubs, whereas Drowned in Sound, PopMatters, Stylus, and Rockfeedback actually still write essays on albums like the good old times mainly because they can space-wise but also because they focus more on less mainstream music. I'm sure the reader would appreciate quality and depth rather than a two sentence paragraph with an arbitrary editorial rating. I know I do. Rafablu88 09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The fact of the matter is that the long-standing print publications have greater critical weight. Drowned in Sound and the like should be relied on only if you can't find anything by the likes of Rolling Stone, NME, and SPIN, because they are considered the leading voices in music journalism (and they do have web presences; Rolling Stone in particular has an online version of pretty much everything that has ever been printed by it). Review length has nothing to do with it (I am reminded of a rather cutting four-word Bauhaus review by Melody Maker from the early 80s. A rather tossed-off review that i don't agree with, but it got its point across). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, m'lord. Replaced Stylus with EW since they're now defunct. Replaced Rockfeedback with the A.V. Club. The only other Metacritic established review was Blender but that was written by Dorian Lynskey who wrote The Guardian one and it wouldn't have been appropriate. Everything else was print media which I don't have and even if I did I wouldn't budge on PopMatters (see Wikipedia:Albums#Review_sites) and Drowned in Sound, who without a look in nostalgia lane, are currently probably more thorough and eminent than the Spins and Qs of this world, especially in the UK. Rafablu88 12:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That list of equipment used is highly unorthodox, in that most of our articles don't have them. I don't see the point too, I doubt a casual reader would grasp the significance of any of the items on the list; it would only interests the musos. As an analogy, would you like to read a list of all the equipment in shooting a film in a film article? indopug (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I like the analogy. Good point. Rafablu88 09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Columbia River

Nominator(s): Pete (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


This article has been the subject of a broad and sustained collaboration by over a dozen editors since at least 2007. The river is of central importance to America's Pacific Northwest region: cultural, economic, transportation, environmental, and international political interests have intersected along the river for centuries, and it played an important role in the area's geologic evolution and native culture as well. Editors from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests have worked diligently to assure that the article's structure and content fully and adequately reflect that diversity of topics, and the central the river has played in the region.

The article has been through two in-depth Good article reviews (passing the second). About a year ago we made a push toward FA, and received an in-depth peer review; though we acted on most of its points, we did not pursue FA at the time. In the year since, we have made progress on the article, but there have been no drastic changes, which should speak to the article's stability.

We have consulted numerous sources, and talked with experts on specific topics in the region. We've done extensive work on related articles, and developed a related navigation box to more fully expose related topics to the encyclopedia's readers. We've tracked down a variety of free media from various periods of history. A professional cartographer made two maps to our specifications. We feel that the article now represents some of the best work on Wikipedia, and is ready for consideration for Featured status. We also recognize that an article on such an extensive topic can never be considered truly complete, and welcome feedback and ideas. We hope the article will soon join the ranks of many related Featured articles: Hanford Site, Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and other Portland-area watersheds, Mount St. Helens, and the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.

-Pete (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text. Please see WP:ALT, and see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. You might also want to check out the "external links" button, as there are apparently some problems with dead links too. Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I wrote the first 14 alt texts today, and I'll do the remaining 10 tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Urk! The alt viewer doesn't seem to show the ones I've done. Not sure why. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The syntax wasn't correct, so the alt text was ignored. Please use "|alt=Alt text", with no spaces around the "alt" or the "=". I fixed the occurrences of this problem that I found. Sometimes the Altviewer hiccups and uses an old (cached) version of the page; this is being investigated/fixed and I am not observing the problem now, but you can check if this is the problem by looking at the time stamp at the bottom of the Altviewer output. The alt text already added is first class. Some comments that may help: it's OK to make it a bit shorter than what you're doing (I like it a bit longer, like it is, and am not suggesting changing what's already written, but when you're writing the rest you may want to know that others prefer shorter and there is room for editorial judgment). One minor criticism: the alt text "A map shows the locations of many river dams..." spends too much time on irrelevant visual details such as colors and circles and how the labels are arranged, and too little time on the gist of what the map actually says, e.g., dams all the way up the Columbia and Snake (please see WP:ALT#Maps). Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much for the helpful advice and for fixing the first batch of syntax errors. I have finished the complete set of alt texts, repaired the remaining bad syntax, and revised the map descriptions. One remaining puzzle is that the alt reader is not seeing the two alt texts in the geobox. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Niagara has kindly fixed the problem, which involved slightly different syntax errors. Finetooth (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing all that. I tried to fix the one remaining problem I saw, which was transcluded from Template:Columbia River; you might want to check my fix there. Eubulides (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I couldn't see that image anywhere in the article and didn't think to look in the bottom template. The alt text seems fine. I tweaked it a bit by adding the waterfall dimensions in imperial units, roughly converted. Finetooth (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Some comments:

"(known as Wimahl or Big River to the Chinook-speaking natives who lived on its lowermost reaches)" is this really so important it should be the first thing?
  • We've been wondering about the name issue. Your feedback is helpful. I think moving that note into the "native inhabitants" section is probably the solution. What say you? -Pete (talk)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"provided the core subsistence for natives, and in past centuries, traders from all over western North America would travel to the Columbia to trade for fish." wasn't the subsistence in past centuries too?
  • subsistence: good point, need to fix. -Pete (talk)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"heavily developed to serve human purposes" do we need "to serve human purposes" or is it implicit?
  • Not sure. Anyone else, comments? -Pete (talk)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"taming or harnessing of the river" of the?
  • You suggesting removing the word "of?" That could work, I think... -Pete (talk)
"The development, commonly referred to as taming or harnessing of the river, includes dredging for navigation by larger ships; the construction of dams for power generation, irrigation, navigation, and flood control; nuclear weapons research and production; and the generation of nuclear power." This sentence sounds a little funny.
It's got two "navigation"s.
"dredging for navigation by larger ships" dredging to aid?
"the construction of dams for power generation" maybe "the construction of power generating dams"?
"nuclear weapons research and production; and the generation of nuclear power" can this be condensed with more broad comment on nuclear stuff.
"come into conflict with ecological conservation numerous times" sounds kinda funny, or maybe it's fine. Not sure.
  • The dams serve multiple purposes, so rephrasing to "power generating dams" really doesn't work. But, I suppose it's actually locks, not dams, that aid navigation. The locks were separate from earlier canal and dredging projects, so saying it twice is not a mistake. You're right, this sentence needs some serious work. -Pete (talk)
Rewrote both sentences, not every one of your concerns is directly addressed, but on the whole I think it reads much better. Look good? -Pete (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

done -Pete (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's it for now. It looks like a really fine article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Kinbasket Lake" would it be better to call it "Kinbasket Reservoir"? I notice most of the lakes are reservoirs. Something to think about.
  • Whatever the name is, is what we should use. I'm not sure. -Pete (talk)
  • What happened was, I was reading and it seemed odd to me that the river would flow through natural lakes (at this stage of development). I think all of the lake articles I looked at have "X Lake (X Reservoir)" or "X Lake (X Lake Reservoir)" to lead their articles. I'll defer to what others think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Is ref 10 dead?
All dead links are now fixed or replaced. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, there's more than one "Big Bend"?
  • Yep. -Pete (talk)
  • Note: If needed, Egan names the Washington "Big Bend" on p. 239. -Pete (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"construction of the Grand Coulee Dam in the mid-20th century backed the river up, forming Lake Roosevelt" maybe "Dam in the mid-20th century created Lake Roosevelt"? "backed the river up" sounds funny.
"Tri-Cities" is linked twice.
Is the The Gorge Amphitheatre not in the Columbia Gorge?
"river ranks 23rd in length" are there lists that can be linked for this and the other statments in that paragraph? Same with Discharge para.
  • I agree that the prose in general in the article is too data-heavy. Linking to lists is not a bad idea. Open to other suggestions. -Pete (talk)

Looking pretty good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peregrine. I inlined some quick replies above. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Support If I have time, I'll make more comments, but this is definitely some of WP's best work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and support. I didn't notice this for two days, I think because it was right-shifted a bit and lost in the page clutter. I've shifted it to the left margin to make it more visible. We certainly don't want any supports to get lost. :-) Finetooth (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Detailed comments from Ealdgyth

  • Comments -
  • USGS or United States Geological Survey? Pick one or the other and be consistent in the references.
Good catch, will do. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I found and fixed them all, I think. There were quite a bunch. All are now spelled out. Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

done -Pete (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this was noted and we're working on it (though I think it was on the talk page not here -- sorry not to mention it!)

-Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All dead links are now restored or replaced. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the references (I noted USDA but there are probably others).
I'll take a closer look at that, I think we have not reviewed for that in some time. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Didn't see any others on a quick scan. I have to say, we're generally been very careful about that, so I think it's a fairly safe bet the one you found was an anomaly. Fixed that.

done -Pete (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/ (also, the title of the journal should be in italics)
      The OHQ has a clear editorial structure, a 100+ year history, and a commitment to quality and accuracy. On a contentious point, it would be inferior to, say, a scientific journal or a university-sponsored research project; but the two facts it's used to justify are uncontroversial points that are not likely to be challenged. The second point (the 1450 possibility on the date of the Bonneville Slide), it cites another work, which theoretically could be tracked down. Historycooperative.org simply re-publishes OHQ among other historical society publications. Italics added. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      I've removed your strike through until I've had time to evaluate... generally at FAC, the practice is to let the person making the comments strike them when they feel they are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      Makes perfect sense, sorry for the gaff. It's been a long time since I've worked closely on an FA nom. -Pete (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • http://www.common-place.org/vol-06/no-02/talk/
      May not meet WP:RS, however the fact cited is completely uncontroversial and repeated in many publications. We should probably try to replace this one. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • http://peakfinder.com/peakfinder.ASP?PeakName=Snow+Dome
      Likely not WP:RS. Fact is also asserted here, but I'm not sure this is a RS either. Finetooth, you did the watershed section -- ideas? -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it was Pfly who found and added the triple-divide material. That said, I found a 1921 book, on-line as a Google Book, a climber's guide, that supports the claim. I added a citation to the book but left the peakfinder citation in place because it explains that a variant name for Snow Dome is Dome, which is what the 1921 book calls it. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This one looks reliable to me. Anderson is a Ph.D. mathematician specializing partly in topology at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. His explanation of triple-divide points, replete with illustrations, examples, and equations looks expert rather than amateur. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked into it more closely, and agree with Finetooth. This part of WP:RS seems relevant: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." There is no reason to think of the points Anderson makes as particularly controversial; in fact, his article provides context that helps one to interpret what little controversy there is (namely, whether Hudson Bay is properly considered an inlet to the Arctic or Atlantic ocean). For a more controversial point, the source would certainly fail WP:RS. But for this point, it has a great deal of utility for the curious reader, without much risk of misleading them. -Pete (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Further detail on that -- Andersen is published in academic journals on topology, see [6] and [7]. I think that explicitly satisfies the (admittedly unusual) circumstances described in WP:V under "self-published sources" section. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=5332
      No, don't think that one qualifies. It seems all four of these issues could be resolved by finding a single high-quality RS on continental divides in North America. May have to head to the library for that. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Pfly added two citations to support the claim that Three Waters Mountain is a triple-divide point. The non-RS peakbagger.com is one of the two, but the other one, Anderson, also supports the claim. If Anderson is expert, as his credentials suggest, we could just delete the peakbagger citation as redundant as well as non-RS. How say you all? Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll look through them again. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Current ref 82 (The eagan quote) needs a page number
I have that book around somewhere, I'll find it. Good catch. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Finally found it...the bugger was elusive!! -Pete (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 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.
I have now fixed these. There were several that lacked italics. Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, so much work...but you're right :) -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed feedback! -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Support with some comments, from Ruhrfisch. I passed this as a Good Article and have kept an eye on it since. While I have made a few edits here, I applaud the main group of editors who worked so hard on this - to my thinking it is one of the best examples of collaborative editing I have seen. It is also one of the best articles the encyclopedia has on a large river. Here are a few comments, which do not detract from my support. Many of these are places where references are needed, but this is already pretty copiously referenced, so I am comfortable supporting (and that my comments will be addressed).

  • Since seven US states and one Canadian province are in the Columbia drainage basin, would it be worth mentioning this in some way in the lead? I would also link drainage basin there - perhaps something like ...(roughly the size of France, this includes parts of seven US States and one Canadian province).
  • In the Course section explain BC after the first mention, i.e. "British Columbia (BC)"
  • The size of the watershed is given four times in the article (lead, Geobox, and twice in the space of just two paragraphs in the text: last paragraph of Course and first paragraph of Discharge). I would move the sentence Its drainage basin covers 258,000 square miles (670,000 km2). from the Discharge section to the Watershed section
  • In the Course section the second phrase of this sentence seems wrong (as we know the Columbia also breaches the Cascades) - would adding "others" work? No other river completely breaches the Cascades—those [others?] that flow through the range also originate in or very near the mountains.
  • In the Geology section I would give a rough age for the Missoula Floods (15,000 to 13,000 years ago).
Thank you for the kind words and support. I've added an age range. Bishop suggests, via USGS geologists, a slightly wider range but in the same ballpark. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Same section The floods' periodic inundation of the lower Columbia River Plateau deposited rich sediments, establishing the fertility that supports extensive agriculture in the modern era. needs a ref
Added a ref. Bishop mentions especially the Willamette Valley. (Thank you Montana and Washington for all the topsoil.) Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Indigenous peoples section several places need refs: ...the Cayuse War, a number of violent battles were fought between American settlers and the regions natives, establishing the United States' dominance in the region and removing much land from native control. Similar conflicts occurred in British Columbia, such as the Fraser Canyon War. is one, The bridge permitted increased interaction and trade between tribes on the north and south sides of the river until it was finally washed away. is another, and the whole short paragraph Natives drew fish from the Columbia at several major sites ... Kettle Falls and Priest Rapids in eastern Washington, were also major fishing and trading sites. needs a ref.
If I can just step up on a soapbox for a brief moment…I disagree that (at least some of) these are problems. WP:V states that editors "…should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" -- and I don't believe many of the items above are likely to be challenged. In this case, I think we're OK, because I can probably find sources (like [8]); however, I have a concern about this level of dedication for citing every fact, because on occasion, there is a fact or two that must be stated in order to preserve a good narrative flow and inform the reader, is entirely uncontroversial, and yet cannot be cited to any specific reliable source. Okay, stepping off soapbox and seeking citations now. -Pete (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I look at Wikipedia articles as a good starting place for people interested in learning more about a topic - providing a ref says to the reader "here is where this information comes from and where you can learn more about this topic, if so interested". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As I'm sure you can see from my editing history, I thoroughly agree with that concept...my departure is entirely theoretical, and if I'm lucky, won't have any impact on this FA, where sources are fairly easy to find if you put in the time...I just added a couple more about the events surrounding Cayuse War. :) -Pete (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I also wonder if the once sentence paragraph on modern tribal fishing rights could be combined with another paragraph here, perhaps the last one with a ref mentioned above or after the Kah-Nee-Tah resort sentence?
Looks like that's been done. -Pete (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It is the sentence Today, the Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla, and Warm Springs tribes all have treaty fishing rights along the Columbia and its tributaries.[37] but on rereading I think it is OK where it is and on its own. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In the New waves of explorers section, the sentences on British fur trader Captain John Meares need a ref.
Sourced to a National Park Service article on Cape Disappointment State Park. Finetooth (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Same section Northwest Passage is linked twice
I had introduced some general redundancies with a recent edit. I rewrote both parts of the text that mention the NWP, hopefully improving the general flow of the narrative, in addition to eliminating the redundant link. -Pete (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • First paragraph of Navigation needs a ref (although the Course section already had a ref that the Bar is most dangerous to navigate)
Added a ref to an Oregon Marine Board document to support claim that the Bar is still dangerous. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Dams section, the end of the first paragraph needs a ref, as does the passage Canada agreed to build dams and provide reservoir storage, and the U.S. agreed ... the last of which was completed in 1973. as well as this passage Previously active fishing sites, most notably Celilo Falls ... Chief Joseph Dam has no fish ladders and completely blocks fish migration to the upper half of the Columbia River system.
I've added two refs, one to the treaty itself to support the claims about what the agreement said, and the second to support the claim that Canada built three dams, the last of which (Mica) was completed in 1973. Finetooth (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added two more refs to support the Celilo Falls claim and the Chief Joseph Dam claim. I believe these four new refs address the unsourced claims issues in the Dams section. Finetooth (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Added one more, which supports the 600,000-acre claim for Grand Coulee. Finetooth (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The last parts of the first and third paragraphs in the Fish migration section need refs.
Added two refs supporting the sturgeon claims and one ref supporting the salmon and steelhead claims. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Pollution section, could the one sentence paragraph on the guy swimming the rvier be combined with another paragraph?
I have struggled with that one. Although I strongly prefer not to have one-sentence paragraphs, I'd note that the WP:MOS doesn't prohibit them, just discourages them. In this case, it is truly a notion of its own, not directly relating to anything else; I think combining it into another paragraph simply to satisfy a guideline would lead to a less readable section, and I believe it should stay separate. Curious what you think of that. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
One possibility might be to introduce a quote from Swain, or a photo, and incorporate that sentence as a caption instead of body copy. Can't say I love the idea, as I think it'd inflate the importance of what was essentially a media stunt more than might be appropriate, but I'm just tossing the idea out. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other clean up efforts or environmental organizations focusing on the Columbia that have made the mainstream press that could be added to fill it out to a real paragraph? Kmusser (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the other clean up efforts / groups idea better. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Picture captions - is it possible to say how long the Essayons has been dredging (since year) instead of just "currently in use"? Also the article says "The river flows past The Gorge Amphitheatre, a prominent concert venue" but the caption reads "Near the Gorge Amphitheater in George, Washington" (is the "The" capitalized or not?)
I will try on the Essayons. Basically, it's part of the current re-dredging efforts, making it this decade…just have to find a good way to state that concisely. I believe Kmusser fixed the capitalization issue (thanks!) -Pete (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I rewrote the Essayons caption, and am happier in general with it. See what you think. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Much better , thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps and thanks for a very well done article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting caught up in details, and forgetting my manners: as Finetooth said, thank you for your compliments and support, and for all these clearly thought-out suggestions. -Pete (talk)
Glad to help improve this in some small way. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series

Nominator(s): BUC (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


I first found this article in this form, and just thought it was very poor. So I've been working on it on and off for over a year to give it a total re-write, remove piontless large amount of piontless trivia and added in refs where needed.

I withdrew the last nomination for this article because I felt there was too much still to do. I hope now having given it enough extra work, having given it another PR and contacted everyone that gave feedback on the last nomination. BUC (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Images
      • Pujols facing.JPG - if you are using thumb, you shouldnt specify a px size. Also please use the upright function as well (WP:MOSIMAGE)
      • SchillingNew.JPG - the image page does not describe what the image is. Can you possibly add this? Also same px size and upright.
      • Manny Ramírez 2.jpg - same as Pujols
      • Manny Ramirez Parade.jpg - ok, maybe add the its okay to move to commons template.
      • Boston Red Sox George W. Bush 2005.jpg - ok
    • Prose (quick check)
      • "The Cardinals earned their berth in the play-offs by winning the National League Central, and had the best win–loss record in the National League." -- I know what that means but what do you mean "winning the National League Central"?
        • They came first in the National League Central, so they won it. BUC (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • References
      • WP:OVERLINK in your refs. Once you link, for example ESPN, an article once you no longer need to link them every other time.
      • Boston.com should be linked to and noted somehow that its The Boston Globe
      • Its not Yahoo, its Yahoo! Sports
      • MLB.com has its own article, please link it the first time
      • Cardnials MLB.com maybe better listed as Cardnials official website
      • Sports Illustrated should be linked the first time
      • (ref 62) IMDB is not a WP:RS
      • The New York Times. link first instance
        • It already is. BUC (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
          • It was late, I must have missed it. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hope this helps. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Image Comment Having opposed the first nomination due to the presence of the copyrighted logo image, which still does not meet WP:NFCC#8 or FA criteria #3, is there a reason why it is still present? There are plenty of free images of Manny who was the MVP or Francona or Fenway Park which were all key factors in the Series and would be just as fitting in the infobox. Copyrighted images, such as the logo, are only to be used if there are no free imgages related to the subject—which is obiously not the case here—and if the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"—all the logo does is show me that it exists, which has very little to do with the four baseball games that are the topic of this article. blackngold29 17:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I asked another user to check that the images were all ok before I posted this nomination. There didn't seem to be a problem. BUC (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Prose comments
  • Non-breaking spaces needed throughout, specifically in the broadcasting and aftermath sections.
    • Think I've got them all now but you will have let me know if I've missed any. BUC (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In aftermath section "The Red Sox'" should be "The Red Sox's"
  • In aftermath section "Lowe said that the team would no longer hear "1918!" at Yankee Stadium again." No need for the final "again" if it's not a direct quote.
  • In aftermath section "On the Cardinals' side" should be "On the Cardinals's side"
    • I always thought that it you were talking about ownership by something that ended in S, you only put an apostrophe on the end. BUC (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that would be possesive though, it is the "Cardinals's side". I've never heard of a situation where you add only an apostrophe; it should always be "'s". Now that I take a closer look, it might be better just to say "The media expressed disappointment at the Cardinals's failure..." Active voice is better than passive. blackngold29 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I asked someone I know who is an English teacher, he said you can use either. This article also says that: [9] read the third paragraph of the guy's answer. BUC (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In aftermath section "then Arizona Diamondbacks team-mate, Randy Johnson in 2001" teammate is one word
  • "Just three months after the Red Sox won the World Series, the Patriots capped off an unforgettable 12 months for Boston area teams, winning Super Bowl XXXIX, which was the third championship won by Boston-area teams during that time, making it the first time since 1979-1980 in Pittsburgh that the same city has had 2 Super Bowl and World Series winners in 12 months.[81]"
    • "Just three months" is POV, just say "Three months"
    • "unforgettable" is POV, cite or remove it
    • Non-breaking spaces for "12 months", "2 Super Bowls", and "12 months".
    • 1979(n-dash)1980
    • Citation 81 doesn't back up the claim that it was the first occurence of such an event. Nor is the citation itself backed by a RS. Simply re-use citation 72
      • ref #72 doesn't cover the second Super Bowl win, but I will try and find something. BUC (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The info in this passage is repeated earlier in the section. Is there a need for that?
      • It's not quite the same info. BUC (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Though they aren't usually needed, the final paragraph is a nice conclusion for the article blackngold29 17:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Even though I have a reputation as the evil non-free image remover, I don't have a problem with the logo. This is the main article for this logo, it is unexceptional. If it appears in any other article, there is probably an issue there. Support. Black Kite 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • There's at least one "citation needed" tag somewhere in the article.
    • I'm working on that. If I can't find anything I'm going to remove it. BUC (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 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. (the Washington post was one I noted first, but there are others)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Both fixed now. BUC (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Consider merging the "Series quotes" into the relevant game sections (something like, After Manny Ramírez flied out, Ortiz hit a three-run home run in his first ever World Series at bat. Joe Buck of Fox Sports called the fifth homerun of the postseason: "Down the right field line, into the corner it is fair! And a three-run home run, Ortiz has done it again!" Kevin Millar then scored by virtue of a single by Bill Mueller to put the Red Sox up 4–0.). They look unorganized as placed right now (they're all quotes, yes, but sorting by game seems better). --an odd name 01:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I've done this now. But I'm not sure it's really looks any better. I'm also worried it disrupts the flow of the writing. BUC (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Never mind. The quote boxes get jumbled up on certain browser–windowsize combinations, among other issues, so you can change it back. (I'd revert it for you, but I'm not sure in which edit you began moving of if there were unrelated changes during the move.) --an odd name 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


{{Invincibles Advert}} An Allrounder who played in the last three Tests of the Invincibles tour. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment You have two or more supports in your two other FACs, but isn't three running nominations a bit much? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One of them's winding down and should be closed in the next two days. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Resolved now, the other two were promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Whether you think the others are winding down or not, three on the go is unreasonable. It is also presumptuous. Why couldn't you just wait a few days? Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose right off, this article seems to be confused as to whether it's a biography of Sam Loxton or an article about his presence on that team. Compare infoboxes between the two articles for example. I haven't read the entire article, in part because I know nothing of cricket and get lost in the terms. However, I'm very concerned that an article such as this counts as original research, and will lead to articles such as Andy Pettitte with the New York Yankees in 2007. Ick. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – The article, along with the rest in the series, has been nominated for deletion. Anyone have any thoughts on whether that causes a 1e (stability) violation? I've never seen anything like this in any article I've wanted to review for FAC. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to cause a temporal paradox :) I'm aware of at least on featured article that later was deleted via AfD. It's not unprecedented. Having that knowledge, I thought about whether these articles should exist in the first place. It seems patently absurd to me that we need to have an article about every player on the tour. There's no place to draw the line other than at all players at X sporting event/tour/series. We're going to end up with Vaughn Taylor at the 2007 Masters Tournament, in addition to Vaughn Taylor, and in addition to 2007 Masters Tournament. I fail to see the point. That's what caused me to go the route of AfD. A grant this particular article is at least good. That an article is good and well referenced does not automatically mean it is notable and worthy of inclusion. That's a point being lost on a great many people in the AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a well written article Gnangarra 02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Starvin' Marvin (South Park)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated this one before but at the time, the consensus appeared to be the information and sources were fine, but there were some grammatical issues. Through a peer review and some copy edits from myself and other editors, I think those problems have now been addressed, so I'm nominating it again. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive1 for some ideas (perhaps including some ideas about what not to do...). Eubulides (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I gave it a shot, but as you know, alt text isn't my forte. Please let me know if it needs further improvement... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • No actually the alt text you added is quite good. I found and fixed just one technical typo. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment—Why is Sally Struthers discussed in 3 different sections of the article? (apart from the plot and the lead) I think some restructuring may be needed in order to cut down on the repetition. For starters, I think the stuff from Reception should be removed wholesale from there, and merged into another section.

  • I've removed the bit about Struthers in the Cultural references section since you are right, most of that information is repeated from Production and it is a bit repetitive. However, I think the rest of the structuring is appropriate. The part in "Production" deals with their writing and implementation of the parody into the episode. "Themes" only mentions her briefly with regard to the episode's theme of gluttony. And the part in "Reception" deals with Struthers' reaction to the episode upon its release, which strikes me as a natural for that section. That being said, do you have any more specific suggestions for further restructuring? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, assuming this is the commentary you are referencing, I feel you are skirting the boundaries of original research in interpreting the creators' comments. For example, I'm not sure you can interpret Parker and Stone as "remorseful" unless secondary sources say so.

  • You may be aware of this already, but that YouTube link is in fact only a three minute sample of a 22 minute commentary track (the entirety of which can be downloaded here). Right around 12:45 is the bit where they do in fact say they were remorseful. The exact quote: "We did feel bad for how we treated Sally Struthers here, and we felt bad when she found out that she cried and everything." — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Struthers was particularly upset with the fact that her character steals food from the same starving children she had been working to help"—not mentioned in the commentary.
    • Right around the 18 minute mark, they address this. At this point they are discussing the specific part in the movie where she is eating their food. Parker says, "This is what she got really upset about. She was basically saying, the fact that we were saying she was collecting all this money just so she could have food." A little afterward, Stone addresses it a bit further. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "although in typical South Park fashion they have not apologized"—there is nothing about what constitutes "typical South Park fashion" in the commentary.
    • Yeah, I guess you're right. Removed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Struthers was portrayed in an even less flattering way in the third season episode "Starvin' Marvin in Space" as a Jabba the Hutt-like creature"—and neither is this. indopug (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes it is. Right after the above 12:45 quote (about them being remorseful), they say "We had her in another episode a couple years later where we made her even fatter and she became Jabba the Hutt. She was so fat that she just was Jabba the Hutt. It was so sweet." They also identify the episode by title ("Starvin' Marvin in Space") right around 13:25. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - On the prose, which looks solid.
  • Mephisto is ignored and ridiculed by McDaniels. - is instead
    • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All the quotations need citations directly after them. ceranthor 15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I got them all, but if I missed one please let me know. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Another SP article. How fun

"Ethiopian child whom they dub Starvin' Marvin. Cartman is accidentally sent to Ethiopia" can you add a "later" or a "then" or something to start the second sentence?
  • Ok. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"residents to fight back, in a parody of the film Braveheart." is the comma needed? Not sure.
  • I don't think so, but if you feel it's really necessary, please feel free to add it or let me know and I'll do it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"The episode received generally positive reviews and is considered a classic South Park episode. " switch order? Not sure.
  • I'd rather not, if only because other episode articles use this kind of wording and I'd rather maintain consistency. But again, if it's a big deal, let me know or feel free to change it yourself. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"viewed by about" maybe "roughly" instead of "about", since "about" is used twice in the sentence.
  • No problem! — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"included only because they felt obligated to include a B story." two includes
  • Changed first one to "wrote". — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"The episode reportedly deeply offended Sally Struthers." sounds funny. How about "Sally Struthers..."
  • I used this wording to avoid the passive voice with "was offended", but since it doesn't flow well, I've changed it.

Otherwise, lead looks good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"do not particularly care about the cause" is "particularly" needed, or do they kinda care?
  • Nah, they don't. :D Changed it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"genetically engineers"?
  • Should be engineered. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"show and tell" do we have a wikilink?
  • Sure do! Added. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"During a prayer" "While praying"?
  • Ok. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"Chef dons war paint like William Wallace in the film Braveheart" can you add a secondary source for this?
  • Is this really necessary? If so, I'll add it, but my understanding is inline citations are to be avoided in the plot summary section, and this information is cited elsewhere in the article... — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this culture reference needed at all in the plot section? It doesn't really describe the plot better. indopug (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The first five sentences of the "Production" section are a bit choppy.
  • I've reworked those sentences. Let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"although celebrities would be killed off in future episodes" maybe "although celebrities have been killed off in subsequent episodes"
  • OK. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

More later. Looks really close, though. If you don't feel a suggestion is an improvement, don't do it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose There were several less than adequite sections in this article. Notably the Seinfeld section fits terribly in its current position, and several sentances seem to drone on and on. Try commas. They help, really, it's true. Also, I despise South Park, which makes it easy for me to oppose this. I personally think South Park has zero EV. Nezzadar (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I doubt this objection will be even be seriously considered in the end, since you are blatantly and overtly violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That being said, I've reworked some sentences, and would certainly be open to any other specific suggestions you might have. As for the Seinfeld thing, I've reworded it a bit, but since the information has to do with casting, it seems to me the production section is exactly where it belongs... — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply—I had no idea the YouTube clip was just a preview. I had listened to a number of the later season commentaries and those are all only 2-3 minutes long (correct me if I'm wrong). So I assumed that the commentary for this episode was only that long too. Further comments—
    • Not a problem at all. In fact, you are correct; in later seasons, Parker and Stone limited their commentaries to only two or three minutes long, but in the first season (and possibly a bit in the second, I'm not sure) they did full length episode commentaries, so I can certainly see where you would draw that conclusion... — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • According to its own article, the use of Third World to describe the poorer nations of the world "is widely disparaged since the term no longer holds any verifiable meaning after the fall of the Soviet Union deprecated the terms First World and Second World." So we should replace the term.
    • I replaced it with "poorer countries". Do you think this is sufficient? — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • How about "impoverished countries"? Or is that too strong a term, and correspondingly in need of a stronger reference? Poorer countries seems a little ambiguous to me here as every country of the world is "poorer" than the United States :). indopug (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "the African nation Ethiopia, which is famous for its two famines from the mid-1980s."—it seems very dismissive and rather offensive to suggest that an entire country is only famous for its famines. The source you need to cite for such a claim would be a scholarly Ethiopian history/politics book, rather than just a news report.
    • I absolutely did not mean to be dismissing or offensive, and apologize if I did. I changed the wording to "experienced two famines", rather than to say it is famous for them. I would think this wording is less problematic and should be sufficient with the current source. Is this better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Better. (but how odd it is that we are being so politically correct when discussing South Park!) indopug (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Cite Error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named Englund."
    • I fixed that one. Will try to address the other items a bit later tonight. — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Parker and Stone said the character is not named after the Starvin' Marvin's brand of American gas stations, and that the similarity between the two names is just a coincidence." The source you cite just says "I live in Pensacola, FL. We have a Starvin' Marvin's gas station here. Did Trey and Matt know this and name Marvin after that or is it just a cow-inky-dink? That's one hell of a cowinkydink!" There's no indication that this was said by Parker and Stone. Also, considering that you are citing an often tongue-in-cheek primary source (and I have no idea what's a cow-inky-dink), it might be best to leave out this tidbit of information.
    • I can (and did) change it to reflect that this did not come from Parker and Stone necessarily, although I think they do screen those answers, if not write them. I suppose I could remove it if you think it doesn't belong though. Take a look at the new wording, and if you still think it should go, I'll cut it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How is the DVD release info related to the production of the episode? I suggest renaming Reception to Release and reception, and moving the DVD paragraph there.
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "is considered a classic South Park episode" not sure this is exactly established in the rest of the article. Further, considering that it is presently agreed—even by the creators—that South Park's earliest episodes aren't anywhere as good as the later ones, I doubt this statement has much merit. It sure as hell ain't "Scott Tenorman Must Die". indopug (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think this can be addressed by changing the wording in the lead from "is considered a classic episode" to "several reviewers have described it as a classic episode", which is what the wording is in the body of the article anyway. As far as what you are saying about the classification, I understand your logic and I don't necessarily think it's one of the best episodes either. But we do have multiple sources here characterizing it as a classic episode, so I think it warrants inclusion even if you and I don't necessarily agree... — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure the changed wording is an improvement, to be honest. (For one, the words 'review' and 'reviewers' in the same sentence makes for bad reading.) And that doesn't really solve the problem I had in the first place. By calling it a classic in the lead, we imply that it is commonly considered a masterpiece episode, which is not true as many series overviews of South Park (i.e. lists like "Best Episodes/Moments Ever") don't really mention this episode at all. The two references you use to cite this (#17 and #18) are both from 1999. To validate it as a classic you would need a consensus of sources from much later, when it can be compared to more of the show's canon. I suggest just describing it as a highlight of the first season in the lead; if you disagree, you can revert to the previous version of the sentence. indopug (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Further— I believe this is getting close, so allow me to be pedantic and nitpicky.

  • (I think you missed my comment above in between Peregrine Fisher's) Is the mention of Braveheart in the plot section necessary? It doesn't improve the reader's understanding of the plot, especially if they haven't seen the film.
  • South Park Studios (official site) shouldn't be italicised or linked. (Since the South Park article to which it redirects carries no information about it.) If you are citing any other websites, they shouldn't be italicised either.
  • "after which she was very upset and reportedly ... was particularly upset" Reword "upset".
  • "although they have not apologized"—how do you know they haven't apologized? If its just by the fact that they didn't "we are really sorry for what we did" in the 22-minute commentary, you are inferring things. Also, although they probably didn't, how do you know they haven't apologised to her elsewhere? If you can't find a secondary source to back this up, I suggest rewording to: "did not have anything against Struthers personally. However, they portrayed Struthers in an even less-flattering fashion in the third season episode "Starvin' Marvin in Space" as a Jabba the Hutt-like creature."
  • When you use quotes within quoted material, it should be in 'single quotes'. For eg: "4-disc "Rings" could take up a whole weekend" → "4-disc 'Rings' could take up a whole weekend".
  • References are inconsistently formatted. Ref 5 has date at the end, while the others have it in brackets next to the author. Also, while I don't think it absolutely necessary that newspaper refs contain refs, when you cite books it's kinda mandatory (refs 4 and 15). Refs 10 and 18 are duplicates. indopug (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Overman Committee

Nominator(s): Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


As one of the few (only?) editors who works at WP:REQ, I often have the opportunity to research some really obscure subjects. The first obscure subject that I actually researched very deeply was the article I am currently nominating, the Overman Committee. It's a bizarre tale of Red Scare xenophobia, and would sometimes be laughable if it wasn't true. Sadly, there is a dearth of sources describing the subject. As Schmidt puts it, "The Overman Committee is only briefly mentioned in literature and there is no comprehensive study, based on the primary sources, on this early forerunner of the HUAC". Furthermore, there is sometimes conflicting information. The most glaring example is the name of the committee. The US Senate website calls it a Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee; others (Lowenthal) give it no name other than "the committee". However, I have chosen Overman Committee because it is the most descriptive and the most commonly used.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I believe what I have compiled here is the "comprehensive study" of this obscure committee. You might object to how much of the article is in quotes, i.e., how much of it is directly quoted from the Committee. This was necessitated to avoid WP:OR as I skimmed through 4000-whatever pages of primary source testimony. I hope all the images are acceptable; however, only one could be found of the Committee itself in action. I of course will be happy to fix whatever problems anyone can find. I apologize in advance for any typos! Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. It still needs a bit of work, though.
  • "Black and white photo of" conveys little useful info of and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
  • "three members of the Overman Committee" can't be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the image (please see WP:ALT#Verifiability) and duplicates the caption (please see WP:ALT#Repetition).
  • The big letters "U.S." in the political cartoon should be transcribed somewhere into its alt text as per WP:ALT#Text.
Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Done?. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and so far so good, but now we have more images with more alt text, and there are still some minor comments about the previous alt text.
  • The alt text "A picture of a special section of the New York Times" cannot be verified by looking just at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability) and doesn't transcribe any of the text in this all-text image. I suggest discarding the existing alt text, and replacing it with something that focuses on transcribing the main headline (in all caps) and the subsidiary headline, as accurately as possible, as per WP:ALT#Text.
  • The phrase "A political cartoon" in the alt text repeats the caption, and should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition. (There are two instances of this).
  • A very minor point: the first cartoon says "U.S." but the alt text says "US"; the alt text should transcribe the text as accurately as feasible.
Eubulides (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologize. I believe I have fixed all three points now. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that did it. I tweaked it a bit more to preserve capitalization and mention it's a clipping, but this was minor. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing those last two bits yourself. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Facts and Fabrications About Soviet Russia is a reprint of a 1920 work (see here. This should be reflected in the bilbiographical entry.
  • The Yeardon/Hawkins ref says "Lulu.com" as the publisher, which is a self-publishing company. Note the World Cat entry gives a different publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Still waiting to hear why the second source is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, like you said, the World Cat entry said that the book was published by a more reliable publisher - Progressive Press. Furthermore, this is the publisher listed on the second page of the Google Books scan. I hope that makes it reliable enough. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm hardly thinking this is a "more reliable press". Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed both ([10][11]) uses of the reference. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat

Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it was recently listed as a GA, and I believe it is ready to be promoted. This article was exhaustively researched, and is factually accurate, neutral, and very detailed in aspects discussing the comic strip, its publication history, the film adaptations and their legacy. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.toonopedia.com/fritz.htm
      • Donald D. Markstein is a well-known animation historian. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC))
        • Do we have an article on him? Or something to show this is the case? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
          • The site has previously been considered a reliable source and is often found in animation-related FAs. In this case, I can take the citation out, since it is redundant for the statement being cited. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC))
    • http://thedailycrosshatch.com/
      • This is an interview with Ralph Bakshi, the director of the film Fritz the Cat. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC))
        • I did notice that, but what makes the site itself reliable for reporting the interview? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
          • The site features a number of interviews and news stories relating to the animation industry. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC))
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I decided to remove these sections, being that this information is covered in other articles, where it fits better. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC))
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Prose looks reasonably good. Only a few hitches in my quick look-through.

  • Lead: could remove "assorted"; "a worldwide hit" might be slightly exaggerated; "it was a directorial debut", better than "served as".
  • "within" better as "in (early 1960s)".
  • Fritz's personality is "glib, smooth and self-assured," —comma after the quotation unless it's really there in the original (even then, you don't need it within the quotation); please (see MoS).
  • ""I just got into drawing him. [...] He was fun to"—ellipsis after a period is unspaced four dots: him... He was ... (And when not straddling a period, three dots spaced both sides—see "animals ... they're". Please audit throughout.
  • "Anthropomorphic" linked twice; I think the first time is enough (?)
  • The hated "in order to"—I've expunged it ("to").
  • Major cities such as London, New York, LA—not usually linked (WP:LINK). Tony (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how File:Fritz the Cat double feature.jpg is tied to the text. A poster is mentioned, but it doesn't appear to be this poster. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Expanded rationale. The text doesn't refer to the poster itself, but a presentation that Ralph Bakshi put together for Warner Bros. The image illustrates the animation style and the exploitive promotion techniques used by the films' distributors. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
      • The poster still isn't mentioned in the text, even in passing. I fail to see how a user's understanding is harmed by its removal. Nothing of the text cares one wit for the poster. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

MissingNo.

Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


This article is a thorough, full and well rounded look at MissingNo., a controversial character in Pokémon Red and Blue used as an error handler that many people became quickly acquainted with, and one with a lasting impact. With the i's dotted, a thorough peer review, and an even more thorough copyedit, this should be a pleasure to read for you.Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. While certain reviewers might take issue with the length, it passes all FA criteria and appears to fully cover the topic. I heavily copyedited the article prior to its nomination, but as far as I know, that does not void my support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is very short. Could you give details of MissingNo.'s abilities? Also, could you extend the background re: capturing, battling pokemon? If I hadn't had friends who played the games, I wouldn't understand the article without fishing through the bluelinks. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Going more in-depth than it is currently runs risk of violating WP:GAMEGUIDE, per previous editor's comments during the Peer Review and A-class assessment processes. As it stands all applicable information is already in the article despite its length.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's being cited solely for the Hall of Fame corruption information, however that info is actually repeated in another source in the article so replacing it to save hassle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Images check out—article has one non-free image, but its use is justified. I'm not sure I'm satisfied, though, with the writing style or depth of coverage in the "Reaction and reception" section (particularly the second paragraph). First of all, the style is a bit clunky; I think it over-attributes the author (saying "the book talks about how," "the author believes", etc.) where it could be more active (for example, instead of saying "the book talks about how players compare notes...", the article could just describe players taking notes, and then have a footnote). This makes the prose feel a bit dry, IMO. Also, things are left unexplained or just glossed over. For example, "The author believed MissingNo.'s popularity to be an unusual case, with unique circumstances"—why does he think this, what does he think is unusual/unique, etc.? This is a very short article, and I think this section needs to be where the bulk of the content is (since the reaction to MissingNo. is what makes it notable), but right now it just doesn't feel complete to me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "why does he think this, what does he think is unusual/unique, etc." I'm sorry but the author never actually explained that in the detail you seem to want. He gave three pages worth of discussion to how players reacted to the character and the study of such: the text is a straight up summary, so I don't see how it over-attributes said author. Adding more would require reading into his statements and walking into original research territory.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • For now, then, I will have to stay Neutral. This article is certainly a good article and also meets most of the FA criteria, but without more to offer I'm not sure it can be considered to be among Wikipedia's "very best work"—it does an excellent job creating a good article out of what little information is available, but unless more stuff becomes available this might just be too obscure a topic to write an FA about. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • No FA criterion states, "Articles that present a complete summary of a notable topic should be at least 30kb in size", or something like that. Wikipedia's "best work" is that which adheres to all FA criteria, not that which follows unwritten guidelines. If you have a problem with the length, when the subject clearly has enough coverage for a complete and notable summary, then I suggest that you make a push to update the FA criteria on related talk pages. As to the "over-attribution" of that author, I disagree. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should mention the writer in the prose every time they are used as a source. Not doing so necessitates synthesis and other forms of OR, such as "Several reviewers found fault with..." constructions. Properly, it should be "*source* said that several reviewers found fault with...", or simply the presentation of the reviews without a summary. Citing the former construction with those several reviews is synthesis, and therefore OR. Similarly, to state that author's comments without attribution is to give them "undue weight". How do we know that any of his statements are true? They could all be lies or fabrications. But that doesn't matter, because they are verifiable against reliable sources. So why confuse the reader by pretending that Wikipedia tells the truth, when all we're supposed to do is compile statements from reliable - not factual - sources? Better to attribute them and avoid the whole mess.
        • All of the above policy violations may be accepted practices at FAC (and believe me, they are; I've used them myself), but you can't openly suggest that it should be done this way without a backlash. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I never said the article should be 30k or any other arbitrary length, that's something you completely made up; I said I don't think it gives enough information, and it leaves me with unanswered questions (if you want this put in terms of FA criteria, that's 1b). So stop putting words in my mouth. As for "over-attribution", you seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying; I wasn't talking about citation issues, I was talking about writing style. Having "he says," "he believes", etc., on every single sentence is clunky (that's your criterion 1a, since you seem to be so hung up on wording things in terms of FA criteria and nothing else).
          • I looked carefully at the article and, if you haven't noticed, I didn't "oppose"; I'm not sure what I've done to warrant this snarky response from you. For Kung Fu Man's sake especially, I suggest you refrain from leaving any more snarky respones to comments people make here; the behavior of supporters often reflects on the FAC/RFA/AFD/whatever itself, and other people shouldn't have to pay for your silly remarks. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (Outdent) Rjanag, I was not being snarky. If it came off that way, I apologize. I realize that you did not oppose, but I also know that opposition and support do not necessarily cause the FA director(s) to pass or fail an article. They judge consensus; when you leave a comment that questions the article's completeness—even if it's a neutral comment—they take note. These things are often what cause an article to fail, and so they must be attended to. As for your complaints about the article, you must present something "actionable", as they say. As in, it has to be something that can be fixed. If the article leaves you with questions, then what questions are they? Thus far, you have complained that the Reaction section is too brief. But if there is no other information to include, that isn't an actionable complaint. It also does not fall under 1b, as no "major facts or details" are neglected. What other major facts or details about MissingNo. exist? If you state these, or if you know of "relevant literature on the topic" not covered in the article, then complaints about completeness are justified. Your other complaint, regarding the attribution of the book source, was what I was arguing against; I was not talking about citations. Analyses should be attributed to their source in the prose—not just with a footnote. My previous comment digressed to explain that this is how policy would have it for all sourced material, despite its lack of enforcement at FAC. This does not fall under 1a, but rather 1d. An article that cites someone's analysis as fact is not neutral. "The book states that, in their attempts to canonize MissingNo. through fan art and fiction, Pokémon communities celebrated the game's imperfections and tried to imprint themselves on series' canon." - this becomes, "In their attempts to canonize MissingNo. through fan art and fiction, Pokémon communities celebrated the game's imperfections and tried to imprint themselves on series' canon." I can think of no way to reword this and keep the original meaning. The same goes for all the other prose-attributed statements. "MissingNo.'s popularity was an unusual case, with unique circumstances"? It just doesn't work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no further comment about the "1b" thing because I've already said my piece and don't want to hijack this FAC by going around in circles. As for the "1a" bit... if you think every sentence in an article should say "___ says" or "according to ___", that's all well and good, but you can spend weeks searching around and you will not find an FA, or any other article, that does that. Such a writing style would be impossible to sit down and read. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fredonian Rebellion

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Have you ever been tempted to personally secede from your country? Probably. Most of us don't actually do this, because the end result would be anarchy (imagine having to show a passport to go visit your next-door neighbor!). In 1826, one Texas man did declare his land to be a new republic, and he convinced 30 other settlers to join him. He even signed a treaty with the Cherokee and designed his own flag. It was a pretty half-hearted rebellion, but it had some amazingly long-term consequences—it was the precursor to the Texas Revolution a decade later. I hope you enjoy this latest installation of crazy Texas antics (seriously, HOW did these people win a revolution?), and I hope you find no problems with the article; if you do, I will be happy to take a look. Karanacs (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have no knowledge of the subject matter, but after a lit search am wondering why none of the following sources are cited in the article: Sasata (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Jack Jackson (2005). Indian Agent: Peter Ellis Bean in Mexican Texas. ISBN=978-1585444441. Chapter 5 = "The Fredonian Rebellion". pp. 61–76.
  • Eugene C. Barker (1925). The Life of Stephen F. Austin, Founder of Texas, 1793–1836. Dallas: Cokesbury Press. 551 pp.
  • Carlos E. Castaneda. (1950). The Fight for Freedom, 1810–1836. Austin, Texas: Von Boeckmann-Jones Co. 384 pp.
  • Richard Drinnon (1972). White Savage; the case of John Dunn Hunter. New York: Schocken Books. 282 pp.
  • Richard Drinnon (1975). "The Metaphysics of Empire-Building: American Imperialism in the Age of Jefferson and Monroe". The Massachusetts Review 16(4):666–688
  • Edmund Morris Parsons. (1967). "The Fredonian Rebellion". Texana 5(1):11–52
  • Hodding Carter. (1971). Doomed road of empire: The Spanish trail of conquest (The American trails series). McGraw-Hill. 407 pp.
  • The abstract of one source I see claims this about Humphrey Jackson (1784-1833): "As militia officer he helped to put down the Fredonian Rebellion." However, his name isn't mentioned in the article. Source: Andrew Forest Muir. (1965). Humphrey Jackson, alcalde of San Jacinto." Southwestern Historical Quarterly 68(3):361–365.
Thanks for checking out the sources! From a quick review, the following sources are not appropriate:
  • Life of Stephen F. Austin - that is a very old biography (there are more recent, better ones), and this incident was extremely minor in Austin's life. It would rate a mention, yes, but not enough discussion to add anything to the article.
  • The Castaneda book is an overview of Mexican Texas; the Davis book I cite is a more recent (and better received) analysis of the same period.
  • The Carter book is primarily concerned with Spanish rule, which ended before the events of this article took place.
  • The Jackson source would be too specific - he was one of 250 in Austin's colony who volunteered to help, and none of them actually fought. (see also [12])
I'll check out the others tomorrow and see if they would be useful.

Karanacs (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My library had a copy of the Peter Ellis bean book, and I've added a few details from it.[13] The book added nothing new to the analysis of the impact of the event. I have not been able to track down the other sources, but I am fairly confident that they would not have more to add. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
To be thorough, I consulted Gregg Cantrell's recent biography of Stephen F. Austin. One page was devoted to the Fredonian Rebellion, and all applicable information was already covered by other sources cited in this article. Karanacs (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I made some corrections, hope I didn't mess anything up. Article looks good, expect for the following sentence: "After Chaplin's victory, many settlers alleging vote-stacking in an appeal to Juan Antonio Saucedo, the political chief of the Department of Bexar." Wasn't 100% sure if "alleged" was to be substituted in there. Also one small question about "...in April 1827 the Towakoni and Waco sued for peace." Could you clarify "sued"... did the Indians take them to court? Sasata (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Your corrections look great, thanks very much! I changed "alleging" to "alleged", and wikilinked sued for peace to provide more clarity. (It's not a court action but is instead a diplomatic process.) Karanacs (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This is a terrific article on a very interesting piece of US History. It is thoroughly researched using the most scholarly sources on the subject matter. I do not see the need to cite less scholarly sources or sources of equal scholarship when they say the same thing anyway. NancyHeise talk 16:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you Nancy, and thank you also for your detailed peer review of the article. Karanacs (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - with regard to Criterion 1a. I found a few typos [14], which I took the liberty of fixing. An engaging article, which was a pleasure to read, thank you. Graham Colm Talk 15:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Graham, for fixing my mistakes! Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks great. ceranthor 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've removed that. Karanacs (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Anglo" (in the first sentence) isn't a word, it's a prefix. It should be replaced with "English", "English-speaking", "Anglo-Saxon", or some similar term. Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Anglo" is actually commonly used as a noun among historians of this period in Texas history (1821-1836). It refers to anyone who was not born in Mexico/Spanish territory. Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • While it may be easy for people familiar with Texas history to know what "Anglo" means, it is by no means a well-known or well-used term (by itself). Why wouldn't you want to replace it will a term anyone could understand? Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to but in - but - I'm butting : ) - why not just wikilink Anglo which is properly and commonly used alone, not simply as a prefix. See definition in Merriam Webster dictionary. [15] NancyHeise talk 03:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Image review File:TXMap-doton-Nacogdoches.PNG has dubious sourcing and copyright status. It is marked PD with no reason. The article is also generally low on images, having only two. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Another Air Marshal, another interesting character... Let this one sit at GA/A-Class for a while but now added new material to round out and clarify what was there, particularly in early career, and hopefully remembered all the MOS updates since it passed those early milestones. For those who reviewed earlier, more anecdotes await such as what he did to miss out on commanding No. 10 Squadron on the eve of World War II, and how a certain section of the Great Barrier Reef came to be named after him... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • "…in 1915, at the age of thirteen." I'm not sure about the comma, but you can take out "the" and "of".
    • Thanks for your review/comments. This is done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Link secondment.
  • The quote "reservedly pleased about the publicity" should have a reference immediately after it.
    • Take your point but that would result in two consecutive sentences with exactly the same citation, and given recent discussion on 'over-citing' at the FAC talk page there might also be objections to that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "The result was that…" sounds a bit clunky; perhaps "As a result…" or something similar.
  • I think "General Kenney considered Hewitt's removal "bad news"." Should be switched with the sentence preceding it, with the rest of the sentences presenting reaction to Hewitt's removal.
    • I tried the switch but the "As a result..." statement didn't seem to flow that way. Also it's really only Kenney among his contemporaries who had an opinion after the fact - the preceding stuff is more the machinations of the transfer itself, along with modern historians' perspective. Happy to discuss further though, in case I've missed the point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any information on his burial? Mm40 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Not among my sources, unfortunately. The dedicated entries on him in High Fliers and the Oxford Companion don't go into that level of detail, and he's one of the many odd omissions from the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which invariably does include that sort of thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • comment Interesting article, I spent some time checking details against his service record(241 pages one of the longest I've read) available from National Archives of Australia, you'll need to search under his full name[16] NAA searches arent linkable
  • Thanks Gnan, sorry for not replying earlier but there was a lot to go through there, as you know. Funnily enough, I checked for digital personnel records on Hewitt in NAA not that long ago with the express purpose of double-checking dates and seeing if there was anything vital I didn’t already have, and this one never came up, only his separate 5-page RAN record. Apart from that, I'll preface my response by saying that I prefer not to use NAA records unless absolutely necessary, practically because the links are often flaky, and idealistically because I think an encyclopedia ought not rely on primary sources – though admittedly many MilHist bios do use these things (I have myself on occasion) and of course the London Gazette is ubiquitous for citing decorations. On the other hand, I’d always check to ensure that my secondary and tertiary sources aren’t actually contradicted by the file, which is exactly what you’ve done here, so pls see below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • question 4 May 1925, holding a temporary commission as a Flying Officer; maybe a RAF rank can you clarify, service record pg89 states promotions to;
  • Flight Officer 30.Jan.1923, (honary Flt Lieutenant while on loan from RAN to RAAF 1923 service record pg 233)
  • Flt lieutenant 3.apr.1928,(also the date he transferred to the RAAF)
  • Squarden leader 17.Feb.1931,
  • Wing Commander 1.Jan.1938,
  • Group Captain(temporary) 1.12.1939....
  • I’m not sure that the temporary commission he held in the RAF contradicts anything in his RAAF personnel file and, after all, both the file and the Gazette are primary sources so it could be argued they’re just as accurate as one another. What all this is saying is that he simultaneously held three ranks in three services at once: Lieutenant in the RAN, Flight Lieutenant (temporary) in the RAAF, and Flying Officer (temporary) in the RAF. Frankly I have no problem losing the RAF commission bit if you think it confuses things, as I don’t find it that interesting, but short of that I don’t know that anything would need changing in this article because of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think a clarifier that your referring to a RAF rank, because thats what I couldnt differentiate Gnangarra 08:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • he was controversially removed from his post in mid-November 1943 service record pg90 states AOC 9OG 15.feb.42 to 17.Dec.43
  • Three sources (Oxford Companion, Stephens in The Royal Australian Air Force and Odgers in the Official History) all say that he was sacked in November. I think it’s reasonable for both dates to be correct, as he would’ve had to remain at his post for a short while before being replaced. Harry Cobby was sacked from command of First Tactical Air Force in April 1945, but didn’t leave until his replacement, Frederick Scherger, arrived in May. To clarify in the article, I can leave the bit about his sacking in mid-November as is, and just add that Lukis took over in December (which we can cite using Lukis’ Australian Dictionary of Biography entry). How does that sound? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • that does sound good because I'd expect someone really interested in Hewitt would ask the same question of why the descrepency of 1 month. Gnangarra 08:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the above, the dates in the article correspond to his service record. Gnangarra 14:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tks for your review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • support which ever way go with these I can now see the why in the wording so I have no issue with supporting this one.Gnangarra 08:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This article is outstanding in every respect and easily meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Image review Copyright status of all the images seems fine. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Shojo Beat

Nominator(s): -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the current featured article Critera. It is currently a Good Article and underwent an FAC preparatory peer review last month. All issues from that PR have been addressed. The article is complete, well sourced to quality, reliable sources, and covers all major aspects of the topic per guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
~silent scream~ I checked that when I first started, and ended up setting the wrong link at the dab is showed before :-P Fixed now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
ICv2 is a well-known, well-respected pop culture-focused news organization that has been around since the 80s. Their news reports and annual retailer uides have been quoted by The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal. Publishers Weekly, and of course Anime News Network and AnimeOnDVD/Mania. It used to be a print magazine called Internal Correspondence, a trade publication by Capital City Distribution until the latter was sold to Diamond Comic Distributors and its editor-in-chief, Milton Griepp, decided to continue it in its current online form. Very easily meets WP:RS :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought I recognized it... (Once, long ago, we sold comics through Capital City, of all things...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


I have recently expanded this article and believe it now meet the definition of an FA. I have asked that its WP:MILHIST peer review be closed so I can get at least some FA comments before I have to return Borderland Knight to the library. It's on interlibrary loan without any possible renewals. ‎Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

With such a noticeable name, shouldn't the reader be told why he was named after Simon Bolivar? I looked for it and didn't see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Ya know, even after reading Borderland Knight, I still don't know why he was named that. I haven't found a single reference to it. Odd. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you scour the sources one more time? If there's no reference, there's no reference, but it's surprising that it's not mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It was split from page 5 onto page 6 in Stickles. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Buster. Not sure how I missed that. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Went through this at its MilHist peer review and my few suggestions were quickly actioned, so happy to support here - this is detailed, balanced, and well-referenced. My only further suggestion is that it would be good to break up the text around the middle with another image; if there are no portraits available featuring the man then even something of an action he was involved in might be worthwhile - just a thought... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a mirror of that available, here. --darolew (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Darolew. I didn't add that link and didn't know anything about it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese classifier

Nominator(s): rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


I nominated this for FAC in early July (first FAC) and it was not promoted, I think mainly because of ongoing editing—my discussion with another user at the FAC became more of an unofficial peer review, so it was probably correct to not promote it until things had finished. Since then, however, that review has finished, and it has also been reviewed by another editor; thus, since I came to it, this article has had reviews/comments from Akerbeltz (here and around), Ricardiana (GAN), H1nkles (PR), Kwamikagami (old FAC and here), and an extensive copyedit/review from GeometryGirl (this and subsequent sections), as well as numerous copyedits from me. Now it is a good resource for all kinds of readers, both as a useful introduction for lay readers and beginning Chinese students, and as a detailed analysis and comprehensive bibliography for readers with a strong background in linguistics and/or Chinese language. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment: A rather didactic tone is apparent with phrases such as "To summarize," and "Note that," early in the article. Can these be removed? I will try and comment further later, and will do light copyedits as I read through. First impression: great work in developing the article to this stage. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Removed those two--thanks for the catch. I don't think it was me who put those in, but the article history is too long to go searching, and it doesn't really matter anyway--the point is perfecting what's there now :). I will give it another read-through to try to see if there are any other 'didactic' bits other than those. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but there are some areas where it can be improved:

  • For File:OracleShell.JPG the alt text duplicates the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition). Also, since the image contains prominent text it would be helpful if the alt text transcribed it (see WP:ALT#Tricky lettering). Can you turn it into Unicode?
  • For File:Ma Lin 001.jpg the alt text contains text "(1246, Ma Lin)" that cannot be verified just from the image, and needs to be removed or reworded; see WP:ALT#Verifiability.
  • Similarly, File:CCTV Building.jpg has alt text containing "China Central TV tower" which needs to be removed or reworded.
  • The phrases "blue sky in the background" is not-that-relevant detail and can be removed.

Eubulides (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    • File:OracleShell.JPG: the text is ancient Chinese and, as far as I know, does not have unicode for most of it—other than the few characters that are nearly the same as their present-day characters, like 早, most of these cannot be typed. I don't know how crucial it is, though; judging by the link you gave to Purely Decorative Images in this edit summary, it seems to me that either all of these images qualify as "purely decorative", or none do. The text on this oracle bone inscription is certainly not really relevant to the point being made; it's mostly just a decoration to break up the prose.
    • File:Ma Lin 001.jpg: Removed the text "(1246, Ma Lin)".
    • File:CCTV Building.jpg: both bits removed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the quick fixes and the explanations. Eubulides (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Further comments: This is by no means an easy article to read, but for those with patience (and a curiosity for the unfamiliar) it is worth the effort. I have read about two-thirds; my comments are mainly prose quibbles.

  • Count-classifiers and mass-classifiers
    • "Within the range of mass-classifiers, authors have proposed subdivisions..." Who are these "authors"?
      • There are footnotes after each subdivision discussed (currently, it's footnotes 18–20); this sentence is basically just a mini-introduction to the paragraph. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "...go so far as to propose..." is a bit POV-ish. Suggest delete the "go so far as to" and replace "propose" with "suggest"
      • Removed "so so far as"... I think 'propose' is better than 'suggest', though, since it is just a theory and, like most syntax theories, is pretty difficult to prove or disprove independently. (Then again, I suppose most of what's here is theory as well.)rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Verbal classifers: again the hint of POV – who describes Li and Thompson's work as "seminal"?
    • Li & Thompson (1981) and Chao (1968) are pretty much the 'Bibles' of Chinese linguistics, and almost every article or book on Chinese linguistics written since then cites both of them. (That's not to say they're right; they are, of course, outdated, and we often spend more of our time arguing against them than for them... but they are still generally seen as a starting point, at least, especially in English-language publications.) That being said, the word "seminal" is not necessary here, so I've removed it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Relation to nouns
    • This sentence: "The Chinese languages each have a large number of nominal classifiers" is virtually an exact repeat of the opening sentence of paragraph 2 under the "Types" heading.
      • Removed that part of the sentence, I agree it's not necessary. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • This sentence: "The specific factors that govern which classifiers are paired with which nouns have been a subject of debate among linguists" could do with a citation (which might enable those interested to observe the nature of the debate).
      • This, again, is basically a mini-introduction/summary: since the entire section is about this debate and has about 25 footnotes (35&ndash60 or so), I didn't see a need for an over-general reference at the beginning. If one is necessary, though, the Zhang (2007) article is a pretty good review (it's already cited a bunch of times throughout the section anyway). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Categories and prototypes
    • Several terms in this section have quote marks, e.g. "classical", "conditions", "criteria", "prototype" etc. It is not clear why this should be so.
      • Removed a few; kept "family resemblance" because it's Tai's wording and not mine, and it's not necessarily an everyday word. (Another option, though, would be to remove the quotes and link the term, since it's jargon from linguistic philosophy); kept "classical" because that word in particular is used in a lot of the sources to describe that theory, and I could imagine a reader somewhere down the road going "what's so 'classic' about this?", so I figured I should keep it in quotes to attribute it to its sources. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs
  • Neutralization
    • "It has been noted as early as the 1940s..." "It was noted..." And "as early as the 1940s" reads oddly in the context of languages, which typically develop over thousands of years. I think the whole sentence could do with a bit of treatment, and suggest: "It was noted in the 1940s that the use of 个 was increasing, with a tendency towards replacing specific classifiers with it."
      • While languages develop over thousands of years, they can change in the blink of an eye (look at how fast new slang words can become mainstream), so the reason I used "it was noted" is that this may have been a phenomenon that happened at that time—we have no way of knowing if this kind of neutralization happened in spoken language before Lu (I think that's who it was) wrote about it in the 40s, and thus I didn't want to suggest that it was a speech phenomenon that's been around for hundreds of years. As for "as early as", I had that in there to emphasize this is a speech style that has been around for decades, it's not just recent 'bad grammar' (and, also, to emphasize that this is still going on today--it wasn't just pointed out back then and stopped, but people still talk this way).
  • Variation in usage
    • Several sentences in this section (and others) begin "For example..." Readability is helped if there is some variety in expression; "An example of this is...", or "By way of illustration,..." are possibly ways of varying "For example..."
      • Removed two of them; I think "by way of illustration" is a bit awkward, but it's probably better than over-repeating "for example".
    • "...the lexical meaning of a noun." What is the "lexical" meaning (as distinct from the plain "meaning")?

I will complete my reading over the next couple of days or so. I would very much like to see some analysis from an editor who has some expertise in this area, to see if my instincts about the article quality are confirmed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I'll leave responses above (I find it easier to leave responses directly under the comments, but if you don't like this format let me know and I'll refactor myself). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have emailed Kathleen Ahrens asking for an expert review. I will let everyone know if she replies. 92.149.7.218 (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I'm reiterating my support from last time, especially as I think the article has improved since then (the addition of further examples, etc.) As a student of Mandarin, I find this to be easily the best and most thorough treatment of a part of the Chinese language that is notoriously difficult to learn and to explain. I believe this article meets all of the FA criteria and is a remarkably useful discussion of a remarkably difficult subject. Ricardiana (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I found that Morev's paper is available at http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/morev2000afterthoughts.pdf Maybe we could add links to other online papers. 92.149.7.218 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Almost none of the others are; Shie, T'sou, and maybe Allan are freely available, but the rest I got through my library or bought. Shie and Morev used to be linked in the article, but I decided it looks ugly to have just a few articles linked and the rest not. I think the readers who have enough interest to go beyond this article and read the papers themselves, are probably also the people who know how to find those papers (through a library, etc.). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Freely available papers should be linked; it is both an invitation to read the source and an easy way to gain time for the interested reader. Also, current references 24, 27, 35, 37, 52, 54, 55, etc. are lacking page number.
        • Those references are lacking page numbers on purpose, because for those parts the reference is the entire paper (ie, the whole paper, including the abstract, is about whatever thing is being discussed there in the prose). As for linking papers... I can dig up the links and add them, but I guess first I'd like to wait and see what other people looking have to say. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Biq is freely available here: http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/eip/FILES/journal/2007.3.9.89451234.6382483.pdf
          • This paper could be useful: http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/churen/language20sciences.pdf
            • Thanks for the Ahrens paper, I'll try to take a closer look soon. Based on my skim of it, it looks like it won't have much new stuff to add to this article (not to imply that there's nothing new here—just that what is new is pretty technical, and not necessary to cover in a general encyclopedia article), but it can be an extra reference for the following sentence already there: Finally, a single word may have multiple count-classifiers that convey different meanings altogether—in fact, the choice of a classifier can even influence the meaning of a noun. (currently has footnote #59, so this paper could just be added to that footnote). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Update It looks like it will also be useful for the section on verbal classifiers. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So for example the sentence "Likewise, while long things that are flexible (such as ropes) often take 条 (條) tiáo, long things that are rigid (such as sticks) take 根 gēn, unless they are also round (like pens or cigarettes), in which case in some dialects they take 枝 zhī." is referenced by two whole papers?
    • Pretty much; the Tai & Wang paper is "A semantic study of the classifier tiao", it's all about tiao. For the other paper (Tai 1994), I can get a specific page number, though. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What about "and function (tools, vehicles, machines, etc.)"? Is that the subject of a whole paper?
    • The reference for this one does have a page number: Hu 1993, p. 1. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • All reference without page number should be checked to confirm that they indeed don't need a page number. 92.149.7.218 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I went through last night, checked, and added a few page numbers where they didn't seem inappropriate; the ones that are left without page numbers are, by my standard at least, just the ones that don't need them:
      • Tzeng, Chen & Hung 1991 (currently ref #56): citing a statement about aphasics' overuse of 个. That paper is entirely about aphasic classifier production and this is their main finding, it's discussed throughout the whole paper and is in the abstract.
      • Ahrens 1994 (currently ref #59): citing a statement about patterns that govern overuse of 个. Same thing, this is the main point of the paper and is in the abstract (if I cited page numbers for it, I would be citing something like a 15-page range anyway).
      • Tai 1994 (currently ref #62): citing a statement about how classifier-noun pairings vary across speakers. The bulk of this paper is an inventory of kinds of classifiers and how they are used in different speaker populations.
      • Li 2000 (currently used in ref #66 and #71): in all cases, used to cite statements about when and why speakers may choose to use a bare NP rather than a classifier phrase (or vice versa). In all instances, this is the main finding of the paper and is in the abstract.
      • Peyraube 1991 (currently used in ref #86): citing a statement that throughout history classifiers were not always mandatory and not always used. Like Tai 1994, this paper is basically an inventory of historical periods and, for the most part, examples of how little classifiers were used; trying to cite individual pages would result in citing almost every page of the paper anyway.
    • I believe that's all of them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Comment - File:OracleShell.JPG shows a modern replica, and this should be made clear in the caption, as it is in the other articles that use this photo. William Avery (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My final comments: Just a few points picked up in the later sections of the article:-

  • Purpose section
    • "...in many discourse settings, speakers are reported to avoid specific classifiers" - overelaborate? Could "many discourse settings" be "conversation"?
      • A conversation is one kind of discourse setting... but I agree this sentence is unnecessarily complicated. Shortened it to "in many settings, speakers avoid specific classifiers"... it's been reported so widely that I don't think we need to weasel out of it by saying "are reported", and in any case there are references. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The interjection "though" doesn't seem necessary
      • If you're referring to "Classifiers can be used stylistically, though"... I think I put that there to contrast it against the Greenburg-ian view that they serve no real purpose. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Nor, a little later, does "in other words", which occurs twice in the final para (at least one should be dropped) and several times earlier in the article.
  • History - Classifier phrases
    • There's another "in other words" that could be rephrased
    • "stylistic issue" → "stylistic reasons"
    • "What is certain is that..." This is the return of the didactic voice - should be removed.
    • The sentence beginning "According to historical linguist" is impossibly long and complex. It should be simplified and broken up inti 2 or 3 shorter sentences.
    • "He speculates..." "He" is too far away from the last mention of the name, so "Payraube speculates..."
    • General prose style - many sentences are over-lengthened by too much use of colons and semicolons. This makes following the already difficult prose even harder!
      • Ok, I've split four or five sentences where it seemed possible. Hopefully this will help. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • History - Classifier words
    • "...Li Jinxi treated classifiers just a type of noun that..." Something missing? Or replace "just" with "as"?
      • Oops, you're right, that was a typo. Fixed to "as just" (I like having the "just" in there because it helps express that he was not treating them as their own category.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Qualified support: All issues raised by me have been addressed satisfactorily. The "qualified" simply means that I would like to see a comment from an expert in the subject that says "This is OK" or words to that effect. On the principle that no news is good news, if no such expert is forthcoming in a few days I'll remove the qualification anyway. I am really impressed by the effort that has gone into this article, and certainly see it as potentially among Wikipedia's best work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral I think this is a very good reference on Chinese classifiers; the best that I know of. However, each time I give it a read I find issues (listed on the talk page), suggesting that much improvement is in order. Also I haven't had a chance to review the references fully, and I don't know of anyone who did the job other than Rjanag who put them up in the first place. When I return to Cambridge I will have access to all the sources and I will check every sentence for appropriate and correct citation; I will also verify that the sources have not been plagiarised. GeometryGirl (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I will be getting to your next batch of talkpage comments this afternoon, hopefully. Please keep in mind, though, that when there is always more than one way to say something, and when an article has gone through as many rounds of copyediting as this has it's inevitable that editors will always find things that they wouldn't mind 'tweaking', which doesn't necessarily mean it's all bad writing—it just means that everyone has their own preferences about how things should be written. I am grateful for your continued comments because they have been helpful; at the same time, though, I just wanted to emphasize that this doesn't necessarily mean that massive "improvement" is needed... rather, it could just mean the article has reached a "quality plateau". Even in the most developed featured articles, everyone will still find phrases that they'd like changed here and there. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, support Perfection is probably not the goal at FAC after all. Rjanag is surprisingly efficient in dealing with issues brought up so I trust that - even with a star - the article will be open to extended improvement. (I'm also curious to see the potential effects of being on the main page.) GeometryGirl (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This is great. There are a few things that need fine tuning, but then again, I think just about every article needs fine tuning. One thing that should be adressed though is the red links in the Classifier words subsection. Will there ever be a page on Lü Shuxiang? I doubt it, but someone found it needed to be a link. Same with the two books. This is aesthetic, but I happen to not like the look of red links, especially those that will never be linked to pages. Nezzadar (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • For the redlinks in that section, GeometryGirl and I only created redlinks for pages that have a corresponding article on zh-wiki. I don't know about Li Jinxi, but I do know Lü Shuxiang is a giant in the field of Chinese linguistics (his book is cited about as often, and on the same level, as Chao 1968 and Li & Thompson 1981) and ought to have an article here—that might even go onto my to-do list. Same for the books; these have corresponding articles on zh-wiki. To be honest, I am more concerned about the redlinked English names than the chinese ones (Ahrens, Erbaugh, Li and Tai (ok, those two are Chinese names, but English-language publications); while these people's papers are all widely cited in this topic and they all have made major contributions to the field, I'm not sure if they meet Wikipedia's standard for notability, and if I personally were going to start an article on any of them I don't know where I'd start. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The images File:Denimjeans2.JPG, File:Ulm2-midsize.jpg, File:Garden bench 001.jpg, File:Frecklesmule.jpg are used in violation of their licenses, each of which requires the license to be displayed with the images. As these images are not clickable, the license is not displayed properly; their use is therefore a copyright violation. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've addressed this by removing link#= where appropriate. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for fixing that, Dabomb. These images used to be in other templates (like {{double image}}) and after the template was changed I never noticed that they were no longer clickable. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Great, support now. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Ok so it isn't quite the greatest rock album ever like DSotM, but its probably up there in the top ten and certainly ranks top of some people's lists. Its slightly shorter than I'd like but that's more down to a paucity of written material than anything else (DSotM has entire books written about it, WYWH does not). Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The alt text is quite good and very detailed, but it's a bit long; see WP:ALT#Brevity. Relatively unimportant etails like "The sky is blue with no clouds." can be omitted. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I'll give a more thorough review later, but here are a few right off the bat:
  • discogs.com is not reliable in the same way that IMDb is not reliable, as they're both user-generated. You've double sourced the release information you're citing anyway, so unless I'm mistaken removing the discogs citation doesn't change anything.
  • Reference 45 seems to be broken; check over this real quick, seems like a simple fix. It's evident from the ref name alone exactly what you were trying to cite.
  • Same issue as DSotM on the formatting of the "Sales chart performance" table.
  • Another minor issue, which also came up with DSotM; I'm not sure how exactly this is fixed, but it bothers me that the titles of web references are italicized and not in quotes as they should be. Can someone explain why this is?

--Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Regarding the citations, they're formatted entirely correctly; this article uses the {{citation}} template. There's no "as they should be" about it – while the {{cite web}} template puts them in quotes instead of italics, there's no requirement to use one template over the other as long as the use within the article is consistent. – iridescent 09:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • All done, ref 45 had been accidently deleted by another user. I prefer to use the Citation template (easier for newcomers to understand). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment A few other things I've noticed:

  • The paragraph that begins "In 2007, one of Germany's largest public radio stations..." in the "Sales" subsection should be up in the "Reception" section with the other retrospective ratings and listings.
  • It is not made clear in the text that Ben Edmunds is writing for Rolling Stone.
  • Names are used inconsistently; After the first mention of the full name in the main text, the person should be referred to by last name only. Also, you say Rick Wright and Richard Wright, which is potentially confusing.
  • "première" and "premièred" - Are the alternate spellings necessary?
    • I'm uncertain what you mean here? The word is spelt as it should be (check the OED). Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that the first Gilmour quote would be better positioned in Template:Quote box. In general, blockquotes work best when they're followed by a sentence that ends in a colon, like the Edmunds quote. In this case though the Gilmour quote just sorta floats there.
    • Not a fan of quote boxes tbh. I think it looks fine as it is but it isn't a big deal for me. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This last one by no means bars the article from a support, as the info may not even exist as far as I know, but I'm curious if any band members other than Wright and Gilmour have said anything retrospectively about the album. Is there any Mason or Waters perspective here? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Waters has said that he felt that the long instrumental sections were unnecessary, that the lyrics should introduce the music, rather than the music introducing the lyrics. I'll have to check on what Mason thinks. I already have a fair bit from Waters in there though. I'm creating a completely new Pink Floyd article in my sandbox here and may expand upon this there, as I feel Waters' criticism is more to do with the direction he was taking as a lyricist, rather than criticism of the album per se. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support All my points have been sufficiently addressed and I now believe that the article is feature-worthy. I really have to commend the awesome job you're doing with the Pink Floyd articles, Parrot of Doom. Nice work! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.hypergallery.com/prints/wish-you-were-here-26.html
      • A direct outlet for Hipgnosis' work, I believe the short narration from Thorgerson is from an interview performed for the site, by the site. IIRC I discovered the link in an article on a Pink Floyd fansite. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/qlists.html
      • [17] - basically a fansite. I've looked around it and cross-checked it with other sources (sadly Q Magazine doesn't host its lists itself), and it appears solid and reliable to me. Although it lacks spit and polish, I've found that such fansites are often quite meticulous. Of course some aren't, but this one appears fairly sound to me. Its only referencing a single factoid however so it wouldn't be a loss were it to be removed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
        • One of my concerns is do they have permission to host the list? Presumably it's copyrighted, and if they don't have permission, we're linking to a copyright violation, which is a no-no. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • http://www.inthestudio.net/famous-interviews/index.asp
      • This is Redbeard's own site, hosting his own radio broadcasts. The interview with Richard Wright (used as a source on this article) is contained within. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I did some minor tweaks, but comprehensiveness and prose look good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I am pretty contented with this.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on (rather unusually) 1e. The article is currently indefinitely protected, with the protection log note "edit warring/content dispute". I see edit warring by multiple authors, but no discussion or resolution on the article talk page; rather it appears an admin simply locked some editors out of the dispute. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to refer to this new editor inserting this source. I guess this can be settled on consensus as to whether it is a reliable source or not. PS: Well picked up though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It is related to the actions of that editor, who proceeded to spam unreliable review links across a range of Pink Floyd articles using first an IP, and then an account. The source he used contains 'reviews' from members of the public. When repeatedly asked to justify the reliability of the source he resorted to abuse, using his IP address to create edits like this. You can see similar issues on DSotM, and Meddle.
This is not an edit war - its vandalism, pure and simple, hence the article's protected status. You can check the history of those three articles and see that this user is alone in making these changes, and that several users and admins reverted them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the protection now. It was intended as a short term measure to prevent disruption as described by PoD above. As Casliber says, consensus will prevail, but I'm pretty sure it was as described by PoD. Apologies for any inconvenience. – B.hotep •talk• 09:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – with regard to criteria 1a-e, 2 and 4. Have the images been reviewed? Graham Colm Talk 11:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • An image review is lacking, and will supporters please review and comment on the outstanding issues of reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I think reference 41 is not needed; the facts are unlikely to be contested, and are indeed common knowledge to Floyd's fans. Q Magazine (refs 51 and 52) is a respected publication, and although the references do not link directly to the publisher's website, again I think that these facts are unlikely to be contested. IMHO, the image review remains the major obstacle—but I still rely on other reviewers for this. Graham Colm Talk 19:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If pushed I can probably remove the Hypergallery reference without losing too much information. It'll have to wait until tomorrow though. As for the Q list, it isn't a major loss if it goes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and we seem to be forgetting that citations are required "for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Graham Colm Talk 20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide Anne Procter

Nominator(s): Ricardiana (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Adelaide Anne Procter was one of the most respected and best-selling poets of the 19th-century, though she is now all but forgotten: she was the favorite poet of Queen Victoria, and her death was described in the press as a national calamity. Material on her is scant, but I've pulled together everything I could find (many sources duplicate info from primary sources, so I've leaned on primary sources here). Though the article is short because of the lack of sources, I believe it fulfills the FA criteria and if not, I would still like to hear suggestions on how to improve the article. Many thanks to Awadewit for a very thorough GA review and to S Marshall for a helpful peer review. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I have a few comments.
  • "She suffered from ill health due to her charity work" - This isn't supported by the text in the main body: "Dickens and others have suggested that her illness was due to her extensive charity work".
What do you suggest - perhaps "she suffered from ill health, possibly due..."? Ricardiana (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It might work. I tend to think that the Dickens et al. statement says more about Dickens than about Procter, with Dickens basically arguing that Procter, as a woman, was too frail to work outside the house. Something I guess was not uncommon at that time.--Harthacnut (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It does indeed say more about Dickens than Procter, but unfortunately Dickens is nearly the only primary source on Procter. As such his opinion must be included in the body of the article, and once included it must be summarized in the lead. I don't think expressing editorial doubts regarding the sources is appropriate, unless some other source does so, which is not the case here. (Also, have you ever worn a corset? Working vigorously while your kidney and liver are being shifted out of place to give you a 20-inch waist can indeed take a severe toll, and often did.) Ricardiana (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added possibly. (I'm pretty sure I would look ridiculous in a corset, being male and all....) --Harthacnut (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "The few critics who have examined Procter's poetry generally find it important for the way that Procter overtly expresses conventional sentiments while covertly undermining them." - Is this supported by Armstrong? If not it needs a source.
Yes, it is supported by Armstrong. Ricardiana (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Procter converted to Roman Catholicism" - Why?
No reason is given in any source I've found. Ricardiana (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

--Harthacnut (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but it repeats the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition) and doesn't convey enough information about what the picture tells us that Procter looked like (see WP:ALT#Portraits). Eubulides (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still getting the hang of this. I've worked on the alt text; I hope it's better now. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. I needed another example for WP:ALT#Portraits so I tweaked it as best I could and copied it into WP:ALT. Hope this helps. Someone should write a treatise on how to describe hairstyles concisely. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Eubulides - I appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, but some comments:
  • Several links are repeated in both lead and body text. I wondered whether this was overdoing it in a relatively short article (the relevant ones include Charles Dickens, Household Words, feminist, lesbian, Roman Catholicism, Queen Victoria, Coventry Patmore and Alfred, Lord Tennyson).
  • I also thought providing the following links was overlinking things, though this is a judgement call, not a policy or guideline issue: feminist, lesbian, Bedford Square, Harley Street. In the case of the first two, I thought these would be likely to be understood by a lay reader; in the case of the latter two, the locations are inconsequential and the links are therefore distracting.
  • I take it "fulness" is a spelling in the original?

Otherwise, very well put together. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and comments.
  • It's true, but I thought links were supposed to be given in the lead and then repeated at first appearance later on. I just looked at WP:LEAD and WP:Linking - I didn't see any firm answer. What do you suggest - saving the links for the body of the article, or linking the first appearance of a term?
  • I think linking "feminist" and "lesbian" is useful because, although a lay reader will have a mental definition of those terms, they are terms that are used differently by different people. I agree about the place names, though, so I've removed those links.
  • Fulness is the spelling in the original, yes.
Best, Ricardiana (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Georges

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article thoroughly covers the topic and meets FA standards. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present and mostly good (thanks), but the alt text for the lead (infobox) image is merely "Track of Hurricane Georges", which doesn't convey much info to the visually impaired reader, and also contains a claim (that this is the track of Hurricane Georges) that can't easily be verified by a non-expert. Please reword it to not use the name, and to briefly describe where the track goes. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The alt text for the track wasn't there, I added it using what was put for the track in another article in the Georges series. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding alt text to the lead image. I also added support to Template:Infobox Hurricane History to make it all work. Eubulides (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd like to see some non-NHC/HPC sources. While I don't doubt the topic's notability, it's generally best to have a variety of sources. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Echoing Julian's comment, this article is not comprehensive. Here's a small sampling of some scholarly articles about the subject, that are not mentioned in the article. Ping me when these (and others) have been consulted and included, and I'll be happy to reconsider my oppose. Sasata (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Title: Currents and sediment transport in the Mississippi Canyon and effects of Hurricane Georges. Author(s): Ross, C. B.; Gardner, W. D.; Richardson, M. J., et al. Source: Continental Shelf Research Volume: 29 Issue: 11/12 Pages: 1384-1396 Published: 2009
  • Ecological correlates and short-term effects of relocation of a rare epiphytic orchid after Hurricane Georges. Author(s): Tremblay, R. L. Source: Endangered Species Research Volume: 5 Issue: 1 Pages: 83-90 Published: 2008
  • Title: Adaptive use of research aircraft data sets for hurricane forecasts. Author(s): Biswas, MK; Krishnamurti, TN. Source: METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS Volume: 99 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 43-64 Published: 2008
  • Title: Damage and recovery of riparian sierra palms after Hurricane Georges: Influence of topography and biotic characteristics. Author(s): Zimmerman, JKH; Covich, AP. Source: BIOTROPICA Volume: 39 Issue: 1 Pages: 43-49 Published: JAN 2007
  • Title: Observation of ocean current response to 1998 Hurricane Georges in the Gulf of Mexico. Author(s): Zheng, QN; Lai, RJ; Huang, NE, et al. Source: ACTA OCEANOLOGICA SINICA Volume: 25 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-14 Published: 2006
  • Title: Effects of Hurricane Georges on the resident Avifauna of Maricao State Forest, Puerto Rico. Author(s): Tossas, AG. Source: CARIBBEAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Volume: 42 Issue: 1 Pages: 81-87 Published: 2006
  • Title: The behaviour of a hawksbill turtle data-logged during the passage of hurricane Georges through the Caribbean. Author(s): Storch, S; Hays, GC; Hillis-Starr, Z, et al. Source: MARINE AND FRESHWATER BEHAVIOUR AND PHYSIOLOGY Volume: 39 Issue: 4 Pages: 307-313. Published: DEC 2006
  • Title: Observed boundary layer wind structure and balance in the hurricane core. Part I: Hurricane Georges. Author(s): Kepert, JD. Source: JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Volume: 63 Issue: 9 Pages: 2169-2193 Published: SEP 2006
Most of these don't apply to this article which is about the Meteorological history of the storm, not impact. At least two of these do apply though and I'll read through them and add information where needed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources (what there are of them) look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), Torsodog (talk · contribs)


I am nominating this for featured article because we have attempted to address the concerns of prior WP:FACs and hope to make progress toward WP:CHIFTD. Namely, Torsodog has provided a video which eliminated the need for a series of FU images. We are willing to discuss any further image removals and address other concerns that arise. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that this would be the first WP:FA for WP:GLASS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Last month both Ruhrfisch and Giants2008 reviewed this at WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Most images have alt text as per WP:ALT (thanks) but some work is needed. The lead (infobox) image lacks alt text, as does File:Crown fountain spouting.ogg. The following proper names are not obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the image and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT: "Chicago Picasso", "Buckingham Fountain", "Fountain of the Great Lakes", "Fountain of Time". Also, a minor thing: I suggest rewording "Crown Fountain" to "The fountain" in most of the alt text entries (e.g., "Crown Fountain spouting water on frolicking children" should be "The fountain spouts water on frolicking children") to avoid needless repetition. Eubulides (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have fixed what you wanted. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, except that the wrong syntax was used for the lead image so its alt text didn't work. You can check this sort of thing by clicking on the image's properties with your browser after making your edits. Also, since it's the lead image for a weird-looking object, there's a special obligation to describe the visual appearance to the visually impaired, so I added more detail as I was fixing it. Eubulides (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I supported last time< & still think it meets FA standards. Looking at it again, the "video production" section could be made clearer as to the total time time taken per face, and what the water does when. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I have revised the text based on my interpretation of conflicting information in the source, which at one point suggests that most of the video is at one-third playback and another saying that the entire 5-minute videos are alterations of an original 80-second video. If you feel I have misinterpreted the source let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea about the source, & I don't necessarily see "conflicting information" there. It just isn't clear. Is 5 minutes in the section? Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The source says the following things:
  • And with the unique treatment Plensa was after -- vividly alive, yet slowed down to one-third normal speed
  • And time had to be stretched too. "Jaume's original idea was that each person would be on the screen for 13 minutes -- thank God we were able to talk him out of it," says Manning. "It's five minutes now." So Manning devised a scheme in which his team could shoot each person for only 80 seconds, then turn that it into five minutes. Each chunk, or sequence, was synchronized to match the mechanism of the fountain, for a total of five minutes for each face. "The period leading up to the mouth opening gets stretched in order to make it last four minutes, then there's another section that gets stretched to make it last 15 seconds, and then when the mouth is actually opened that gets stretched to make it last exactly 30 seconds. And then, finally, there's a smile at the end that gets stretched to make it last 15."
Now the text says the following: The basic 80-second videos are played at one-third speed, running for a total of 4 minutes. Then there is another subsequent segment where the mouth is puckering that gets stretched to 15 seconds. This is followed by a section with the mouth open and the water appears to spout out of it that is stretched to last for 30 seconds while the water is spouting. Finally, there is a smile after the completion of the water spouting that gets stretched to last for 15 seconds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see you have just added the "4 minutes" bit. But don't expect the reader to do maths; say it's a 5 minute sequence somewhere. And how does the water running down the face fit in? Is that all the time? Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I found another quote that helps me make sense of the time totals.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, that's much clearer, & I see the "fountain" sub-section too. Move to
  • Support per above (unless anything drastic comes up below). Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments – Gave it a partial look at the peer review, and am picking up where I left off. Found a few picky things, but the article is in fairly good shape overall.
  • "The process used sand and soda ash heated to a temperaure of 2,600 F and "gathered" with large clay ball resembling a honey dipper." Should it be "a large clay ball"?
  • "The structure was a challenge. At first, they had considered switching to plastic blocks". Is "they" supposed to refer to the design team? If so, the first part of this could be changed to say so for clarity.
  • Operation: "A Barco show controller selects the sequence of faces one at a time and also determines a random tower lighting selection...". Redundant word that can safely be chopped.
  • Controversies: "The city claimed the cameras, similar to those used throughout city...". Add "the" before second "city".
  • Critical reception: Double-check the spelling of jumbotron. I think there are a couple of capital letters in it.
  • Is "juxtapposed" a typo? Giants2008 (17–14) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments on copyedit by Unschool (talk · contribs)
Hmmm. Does this work like a regular discussion page? Am I to respond with my justifications, or am I to make corrections? I shall presume that I should reply to each point. Unschool
Typically, you would place comments for me the nominator. However, since you jumped in and edited without commentary, I am just noting contentious actions here because discussion might evolve and it should be recorded here as part of the summary of discussions for the promotion consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You have removed the detail of the specific dates that the fountain is open from the article (May 1 to approximately October 31).
I suppose the detail should not have been removed from the article. If it hasn't yet been restored, I will do so. However, I do not believe it belongs in the lead; it's simply unnecessary detail. I'll find an appropriate place for it in the body.Unschool
It looks good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You have removed the following from the main body of the article (Crown Fountain was the most controversial of all the Millennium Park features.)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, I did, and I think the article is better for it. I placed the sentence in the lead, where it fit beautifully, and the paragraph whence it came is literally undamaged by the removal. That sentence was a major point of the article, and as such it belonged in the lead. Unschool 04:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
O.K. I guess.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Derfflinger class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


Yet another German warship class article, it passed GA and Milhist A-class review within the past few weeks. I feel this is close to FAC, and the extra eyes that will examine the article here will help me fine tune the last few issues that are probably hiding in the article. Thanks in advance to all editors who take the time to review this nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Two images have good alt text (thanks), but the remaining five images lack it; please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review subpage. Eubulides (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It took a couple of days, but I've added alt text to the rest of the images. Are there any problems with any of them? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks good now, thanks. I tweaked its punctuation so that sentences are punctuated as such, and removed one small phrase that I couldn't immediately verify from the image itself. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Eubulides. I thought I had read somewhere that they weren't supposed to be punctuated, but then it confused me a bit, because I'd have punctuation in the middle. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Well, apart from the fact that I'm getting seriously dizzy from this barrage of high-quality German capital ship articles zooming through A/FA, I have no complaints...! Fixed an alt text parameter but apart from that, everything looks fine. Supported this at ACR and happy to do so again here. I'd say "keep up the good work", but somehow I doubt that's ever going to be an issue... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Ian's funny comment aside, this is a terrific article. I've noted my support, although I have a couple of quibbling, niggling points, which I will bring up on the talk page. Excellent work again! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Fixed a couple of minor issues, but you really ought to explain the role of the 88 mm Flak guns, AA or anti-torpedo boat guns? Or both? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sturmvogel. They were designed as anti-aircraft guns, though I suppose they could have been used against torpedo boats in a pinch. I've added "anti-aircraft" to clarify what their purpose was. Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, on the proviso that the section on Derfflinger's scuttling is cleared up à la Hindenburg. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I had written this article before Hindenburg, and it went through Milhist ACR before you noticed that. I've fixed it and added a note similar to that in Hindenburg. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
See, I didn't even have to elaborate! :). Happy to support. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Throughout the article I see instances where the convert template still needs to be used.
    • You have "Bennett" listed in the references but there are no footnotes that use this author.
    • I'm concerned about the number of footnotes used... seems a bit sparse. Of course if you've exhausted your sources there isn't much to add anyway.
    • Is the See also section necessary just for the link to commons? --Brad (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Bennett is cited in the third note, in regards to Admiral Fremantle's claim that he informed von Reuter of the extension of the Versailles deadline. I wrote this article more along the lines of Moltke class battlecruiser than say, König class battleship, primarily because the ships had divergent careers. Because I split it up by ship as opposed to by unit, I didn't want to go into a ton of detail, hence the lack of more citations. I have merged the "see also" section into the "notes" section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Image review I've checked the copyright status of the images and they all look fine. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cosmo Gordon Lang

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Lang, according to his biographers, was an enigma. The youngest archbishop in England in recent times, be began with great promise and large expectations, but in the end, by most accounts, he fell rather short – he himself judged his career a failure. Largely forgotten now, between the wars he was a major figure in British life, and touched many national and international events. Many thanks to the helping hands who monitored the article's progress from start-class, especially those who participated in the very thorough peer review.Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I thoroughly reviewed the article's prose for consistency during the peer review and see no point in doing it a second time. Compelling article about an interesting character of whom I had only briefly heard. Only point I have remaining is that I'm not entirely clear as to whether the officiating clergy at his baptism was or was not his father, perhaps that could be made a little clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks. If I have any minor quibbles, I'll take them up on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Please fix the formatting of the poem "My Lord Archbishop, what a scold you are!" Ling.Nut (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I fixed it myself. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • "Later commentators have speculated... homosexual". I'd like to see something much better than "channel four" for this... elsewise, it's just gossip. Besides, you said "commentators" (plural). Ling.Nut (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you about the status of the Channel 4 source. The "Monarchy" television series and the books accompanying it are the work of Dr David Starkey, a respected academic historian, and cannot be dismissed as "just gossip". Other commentators have been more circumspect about Lang's sexuality. For example, the ODNB biog gives the text of Lang's emotional letter to Wilfred Parker without specifically mentioning sexual feelings, but the letter's inclusion looks like a nudge. Lockhart is even more evasive, but he was writing in 1948 when evasion on such matters was the order of the day. The reference to possible homosexual leanings is within a balanced paragraph. However, if you think the case is not made, I will be happy to withdraw this sentence - there are more important aspects of Lang's life to argue about.Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • If you can find a number of sources that allege it, then fire away. But channel 4 doesn't say maybe, it says "yeah, he was gay." I'd love to log into their website and put a {{fact}} tag on such a bold, bald assertion. So.... if you can back it up further, please do so. If not, please do delete. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, there's this, from The Times 1 July 2003, which says: "There have been many closeted gay bishops who have served the Church well, from Cosmo Gordon Lang to..." Remember, I'm not making the claim that Lang was homosexual, I'm merely saying that some modern commentators have said he was, and we now have two quotes from what I consider reliable sources. I have also altered the text of the article slightly: "Some later commentators have suggested...". I think that is fair. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm poking about in whatever sources I can find, now... and am wondering if the Prayer Book controversy isn't a bit under-represented in the text...
  • Mmm, I saw McKibbin giving specific stats for the defeat of the Prayer Book in the House of Commons, second time around was 266-220 (p. 277, 18n). I dunno if I would call that "narrow", though it's certainly far less than a drubbing.. can we get more specific numbers?
    • I have put in the vote figures for December 1927 and June 1928. You're right, they weren't that narrow, so I've deleted that word. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Lang knew the nature of Edward's social circle..." Yeah I know, the full details should be in the abdication crisis article, not this one. But this is unnecessarily cryptic.. a word or two of greater detail, perhaps? After all, it was prominent in his infamous speech, and there was apparently an editorial in the Times after Lang's speech which focused the brunt of its scorn on those social circles rather than the king.
    • I have added a bit more detail concerning the king's social circle. Brianboulton (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Mmmm, I'm looking at Manwaring pp. 12-13, and I don't see any connection at all between Lang and the national Mission of Repentance and Hope. What did I miss?
    • The Mainwaring ref was specific to the failure of the Mission to make an impact. Lang's involvement, covered by Lockhart, has now been separately cited. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Eh? Kent, John (1992). William Temple: Church, State and Society in Britain, 1880-1950, Cambridge University Press, says lang was "often unwell, and Temple, now Archbishop of York, had to stand in for him from time to time." It also says, "When he was not ill, Lang lacked energy." Did I overlook these health issues in the article?
    • I didn't think that Lang's health issues were that significant. He seems to have enjoyed good health apart from a period around 1929-32, shortly after his Canterbury appointment. I have added a line, with citations, about his illness in that period. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to go now, but am becoming more & more convinced that the Prayer Book issue is under-represented in the body text and the lead. I think it was one of the two greatest issues in his time as archbishop; a political and religious struggle (albeit a far lesser one than say the Investiture controversy.) Ling.Nut (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was important, but in the context of an article about Lang's life, I think this issue is properly and adequately represented. Obviously there is plenty more to be said, but this topic is not the focus of this article. There does not appear to be a Wiki article on the Prayer Book revision controversies of the 1920s, but I believe that, or an article on recent Church of England History, would be a proper place for an extended discussion of the topic. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the alt text for File:Chapel of St Stephen Martyr, Canterbury Cathedral.jpg as it does not read right, probably just a typo. Keith D (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a typo ("are" for "area"). Now fixed - very well spotted! Thanks indeed Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments, and questions
  • Re homosexuality: Your own sources said that he got hot 'n bothered over the young girls at a chocolate factory. That hardly seems homosexual per se.
    • Lang was an enigma, with contradictory traits (see Lockhart's summary of his complex character). My job is to record what has been said by reliable sources, on all aspects of his character, not to make judgements. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not at all done thinking about the Prayer Book controversy . I agree that perhaps it needs its own (brief) article, as you suggest. But even so, this is a key event in Lang's period as Cantuar. Its focus needs to be sharpened; its details collected together and highlighted. It shows his lack of leadership, as you noted far down in the article... It may show a lack of insight: one source said he "badly misread the establishment mood" of government. It shows the political currents (Liberal vs. Labour; see Lang's oft-cited quote about the coal mining issue) and the religious currents (staunch Protestant laity vs. Catholic-wannabe church leaders). ...as you noted, it passed through the religious decision process with overwhelming support... Far more was at stake than simply a prayer book, it was a significant move away from mainstream Protestantism... The defeat of the revision apparently led to discouragement among many clergy, who saw it as an establishmentarian smackdown. Etc. I'm actually not talking about a huge rewrite here. These issues just need to be explained well—though currently they are not.
    • I am a bit puzzled by your analysis. You say the Prayer Book controversy is "a key event in Lang's period as Cantuar", but in fact the House of Commons rejections came before Lang ascended to Canterbury. He thereupon made it a non-issue, which it remained until after his – and his successor's – departure. Yes, he was criticized for this lack of leadership by Bishop Bell, but others considered his inactivity a wise move which faclitated an eventual solution. In the controversy itself, up to 1928, Lang's role was that of a lieutenant to Archbishop Davidson; as Lockhart says, "the story belongs to Davidson rather than Lang". It would be possible to include a little more material, about Lang's influence is bringing about the overwhelming Church vote in favour, or about his misreading of the House of Commons situation, but it would not be right to elevate his role above that of loyal supporter of his senior Archbishop. If Lang's "oft-cited quote" is the one about a fair day's work and a fair day's wage, this was made in 1912, outside the time frame of the Prayer Book controversy and, I would have thought, with no relevance to it. I have no quarrel with your other assertions, but they are basically not about Lang. Anything added to the article in this respect must focus on his role. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Two broad questions that I think were not answered adequately: First, why was his rise so meteoric? Second, and at the same time both more interesting and more important, why was he so ineffectual after he became Cantuar? Ling.Nut (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The first question cannot be answered objectively. Lang wasn't (like Temple or Davidson) the son or son-in-law of an Archbishop, nor was he nurtured in the Church of England; he was a Scots Presbyterian. He wasn't wealthy, had no family influence, and how he rose so quickly is a matter of conjecture. Was he clever, lucky or both? As far as I can within the principle of NPOV, I have marshalled the facts, but the question remains open. As to the second question, "ineffectual" is your word; the general consensus is softer, that he could have done more than he did, but I have not seen him described as ineffectual. Why he fell short of expectations is a matter about which writers have speculated, and which I believe I have summarised in the Assessment section. I am still studying sources for new material that can shed more light on this complicated life. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)
  • Commas are missing left and right.
  • I see several sentences that begin In YYYY or In Month YYYY without a comma after them. I even see "On 24 May 1891" without a succeeding comma. I believe this is grammatically incorrect.
    • There are different conventions for comma usage between American and British English. Both conventions are grammatically correct. In Brit Eng, commas don't have to follow dates, unless the date is followed by a subordinate clause. Thus: "On 20 July he went to school for the first time" needs no comma. "On 20 July, after eating breakfast, he went..." etc would require a comma.
  • also "During these years" comma.; "Of his life at that time" comma.
    • With Brit Eng, commas are not necessary in these instances.
  • What is a prelate?
    • A senior priest - now linked.
  • practise law - practice not practise.
    • No, "practise" is a correct verb form, though not I think used in American Eng.
  • The thought persisted and one Sunday evening in the spring of 1889, after a visit to the theological college at Cuddesdon, Lang attended evening service at the Cuddesdon parish church. is runon without a comma after persisted.
    • There you have me; comma inserted
  • What is a curate?
    • The term is linked.
      • Why did you link the second instance?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Because I am only human, and we all make mistakes...(now rectified)
  • Is there a relevant link for pastoral? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "These appointments reflected his growing reputation, and recognised his successful ministry in working-class parishes." has an ungrammatical comma that needs to be removed as does "divided, between his work in the Stepney region and his duties at St Paul's".
    • First example: it's not ungammatical, and the comma is fine. Second example: the comma is legitimate, but the sentence reads better without it, so removed.
      • As I understand it conjoining phrases with a comma and a conjunction in this manner connotes that the second phrase is an independent clause having its own subject, which is not the case here and why I believe the comma should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I have never heard of that rule of grammar, but it sounds pretty impressive. The comma can go.
  • Similar construction at "He voted against the 1914 Irish Home Rule Bill, and opposed liberalisation of the divorce laws."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And again "He also denounced the antisemitic policies of the German government, and took private steps to help European Jews."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In this case: "He upheld the right of the Church to refuse the remarriage of divorced persons within its buildings,[91] but did not directly oppose A.P. Herbert's Matrimonial Causes Bill of 1937, which liberalised the divorce laws—Lang believed "it was no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population."", you need the comma for the purpose an anchor for the citation so just give the second clause a subject by changing it to "but he did not directly..."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I have applied the same solution to each of the above examples - inserting "he" after the conjunction. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • badly housed??? maybe living in modest or rundown accomodations. Living on the streets. Something more professional is needed here.
    • I don't see why "badly housed" is unprofessional (or worth three query marks!). But I've extended it to: "housed in overcrowded and insanitary conditions."
      • Probably only worth one query mark:-!
  • The New York Times should be linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "he began to act as a "prince of the church"." is a very strong phrase that should be attributed in the text, IMO.
  • "Lang avoided continuation of the 1928 Prayer Book controversy by allowing it to lapse, after authorising a statement permitting use of the proposed Book locally if the parochial church council gave approval." seems to be using a comma unnecesarily to set off a prepositional phrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I have revised this sentence as I wasn't happy with the wording. The comma issue here is null and void. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What is a cassock?
  • "On retirement Lang was created Baron Lang of Lambeth" seems to be an awkward garden path.
      • Can you explain what you mean, and why you think this simple factual statement is either awkward or misleading? Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I think the office of Baron Lang of Lambeth was created for Lang.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It's not an "office", it's a rank or title in the peerage. In common English usage peers are "created". Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
            • How about the title of Baron Lang of Lambeth was created for Lang.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
              • No, it's peers, not titles, that are created. You haven't explained your difficulty with this sentence, so I don't know what your problem is. However, I have reworded the sentence in the text, which should resove any remaining uncertainties. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Link Time magazine and The Times in the text as well.</s--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • You should use {{Inflation}} so that you don't have to update the currency conversion (£1 million in 2009 terms) every year. See Fountain_of_Time#Planning where I have used it.
    • What is the basis of calculation in this template, and how should its use be cited? Personally I find it a bit annoying, in that for example £1,500 converts as £50,101, an unnecessarily fussy level of detail. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "In Hastings's view, Lang was probably..." seems to use WP:WEASEL words.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "Probably" is the word Hastings uses, to qualify his statement, so I must use it. too. (Why is it "weasel", anyway?) Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-All issues resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and thanks for your input. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Jappalang

Childhood and family

  • "Lang was born at ..."
    It would be better to start off with his full name here (without "William") and insert at least the year of birth as well. Consider the lede and the main text as two separate articles and this should become clear.
  • "... where he ... played football intermittently;"
    Did he play footer only at school (as seemingly suggested by the sentence)?
    No other references to his footy. I mentioned it to indicate that he was a pretty normal boy - it has no other significance. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    I see, might I suggest changing the last three words to "... occasionally played football;" or "... played the occasional game of football;"? Jappalang (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Changed to your second suggested alternative. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "... he was able to beginbegan his studies ..."

University of Glasgow

  • "... met some of the leading academics .... Long afterwards Lang commented on the inability of some of these eminent figures to handle "the Scottish boors who formed a large part of their classes"."
    This was a bit confusing to me till I read "Among his various tutors ..." in the later sentence. The "met ... leading academics" part led me to think that some of them might have been fellow students.
  • "In 1881 Lang made his first trip ... Edwin Booth in Othello. Later that year he travelled to Cambridge to stay with a friend who was studying there."
    What is the point of chronicling young Lang's adventures?
    It's the footy thing – trying to indicate that Lang had a range of interests and wasn't just the class swot. If you think that the references to Liddon, parliament and the theatre are distracting, I can remove them, as they aren't essential to the article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    It is interesting, adds a bit of flavour to the account of Lang's youth. I am just wondering if it had wandered too much off the point (trivial). It is not really a big opposable issue. Jappalang (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Compromise: leave in his visits to to St Pauls & parliament, since they have slight bearing on his future career. Drop the theatre as relatively trivial. Does that satisfy? Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Eh, the issue is trivial (I left it unstruck since it is just a matter of personal opinion that is not opposable). Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxford

  • "... described by his biographer Lockhart ..."
    First mention of Lockhart should be by his full name.
    He is known as J.G. Lockhart; I have added these initials to the first mention.
    I found his full name as "John Gilbert Lockhart" on Worldcat,[20] and expanded it in the article. Jappalang (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "... to that of Demosthenes."
    While Demosthenes should be familiar to those in the literary and political circles, the common reader might be ignorant of his significance at first glance (I did not know of his name and reputation till I read Ender's Game...). I think Demosthenes's credential should be made more obvious here (in part contributing to the opinion of Lang's oratory prowess). Perhaps, "... to that of Ancient Greek statesman, Demosthenes."
    • Good suggestion which I am happy to adopt. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Towards ordination

  • "Lang's career ambition, settled early in life, ..."
    "Settled" seems to imply the decision was not entirely his alone. Was this the case?
    • As far as I can see, he determined his own pathway. I have slightly reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "... to my[Lang's] liberal Conservatism".": This might be personal style, but I would prefer to clarify quotes rather than leave them untouched.

Leeds

  • "He rejected a tempting offer of the chaplaincy of All Souls, as he wanted to be "up and doing" in a tough parish."
    Was All Souls some sort of "soft and cushy" parish?
    All Souls (as stated in last line of previous section) is an Oxford college, so the tempting offer was for the chaplaincy of a college, to which he had been elected a Fellow. It would indeed have been a cushy number, but he rejected it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Hmmm, okay, I was looking to more details of what would be a "tough" parish in those days, but the current wording is nothing opposable. Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Can you indicate that your concern here is resolved, or otherwise clarify any outstanding issue with this point?
    Same as the "tour" above, not opposable. Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "As well as his parish duties,—Lang acted temporarily as Principal of the Clergy School,—he was chaplain to Leeds Infirmary and took charge of a men's club of around a hundred members."
    • The things he did in addition to his normal parish duties included the temporary principalship of the school, the infirmary chaplaincy and the men's club - all were extracurricular to his everyday parish work. I have slightly reworded, to make this clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Seeing your clarification, my actual issue (which I thought to solve as above) arises from the placement of "Lang acted temporarily as Principal of the Clergy School" between "In addition to/As well as his parish duties," and "(he) was chaplain to Leeds Infirmary ...". In this case, perhaps the original sentence with a fullstop substituting the comma after "Clergy School" would solve the issue? Jappalang (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but I don't understand what the "issue" is. The sentence now reads: "In addition to his normal parish duties, Lang acted temporarily as Principal of the Clergy School, was chaplain to Leeds Infirmary, and took charge of a men's club of around a hundred members." I am simply listing three things he did in addition to his normal parish duties. As this is surely clear, why does the sentence need changing? Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It was grammatical, pertaining to pronouns. From the first sentence, I saw "As well as his ..., Lang acted ..., he was ... .", which seemed weird to me. On re-reading your amendment, it is resolved: "In addition to his ..., Lang acted ..., was ..., and took charge ... ." Sorry for my confused state above. Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Portsea

  • "Lang may have realised that he was destined for high office; he is reported to have practised the episcopal signature "Cosmo Cantuar" during a relaxed discussion with his curates."
    What is an "episcopal signature"? How does practising "Cosmo Cantaur" show he knew he was destined for high office?
    I've dropped the "episcopal", and inserted a parenthetical explanatory note. This is an oft-told story of Lang, prematurely practising the signature he would use as Archbishop of Canterbury. It shows that the possibility of high office had entered his mind. Note that I have stood away slightly from the story - "may have realised", "is reported to have"; it's best to be noncommital. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Pardon my ignorance, but I still have questions over "signature". My understanding of the term is a stylised handwriting of one's name. By "practised the signature ... during a relaxed discussion with his curates", does it mean he signed himself off on paper with "Cantaur" to his name in front of his curates? Jappalang (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, evidently that is what he did. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "As a Royal Chaplain ..."
    When did he become a Royal Chaplain or are all Honorary Chaplains to the Queen Royal Chaplains as well?
    Sorry, I overlooked this. The term "Royal Chaplain" was my unofficial shorthand for Honorary Chaplain to the Queen. I have revised the sentence and ropped the term Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Stepney

  • "Lang took as his personal assistant ... Dick Sheppard, who became a close friend and confidante. HeSheppard was eventually ordained,"

St Paul's Cathedral

  • "Temple observed that, in contrast to the Bishop of London's sermons, with Lang the pleasure was intellectual rather than emotional, but "I can remember all his points, just because their connexion is inevitable.... And for me, there is no doubt that this is the more edifying by far.""
    Suggestion: "Temple observed that, in contrast to the Bishop of London's sermons, listening to Lang brought on an intellectual rather than emotional pleasure: "I can remember all his points, just because their connexion is inevitable.... And for me, there is no doubt that this is the more edifying by far.""
    • Yes, runs a bit more smoothly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "... for the recovery of King Edward VII's recovery ..."

Appointment

  • "On the issue of age, the Church Times believed it was the deliberate choice ofthat Asquith todeliberately recommended the youngest bishop available, after the PMhe had endured ..."

World War I

  • Suggestion: "Within months hehis looks changed from a dark-haired, young-looking manyouth to that of a bald, and elderly-lookingold man."
    • Your suggestion doesn't strike me as quite right. I've simplified my version, see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "... continued his war workcontributions to the war,"

Postwar years

  • "described by Hastings as "one of the rare historical documents that does not get forgotten with the years."
    Does the quote end with this sentence (missing closing quotation marks)?

International and dosmetic politics

  • "... declaring that the Munich Agreement of September 1938 was due to/by the "Hand of God.""?
    • I've looked again, and I wasn't using the "Hand of God" quote correctly. So I've changed the text. Lang called for a day of thanksgiving for the "sudden lifting of the cloud". That is more accurate.

Abdication crisis

  • "... with the American divorcée Wallis Simpson ..."
    This and the following sentences ("... the king intended to marry Mrs. Simpson either before or shortly after his impending coronation.") seem to indicate that Mrs Simpson was divorced at the time of Edward VIII's accession. That is wrong. She was divorced from Spencer but married to Simpson (and still married in 1936). Mrs Simpson/Spencer's status could probably be better explained here.
    • OK, I've clarified as best I can without using up too many words. See what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "On 11 December, all attempts to persuade him otherwise having failed, he did so ..."
    Suggestion: "All attempts to dissuade him failed, and on 11 December, he gave up his throne ..."

Assessment

  • "after sitting for Sir William Orpen in 1924, Lang remarked to Bishop Hensley Henson of Durham that the portrait showed him as "proud, prelatical and pompous." Henson's reply was "To which of these epithets does Your Grace take exception?""
    I love this sentence, but is this a factual anecdote? If not, it would be better to establish the context of this quote.
    • Widely quoted, and believed factual, but the story is never pinned down to a specific time and place, nor is it clear who witnessed the exchange. So, I have inserted a couple of caveats. No article on Lang would be complete, I believe, without this line. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Some commentators have suggested that Lang was a repressed homosexual."<?s>
    It should be expounded (briefly if it is a cursory view) on why these commentators hold such suggestions. Leaving it as a single sentence without reason seems to be a bit on the gossip side of things.
    If Starkey and Gove were ordinary newspaper journalists, the "gossip" implication might stick. But they are serious writers who have each made their suggestions in unsensationalist contexts. Neither is specific as to why they hold their views, which I have presented cautiously and in the context of other information about Lang's possible sexual tendencies. Lang was a public figure and things were and will be said about him, by responsible commentators. I think that the "comprehensive" criterion requires me to report such remarks, without in any way endorsing them. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    They might be serious writers, but it is curious how such an allegation can come about without basis. It seems Ling.Nut (above) shares a similar concern as well. Basically, information is put forth that shows Lang could have carnal thoughts towards women, but nothing backs up the homosexual opinion. Are there no books or newspaper articles that stated such a revelation or assertion with the reasons why? If not, and if the statement is to stay, then I think the authors of those views should be held accountable, i.e. we should explicitly attribute the statement to them, such as "Years after Lang's death, his sexual orientation was questioned. Journalist Michael Gove and Channel 4 television station suggested that Lang was a repressed homosexual." Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    An excellent idea. I have incorporated it, but have reordered the paragraph so that the "suggestion" no longer hangs fire at the end, where it tended to look like an accusation. The sense of the paragraph now is: "He led a celibate life; people have suggested he was a closet homosexual, and he certainly had emotional friendships with male colleagues; however he enjoyed women's company and found them attractive." I think that is fair; it leaves nothing out, without placing emphasis on any one aspect. See what you think (also Ling Nut comment below). Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

  • "... including a novel of the 1745 risingJocobite Risings in 1745."

General

  • There are two "the King". I believe it (king) is lowercase when not used as a title.
    • I have lower-cased the first. The second is in a quotation and has to stay as it is. 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

  • All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed.

Some of the above are just suggestions (my prose sucks), so... Since my knowledge about the Archibishop of Canterbury is basically restricted to jokes about Henry II's attitude, I am commenting on what appears to be lacking from the viewpoint of a reader fresh to the subject. Looking forward to support once the above are addressed. Jappalang (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review. I have dealt with about half your points, but other duties are calling. I'll be back later to deal with the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ...which I have now done, and thank you again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Struck most of it, but there are still a few that requires additional attention (the singular sentence about his sexual orientation is still of concern). Jappalang (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • See my update responses to this and other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support:(outdented) As what I perceived were issues have been resolved, there is nothing to stop me from throwing my support behind Brian's latest masterpiece. Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Nobody got rid of this turbulent priest... he just left on his own (the third one to do so, it seems). Should that factoid be included in the article? It might be trivial (no telling how many more Archbishops of Canterbury would retire rather than die in office), so its exclusion would not affect my support. Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • As it happens, every one of Lang's successors bar Temple has retired, so retirement (usually at or around 70) is now the norm. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • The homosexual bit is much, much better. It no longer leaves so many open questions, which previously gave it almost the air of a swipe at his character.
  • I saw at least one quote (dig it up tomorrow) which said the Prayer Bok thing made Lang more conservative (in the general sense). I think this should go in he article and the lead. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I've watched the changes Brian has made to this article from the beginning (I did add some extra material and refs jsut before he started his revamp, bu the present article is basically "his", though I did do a bit of typo spotting for him along the way), and I beleive it now meets the criteria.
    Comments, on the sexuality issue, I don't think this is overstated (though I do wonder if the only basis that the suggestions have been made on is anglo-catholic plus celibate = "must be gay"). On the prayerbook revision, the article as it stands gives similar weight to the issue as does the ODNB article (the only one of the major sources which is readily available to me). David Underdown (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and it should be noted that your typo-spotting and intermittent suggestions during the revamp were valuable, and much appeciated. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Ling.Nut (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support my issue is addressed and nicely Comment I have replaced the last sentence in the lead, which is unreferenced with the last sentence in the Assessment section which seems to be more NPOV and is referenced. Please let me know if you agree, otherwise I support this article's nomination for FAC. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 16:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand your point, but we can't have the exact same sentences ending both the lead and the Assessment section. I have now included a shorter version of the concluding assessment as the final lead sentences. I believe that I have addressed your concern that the lead previously did not wholly reflect the consensus view on Lang's career; I think it now does. Also, it is not necessary to cite lead infomation, provided the material is referenced in the main text. I am sorry if you feel you cannot support the article, but I really do not want to amend the text further on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written, comprehensive. Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Does the EB 11th edition entry for WCL not give the author at the end?
    • No, neither for the biog or for the "Confirmation of bishops" article also cited from EB 11th. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Weird, normally they did. No worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with she link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the article earlier and had no quibbles. I did notice the bit about the EB, but that's not enough to hold back my support. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Image review I've checked the copyright status of the images and they're all good. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Green

Nominator(s): SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A self-nom, a short article about a London eccentric that people who visited Oxford Street in London a lot during the last 20-30 years are likely to have seen at some point. The article exhausts the reliable sources, so far as I know. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Green became one of London's much-loved eccentrics, though his campaign to suppress desire, as one commentator put it, was not invariably popular, leading as it did to two arrests for obstruction and the need to wear green overalls to protect himself from spit." Is that the passive voice, or something? Seems odd. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

It's a particular writing style. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Good enough. LOL. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking there are too many commas. The "He walked up and down Oxford Street six days a week, reduced to four days from 1985 onwards, campaigning until 6:30 pm among the shoppers, usually around Oxford Circus, then spent Saturday evenings with the cinema crowds in Leicester Square." paragraph, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Young women in particular attracted his advice, including that they would find it impossible to deceive their grooms that they were virgins on their wedding night." is awkward. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't necessarily change the "Green became one of London's much-loved eccentrics..." sentence, I'd recommend looking again at any sentence that has 2+ commas, and see if just putting in a period would improve it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the two sentences you mentioned, [21] and I'll look for any other obvious ones. I have a liking for long sentences that I know not everyone shares. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've tweaked the virgin sentence again. It now reads: "His advice that young women should eat a low-protein diet—because "You cannot deceive your groom that you are a virgin on your wedding night!"—was not always appreciated, and led to his being arrested twice for public obstruction, in 1980 and again in 1985." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking pretty good. There's one single sentence paragraph left in the "Posthumous recognition" section. It should probably be merged into the other paragraph. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The second reference is a dead link. Please fix it. Warrior4321 04:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Cquotes? I've always thought they were gaudy; I like my articles to look like articles. Are you calling these quotes pull quotes? Ling.Nut (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are pull quotes. I like to use them, partly to break up the text, partly to highlight material that there's no clear place for in the article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And here I am thinking that a Pull quote is a quote from the article itself... that is, it occurs twice on the page; once in the body text and once in the pull... Ling.Nut (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • "described by Susan Pearce of the University of Leicester as worthy of the cartoonist Heath Robinson". Actually, I think this description should be attributed to W. Januszczak... unless I'm mistaken, it seems that a Januszczak article was reprinted in its entirety in Pearce & Martin (2003)...
  • "Winston Churchill's last cigar" or "Winston Churchill's last cigar before the Italians sued for peace"...? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Both fixed. [22] [23] And thank you! I hadn't looked at the top of the Pearce chapter to see that she was actually reproducing a S/Times article. Well spotted. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Tks. But I'm still antsy about the pull quote thing (see my def above). Ling.Nut (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I call them pull quotes whether they cite something in the article or an external text; perhaps blockquote is the better term. If you really dislike them, feel free to remove them. I like to keep them in longer texts to break up the narrative, but in a short article they matter a lot less. Though I do like the quotes. The first is both funny and sad: "it might be very hard to be well behaved with a sexual friend, and to be headstrong in one's lonely bed: HARD to follow a responsible moral-code, in the unmarried years," and the second is heartbreaking, given his situation (given any situation): "Protein wisdom changes your whole life, makes it easier. Passion can be a great torment." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the alt images need to be improved. For example the alt text for Image:Protein.jpg says :

Green near the corner of Dean Street, Soho, circa 1983.

It should rather describe the image and say something like

Green walking through a crowd on Oxford Street holding his sign

All of the alt texts for the images are the captions from the image. Warrior4321 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are the caption/cutlines. There is no alt text, but if someone wants to add it, that's fine by me. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I added alt text. It took me six minutes, including the time it took to remove duplication between a caption and the text in its image. (Plus another three minutes to make this comment. :-) Eubulides (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice The ALT text looks awesome. clin d'oeil Thanks
Thanks for doing that, E. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When I view the article the line under the "Posthumous recognition" heading cuts through the quote to the left of it, is there anyway to avoid this? Guest9999 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Was it the pull quote that was causing a problem, and is it better without it? [24] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've marked out the line I meant in this image, I don't think it's really a big deal but a lot of FAC seems to be about little details so thought it might be worth bringing up. Guest9999 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. It was the pull quote that was the problem, and given that another reviewer has already said she doesn't like them, I've just removed it. It's too short an article for them, what with the images too. Let me know if it still looks odd, though, please. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Charming and well-written article about a London eccentric. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I fixed your first and second points. [25] The reason I added "accessed" to the ONDB ref was that I was sent a temporary link by the publisher that I could use to access it, but not one that would work for everyone, or for anyone beyond a certain date. I've removed it.
Bookworks is the publisher of the book I cite, and a registered charity, [26] plus it's not really a contentious point, just an opinion of what Green was, in effect, doing. I just need a citation for that quote. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Or do you mean why is Alun Rowlands a reliable source? He's an artist; see information here from the Institute of Contemporary Arts, and it seemed quite interesting that he would focus on Green. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave that out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable for the information (I was mainly looking to see why the person commenting was important enough to note their opinion...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)

Nominator(s): Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. It's been nominated before, but it's changed so much since then that I don't think they matter. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Throughout the article I made minor changes, such as word choice or changing the publication "history" section to publication background.

Just a couple other concerns:

  • When Ravenloft' was released, each Dungeons & Dragons module was marked with an alphanumeric code indicating the series to which it belonged.[9]. - what is with the extra marking?
  • In 2004, on the 30th anniversary of the Dungeons & Dragons game, Dungeon magazine ranked the module as the second greatest Dungeons & Dragons adventure of all time—behind only Queen of the Spiders. - cite
  • Judge Clark Peterson single out the maps and Strahd for praise, saying the vampire is "perhaps on of the best villains of all time". - cite, after a quote
  • In the July 1984 issue of White Dwarf magazine, on a scale of 1 to 10, the module was given 9 for presentation, 9 for playability, 8 for enjoyment, 6 for skill, 6 for complexity, 8 out of 10 overall. - cite
  • It was likened to a Hammer horror production and praised as enjoyable, although the reviewer said the game's puns were tedious and detracted from the spooky atmosphere. - cite

Great work! ceranthor 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:BOZ fixed all the issues you mentioned. Thanks BOZ, and thanks, Ceranthor, for the support. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
De nada. BOZ (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
De nada as well. ceranthor 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Jappalang

Plot

  • "... selects five cards."
    Randomly drawn or deliberate decision?
  • "When Strahd is destroyed, the adventure ends."
    96-hour non-stop gaming session?
    Basically, "When Strahd is destroyed, the adventure ends." is not correct. The adventure can also end when every player character has died (darn traps and natural "1"s!!!). An imaginative DM might create a post-Strahd's-destruction scenario to further flesh out the session (celebrating at the village, finding more mysteries in the castle that lead to other adventures, etc). Furthermore, a layman might interprete the sentence to be "You cannot stop the game until Strahd has been destroyed." My suggestion would be "The main objective of the game is to destroy Count Strahd." Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "havingmaking him flee when necessary."
    Got it. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Publication background

  • "They play-tested it every Halloween for five years ..."
    Between the two of them? Did they not play Dragonlance with friends (some of whom were notable TSR employees as well) before putting it to paper? Is it the same case here?
  • "When Ravenloft was released, eachEach Dungeons & Dragons module was marked with an alphanumeric code indicating the series to which it belonged."
    Compare to "When the war ended, buntings were put up at every high location in the city." Pay attention to the spatial references. The modules were numbered that way before Ravenloft was released.
    According to the cited FAQ, they were marked that way up through late 1994. Not sure how to word that so I went with "At the time of Ravenloft's release..." BOZ (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    That is fine too. Jappalang (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Strahd had fallen in love with a young girl, ... and Strahd found that he had become a vampire."
    This whole chunk seems more suited to Plot.
  • "... to kill the vampire at the end of the adventure, despite having the Sunsword, he refused, and his companions were forced to complete the task."
    It seems that the Sunsword is not required to kill Strahd... so his refusal seems somewhat non sequitur to his possession of the weapon.
  • "... by introducing a combination monster/character, with the abilities of a vampire and a magic-user."
    Rather confusing sentence to a layman, might be clunky to those in the know. Suggestion: "... by introducing a monster with the abilities of a player character class, that is a vampire magic-user."
    Got it. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft II

  • "Although Ravenloft II is credited to the Hickmans, Tracy Hickman left TSR before the module was complete."
    "Credited to the Hickmans", so what happened to Laura?
    The sentence reads strange; first part talks about two, the second only one. Since no reliable sources chronicled the fate of Laura, it would be better to change the focus of the sentence entirely to one: "Although Tracy Hickman was credited in Ravenloft II, he had left TSR before the module was completed." Jappalang (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Despite these problems, he said it included "Lots of monsters, plenty of roleplaying, lots of offstage action, items and crucial information to be gathered, and topped off with an excellent ending. What more could you ask? Excellent, highly recommended.""
    Highly promotional tone, despite the quotation marks. It can be trimmed to "Despite these problems, he highly recommended it for "lots of monsters, plenty of roleplaying, lots of offstage action, items and crucial information to be gathered, and [...] an excellent ending.""

Adaptations

  • "...expanded,; with Ravenloft becomingis now a demiplane ..."
    Got it. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Ravenloft has been revised and expanded twice."
    Module or campaign? Since the campaign has been mentioned just before this, it is better to clarify here.
  • "(8 session)" and "(4 session)"
    "x sessions" or "x-session"?

Reception

  • "Ravenloft has won one award, and beenwas included on ..."
    Got it. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "behind only Queen of the Spiders."
    Got it. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Judge Bill Slavicsek", "judge Andy Collins", "Judge Clark Peterson", "Judge John Rateliff"
    Besides repetitious, I would prefer to have their credentials stated. "Judge" is no means of knowing why they are experts in the field.
  • "... on a scale of 1 to 10, the module was given 9 for presentation, 9 for playability, 8 for enjoyment, 6 for skill, 6 for complexity, 8 out of 10 overall."
    I am not entirely certain ratings are encyclopaedic.
  • "has trouble in developing a frightening tone."
    Got it. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "... use of normalcommon D&D monsters in D&D,"
    The sentence this fragment appears in should be re-written. The reviewer is saying that the typical monsters of D&D (e.g. goblins, orcs, etc) do not fit in a gothic horror atmosphere. "Normal D&D monsters" means, to me, all the monsters in the game, unmodified in any manner.

Images

  • Images are appropriately licensed; the use of the sole non-free image is justified by its fair-use rationale.

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed everything that BOZ didn't get to except a few things.diff
I'm not sure what you meant by "96-hour non-stop gaming session?"
I changed it to "They play-tested the adventure with a group of players each Halloween" but I'll have to check the source (which I don't have handy right now) to make sure. I think it's common sense that it wasn't just the two of them.
"Strahd had fallen in love with a young girl, ... and Strahd found that he had become a vampire." I put it in plot. Although that info is also in the module, I got my summary from Hickman's summary in another source, so I cited that. The problem is that it's three sentences in the middle of the plot section, so I'm not sure if I should cite each sentence, or what. I currently just cited the end of it, but then it's not clear where it began.
"Credited to the Hickmans" I'm pretty sure she never worked there other than with her husband, but the source doesn't say.
The Judge part. I've made sure that each has a wikilink now. I think the source (which I don't have handy) mentions there credentials, so I'll add that soon and not use judge so much.
Thanks for the detailed review. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the judges thing. The source doesn't say much about who exactly play tested it. I can leave it with "a group of players" or I can go back to how it was earlier if you think that's OR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Pardon my attempt at humor, I have expanded on the "96-hour non-stop gaming session" issue. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Your attempt made me laugh, but belatedly. I fixed the 96 hour ( ;-) ) problem.[27]
"Although Ravenloft II is credited to the Hickmans, Tracy Hickman left TSR before the module was complete" I've looked for sources on when Laura left TSR and why to add in. No luck. Her last work for TSR seems to be 1986, the same year as House of Strahd, but that's as close as not committing OR as I can come (without a better source), and I think it's too close.
Thanks again. You're comments have really improved this article in my opinino. (I'm not saying you can't find other things. I'm just impressed.) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment on sources: I just looked through the references. Out of 29 sources used, 21 are in no small way affiliated with the publishers of the module or the authors themselves... While Ravenloft is no doubt notable (as evident from third-party sources on D&D), the large use of primary sources might be of concern. This could be understandable, as RPGs are quite a niche low-profile (unless we get into those "products of evil" media condemnations) products. Jappalang (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really disagree. But, as you say, there aren't a ton of independent sources. I basically grabbed all the RSs I could, regardless of independence. I can reduce the number of non-independent sources (although it would make the article smaller), but I don't have a lot of options for increasing the independent ones. There is a review of it in an issue of The Space Gamer #72, which I don't have. I'm not sure how to get it, either. I think it's pretty rare. Even with it, it won't change the ratio that much, and it's info would go in the Reception section, which is one of the few balanced sections at the moment. So, I'm not sure what to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last unstruck item brought up by Jappalang, here is the exact quote from the source: "The House on Gryphon Hill was the final project Hickman worked on before he left TSR to pursue a career as a freelance novelist in the wake of the success of the Hickman-Weis Dragonlance novels, and he didn’t manage to finish it before he left. Hence, although Tracy and Laura Hickman are credited for their outline and having come up with the overall plot for the adventure, most of the actual writing was done by a hastily assembled crack team of TSR designers in order to meet the rapidly approaching release date" BOZ (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe that Laura was ever a TSR employee (the work she did was likely freelance). BOZ (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind making the change, but I'd like to hear what you think now, in case you feel differently, Jappalang. Thanks for this very detailed review. It's a lot of fun. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my latest thought. How about attributing the statment and saying it doesn't say what Laura did. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
But, I made the change you recommended. I like it, so unless you want me to change it, I'll leave it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Support (outdent): After resolving the above, I am putting my support for this article. The quality of the prose is not judged (as it is not my forte), but I believe this article is as comprehensive as it can be with the sources available, putting forth a summarized neutral view of the subject, and its image use is compliant with policies and guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments – Reviewed this at the last FAC, which I don't remember that well. Didn't find too much in a full reading; just the points below:
  • Plot: "The next two cards determine the locations of Straud and the Tome of Straud. The Tome of Straud...". Notice the repetition from sentence to sentence? The best solution is to merge the two sentences, as the resulting sentence will have good length and flow.
  • "and made a pact with evil powers in order to live forever." Tiny bit of wordiness that can easily be removed. I saw another one of these later in the Ravenloft II section.
  • I assume DM is the Dungeon Master? That briefly confused me. Might be a good idea to either spell it out or include a parenthetical abbraviation on the first use.
  • Publication background: "It consisted of a 32-page book, with seperate maps detailing game locations." The with+-ing sentence structure is something FAC prose reviewers have worked hard to reduce, since it is a generally awkward structure. Fortunately, a fix here is easy: "maps that detailed" or "maps which detailed".
  • Tracy and Laura Curtis...". The linked article implies that this is incorrect, and should either be "Tracy and Laura Hickman" or "Tracy Hickman and Laura Curtis".
    • It now reads "Tracy married Laura Curtis in 1977." I think Hickman's last name should be present here. What about you? Giants2008 (17–14) 23:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "to make it distinguishable it from the original". Little typo there.
  • Reception: Comma after "were teleported away and replaced with undead wights"? Also need an apostrophe inside "adventures" in this sentence.
  • "the module was given 8 out of 10 ovarall". Double-check last word. :-) Giants2008 (17–14) 01:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks like a pretty good one to me. I do wish there were a few more secondary sources, but this is not the sort of thing that would have been widely discussed in the general media at the time. I'm confident that the best avaliable sources are in here. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support (moral or otherwise as part-time WP D&D member) - I have overseen this article develop and tweaked it here and there, but I feel it now fulfils criteria WRT prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ode on Indolence

Nominator(s):Ottava Rima, Mrathel (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the criteria, or can do so with a little work. The page gives a great discussion of the poem from various sources and has been the product of several hours of work by a group of editors.Mrathel (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add a note - this poem is almost the opposite of "To Autumn". It was not universally praise, and not even that well known. It has been neglected. So, don't expect a lot of information about critical response, themes, or the rest. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • I'm assuming that current ref 10 (Letter to Sarah Jeffrey..) is from the Siike collection? Probably should indicate that to be precise.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I attributed it as a quote from Colvin (it is quoted in most of the biographies, but that was the quickest to find) so I wouldn't have to clutter up the ref list with yet another reference note. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Note 33 is just "pp. 78-79".
  • Wu and Houghton in sources but not quoted in paper (this is acceptable to many folks, and is probably acceptable at FAC, but every time I submit papers to peer-reviewed journals, they always mention this).
  • Many of those critics/biographers (as well as Charles Armitage Brown) seem to have heir own articles. Do you want to wikilink them?
  • Read this sentence twice: "Sidney Colvin, in his 1917 biography, ranked grouped "Ode on Indolence" with the other 1819 odes as examples of short poems that made up Keats's achievement as a poem." What does "ranked grouped" mean? Should that be "achievements as a poet?
  • Is "despite that Keats wrote" a Britishism? I would be forced to say "despite the fact that Keats wrote".
  • I'm not keen on the wording of "a concept of reconciling thought and sensation as with other opposite pairs" as an explanation of negative capability.
  • I altered an awkward section of wording that referred to the images as discussed in stanzas two and three... then looked at the poem on Wikisource. I'm not sure that the second and third stanzas are the correct ones... ?
  • The articles gives line 14 as the location of "why did ye not melt", ("why they did not melt in line 14") but I see it later than that in the Wikisource version...?
  • "has been considered by various critics to have been "... is this a paraphrase, or are we missing some quotation marks?
  • Can "Keats was not satisfied" be sourced to Bates p. 528 (which is the nearest subsequent ref)? Don't make me slap a {{fact}} tag on you!
  • Is there a date for the Aske source?
  • What makes the "Yoon, Myung Ok" source reliable?
  • Erm, now that I'm looking, I don't think anything can be cited to Yoon. Bush should be cited to Bush, and that looks suspiciously like a direct quote of Yoon; is it a quote of Yoon quoting Bush? PLus I can't find the "shares structural elements" bit, but the durn thing isn't searchable.. where is that bit?
  • "Soul making" is left unexplained. I found a nice letter excerpt here. I'm not saying you should use that source. I'm saying the idea should be explained, at the very least through a footnote.. which might in turn quote that excerpt.. as you see fit...
  • Did we ever decide whether or not ISBNs are required?
  • one source has the date in parentheses; not sure why.
  • Does Romantic poetry need to be mentioned/wikilinked elsewhere? Ling.Nut (
  • "Thompson's Castle of Indolence". Oh, some people get positively bent out of shape if you wikilink inside a direct quote.. needlessly, IMverystrongO. But i think it is a disservice to name-drop poor Thompson without a blue link, and the same is true (to a lesser degree) of the poem...
  • "state of being" is vague. Find a better phrase?
  • "Poesy alone is the narrator unable to dismiss" Is that whole section of sentences sourceable to Bates, again? I read the poem, and I do not see Keats as having been unable to dismiss Poesy. They are all dismissed. None linger. Unless I am dense. Which is possible.
  • I added a couple blockquotes; some of the other direct quotes look arguably blockquotable as well. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I see Mrathel fixing the Yoon thing, but I'm thinking that journal may be a non-peer reviewed journal from a Korean university. Any takers on finding out? Ling.Nut (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe, since my computer will not install all proper language packs needed to fully utilize the website, that this[28] is the website for the English Language and Literature Association of Korea, which publishes the journal. From a glance, it appears peer reviewed and academic...but since little information currently in the article comes from the Yoon source, I am not going to grab at straws to keep it in the article. Mrathel (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply
  • Tried to add links to critics and figures who have own pages
  • Attempted to make the Colvin position clearer, though I do need to go back and reread to make sure I am not improperly clarifying.
  • I would also say "despite the fact" and have changed the text.
  • I believe the melt line comes from line 19; that is if the epigraph doesn't count as a line and my counting is as good as I hope it is.
  • Not sure about ISBN's; would be happy to add all of them if necessary.
  • Yoon, as far as I could see when I came across the article, was a credible Korean poet and critic (though I admit I do not know much about her); I added the information of the Journal in which the article appeared. As for whether or not anything can be sourced with the ref, I will have to pay close attention; she does make her own points based upon what Bush and Vendler say, though I will have to look how it was added and edited to see if any of her take on their opinions made it into the article.
  • I know nothing of "Soul Making" and will have to leave that explanation to Ottava
  • The blockquotes can go either way when they are around 2-3 lines of text; I tend to let the most vocal win that argument.
  • There should be a way to link to Thompson and his poem outside of the direct quote... perhaps following it. Will take a look.
  • Keats's ability to dismiss Poesy will have to be taken up with the Bate text, which I do not currently possess.
  • Thank you for reading so thoroughly Mrathel (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(Adding to Mrathel's response) 1. Fixed the ref without a name (thankfully, it was a direct quote with attribution before, so it was easy to find). 2. Wu was quoted but I put in someone else in its place (he is just a primary text with a few footnotes). Houghton was dropped during a rewrite I believe. Both entries are removed now. 3. The only one I saw unlinked was Walter Jackson Bate - am I missing something? Or do you mean in the ref list also (they are linked in the body). 4. "ranked grouped" was fixed along with the rest (a stray word, I guess). 5. Mrathel added "despite the fact", but that is a colloquialism that is a little off in the sentence. I reworded it again to "even though Keats claimed in a letter". 6. The source literally says: "Striving to reconcile opposites, to balance 'thought' with 'senasation', and to explore the relationship between art's power of consolation and life's unavoidable hardships...." (p. 405) How would you want to reword the sentence while staying true to it? 7. "to the images" Images is another word for figure, persons, beings, etc. (i.e. line 35 "The first was a fair Maid, and Love her name"). 8. I assume someone changed this as I cannot find it. 9. Paraphrase. He lists various critics and their views. 10. Done, I believe. 11. Done. 12. Yoon is reliable because it was published and it quotes its sources directly (plus, there is nothing controversial). Many universities also seem to have subscriptions and use it. It has been around since 1955 (which makes it notable if not "reliable"). However, looking back, the information is said by Yoon to come from Vendler. Vendler places it before "Grecian Urn". The work is on Douglas p. 148 (Yoon's second cite), so someone probably corrected Yoon already. 13. I think Mrathel handled soul making. I haven't checked on what was added. 14. I'll add ISBN later regardless. 15. I think this was changed. However, I moved the year for the Yoon to the back and added parenthesis per it being a work in a journal. 16. I don't know. It was published later so it wouldn't have any necessary encyclopedic value within the body of the text. Plus, "Romantic poetry" is more of a term to throw in when more wikilinks are needed than anything else. :) 17. I try not to touch things within quotes. Ask Sandy or WT:FAC and find out what people think. 18. I assume "state of being" just implies that Keats feels Indolent based on the title right there. Would "idleness" or "laziness" be better? 19. From Bate (527–528) - "When he recognizes the figures, the poet really wishes to follow them. It is only because he cannot do so that he ends by dismissing them [...] Before Poesy [...] he is really helpless: he is too committed to be able to find any effective reason at all for even pretending to dismiss it. He is certaintly not prepared to reduce it, like ambition, to a mere 'short fever-fit.' He can only give it a general 'no' (immediately followed by a qualification, 'at least for me') ...." 20. I would be weary about the blockquoting. MoS says only to have blockquotes on 4 or more lines -on- wiki (not in the edit box). The blockquote that was added for the letter in "Themes" fails the MoS standard as with both in "Critical responses". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • I'm assuming that current ref 10 (Letter to Sarah Jeffrey..) is from the Siike collection? Probably should indicate that to be precise.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I attributed it as a quote from Colvin (it is quoted in most of the biographies, but that was the quickest to find) so I wouldn't have to clutter up the ref list with yet another reference note. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Why "British" rather than more precise "English"?
  • is a poem written by the poet do you need written?
  • despite that Keats wrote reads oddly, and possibly ungrammatical
  • along with perhaps as well as is more precise?
  • worked as a surgeon for Guy's Hospital in Southwark, London, for which he was not well-paid. perhaps worked as a poorly paid surgeon...?
  • However, he did enjoy the process "However" looks like padding, also elsewhere in this article. Since "enjoy" is repeated in the quotation, why not a bit of elegant variation such as "derived pleasure from"?
  • epigraph is a dab
  • I'd prefer 0.4 to .4
  • ''leading him to ask the figures whey they did not melt in line 14 reads oddly
  • narrator unable to dismiss is he is missing?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Keats was both English and British, and I don't care which is used. If someone feels strongly, they can (and probably will) change it. 2. I believe this was rewritten. 3. "along with" has a stronger rhetorical connection between terms than "as well as". Also, "as well as" would imply that "Indolence" is also "Melancholy", "Urn", etc, as the "as well as" would follow the "is". (see: "the boy is good as well as bad" as an example). 4. Done. 5. I had to rewrite the previous sentence and the rest to accommodate the removal of "however". You can see the changes here. 6. Done. 7. Changed to "which provokes him to ask the figures why they did not disappear". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. A sentence or two each should be enough. Eubulides (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

*cough* The images have had alts for a while. :P I beat you by 6 days. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I see the problem now. I was looking at what got sent to the user's browser, not the Wiki markup. Wiki markup requires a lower-case "a" in "|alt=". The capitalization caused the alt text to be ignored. I fixed that. The alt text is very good, thanks. In the next article you write, it's OK to write less alt text, as briefer is often better with alt text. Eubulides (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yukon Quest

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Hello! I'm JKBrooks85. You might remember me from such FACs as 2009 Orange Bowl and Rampart Dam, but today I'd like to introduce you to something a little different. This is an article about the Yukon Quest, an annual 1,000-mile sled dog race from Fairbanks, Alaska to Whitehorse, Yukon. This is the third nomination for this article, and in order to ensure this time will be successful, I had the help of a number of superb editors in preparing the article. Maralia and Hoary did a complete copy edit, and Hoary also did a great deal of trimming to streamline the prose. Tony1, Dr. Blofeld, and Laser brain gave their nods to the article as well, and I hope you'll do the same. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments: Seems like a very good article, although the endorsement doesn't quench my prose regime! I have a couple of issues:
  • Lead:
    • "drop dogs at checkpoints and dog drops". You have "drop dogs" and "dog drops". Could "drop dogs" be replaced by "leave dogs" or similar, as the two are so close it could lead to confusion (as it did for me). Also I think "dog drops" needs to be put in quotation marks.
      • Changed first "drop" to "leave". I'm unsure about adding quote marks around the dog drops, since the term appears so much in the rest of the article and might need to be changed at other mentions. ... For consistency's sake, I think it might work better as is.
    • " "The statement at the bottom on Yukon Quest International, could that be incorporated into the first paragraph? It looks and reads awkwardly where it is, and I'm against such separation from main paragraphs.
      • I've folded it into the preceding paragraph. Putting it in the top paragraph might cause confusion, since the second paragraph references "the competition", and that sentence refers to two additional races.
  • History:
    • The text before Origins feels so strained and unnecessary. It needs to be given some purpose or removed.
      • Done. I don't like leading a section with a sub-section header, so I've also deleted the "origins" subsection header.
  • Participants:
    • Can the graph of participants be given an appropriate caption? If not, I'd consider removing the thumb parameter. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Removed the "thumb" parameter. Thanks for the suggestions! JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No problem. I give my support for this article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the link checker shows no broken links for me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Pending the addressing of reviewers' comments. I was encouraging and believed this should be worked up to FA standard, but did not give a blanket endorsement. All the same, I think this is now pretty well-written; I do hope it succeeds. A few things towards the top:

  • Maybe there's a good reason not to convert "1000-mile" to metrics at the top? It's "1016 miles or more" below; bit confusing. Is it billed as "1000-mile"? If not, you might consider the less precise "long-distance", given that the exact minimum is provided further down in the lead.
  • Yeah, the 1,000-mile part is actually part of the official name. I bolded it up top on first reference to bring that out ... is there another way that would work better?
  • 80 km/h winds? Child's play, seriously.
  • "On February 25, 1984, 26 racers"—good case for spelling out 26.
  • Because of the introductory phrase?
  • "first-place prize"—couldn't be just "first prize"?
  • Works for me.
  • ... Alaska, Alaska ...
  • Reworded and shortened.

I've lashed out and made the image sizes more generous. The "eastern slope" and the one under it now probably need to go a little up. Change the sizes if you don't like the resizing, but most of the pics are good and contain a lot of detail the readers will want to see. The map and "Petty crossings" are still a bit on the small side, I think. Tony (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the picture changes. They look a lot better at the larger size. I'm sorry for misconstruing your earlier comment. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak support This is just about there, my concern though is that in places I feel it could be made more concise still and given another copyedit. Also maybe you could reduce some of red links by starting new articles?Himalayan Explorer 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (formerly Blofeld)

Comment. Alt text is done and that is present is mostly very good; thanks. However, the alt text for the map File:2009 Yukon Quest map.svg doesn't convey the gist of the useful visual info in that map. It should mention the general location, direction, and major highlights of the map (no need to list all the cities; that's too much detail). Alt text is missing for File:Yukon Quest participants graph.svg (please give gist of what that graph says, rather than irrelevant visual detail such as color or whether it's a line graph) and for File:White Pass RR station.jpg. Eubulides (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks; it's appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Provisional support – Supported the first time, abstained the second time, and am coming back on the support side now. I read through the lead, which looks good, but have gone no further yet; hence the provisional. I'll probably end up making any needed fixes myself because I'm in a time-saving mode at the moment. When I finish going through it, I plan on fully supporting. Shouldn't take too long, given that it was a great article before the copy-editing. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, though with two major dislaimers: (i) I'm ignorant of the subject, (ii) some of the rephrasing is my own. So all in all my opinion is probably worthless. Still, I believe I can say that the article is most interesting and informative, scrupulously sourced (wherever I've checked), and well illustrated. (As somebody who has "frozen" during mere hour-long motorcyle rides in temperatures above freezing, I'd still rather like to know how the participants protect themselves against extensive frostbite in that vile-sounding combination of wind chill and long hours; but perhaps this will be more obvious to other readers.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, with the mild disclaimer that I copyedited this fairly extensively before FAC. I have reviewed the changes since, and I'm confident it meets the criteria. Maralia (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - no image / copyright / non-free issues apparent. Black Kite 14:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Polyozellus

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


This article is about an edible blue fungus. There are more of them than you might suspect. I've exhausted my literature sources and tweaked the prose to the point of diminishing returns, and believe the article is ready to be judged for FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments -
  • Is current ref 3 (Lloyd...) lacking a title for the article?
  • Same for CCurrent ref 6 (Kauffmann...)?
  • Same for Current ref 10 (Kawam..)
  • Please double check that all your books have page numbers. I'm noticing current ref 13, 14, 16, lack them
All points above have been addressed. Sasata (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Kuo is a well-known mycological author, and on the web page in question, he lists the sources he used. I was originally going to use his page as an external link, but thought it would be better to have it as a citation somewhere, so cited the page to two non-contentious points (spore size and spore-print color). But if you still don't think it qualifies as a RS, I can easily remove it and use another source to cite those points. Sasata (talk)
I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. (You can EAT blue fungus??? Yuck!) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Some people actually like the taste too! Sasata (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Query article title the title is the genus, but it is a monotypic genus, and throughout the text refers to "this species", so why is isn't this article called Polyozellus multiplex, with the genus as a redirect? I don't know about mycology, but that would be normal for other life forms (eg Opisthocomiformes, Opisthocomidae and Opisthocomus all redirect to Hoatzin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Fungi wikiproject, we typically follow the naming conventions for flora, and on this matter it states "Where a genus is monospecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect". Sasata (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
So why is the article written as if it's about a species, not a genus? After the first sentence, the article refers almost invariably to "the species". Also the taxobox is a species' taxobox, not a genus box like Pyrrhocorax. It seems odd to have a title which appears to be saying "this is about a genus", and then just refer to it as a species. Maybe it's just me, but it seems very inconsistent to have the title at one taxonomic level, and the text at another - or perhaps you have been lumbered with a particularly bizarre naming convention? This is an interesting article, which I'll review in detail if I get time before I head for Canada, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point, and I've never really thought about it until now, just defaulted to the status quo, but doing it the other way does seem to be more logical. The other genus-level articles I've helped write are also written from the same perspective. I'll consult the wikiproject about this and get back to you. Sasata (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: I initiated discussions at the relevant WikiProjects here and here. Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009
Seems to have opened a can of worms at the latter site. Sorry to cause such grief - I want to support, but can't get past this stumbling block. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

While you're doing that, a couple of other things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Generally US spelling, eg "gray", "color", but also has BE "centimetre"
The convert templates now produce US spelling. Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It has been found in North America and eastern Asia should this be is found, or is its range collapsing?
Refactored sentence to read "Its range includes North America and eastern Asia, where it is found growing on the ground..." Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • compound structure of the stem ... which has more simple stem structures. Also, what's wrong with "simpler"?
Refactored sentence so that the correct use of singular/plural is more evident: "... who thought the compound structure of the stem to be a sufficiently unique characteristic to warrant it being separated from Cantharellus species, which have simpler stem structures." Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • what's the connection between polyozelin and knyapcin? It sounds as if they are closely related, but not explicit.
I added a link to help clarify that the kynapcins are chemical derivatives: "... revealed similar derivatives of polyozellin, each with different chemical properties" Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, would it be better, worse, or just wrong to write as revealed similar dibenzofuranyl derivatives?
Better! Added. Sasata (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Edits looks good, thanks for the help. Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I'm going away tomorrow so it's decision time. I'm reluctant to oppose or withhold support simply on the genus/species issue, especially as it's a project thing. I still think it's illogical, but not your fault. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Jim. There doesn't seem to be any consensus to changing it to the species name, but I suspect the idea will be revisited later when more monotypic genera pass through FAC scrutiny. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments from J Milburn

I'm making a list, but I can't see there being that many points...

  • First of all, I fully support the MushroomExpert reference. The site is highly professional, and Kuo is a respected and published mycologist.
  • Personally, I'd go for two paragraphs in the lead, but if you feel that would be too much detail, I'll happily defer to your judgement.
Split the lead into two and filled it out a bit. Sasata (talk)
  • "or in Alaska, the black chanterelle." comma after "or"?
Yes. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Who's Elizabeth Woodworth? A botanist?
Not completely sure; I vaguely recall reading somewhere that she was a student around this time, and doing fieldwork for someone else, but will leave as is until I can find a source. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Alexander H. Smith and Elizabeth Morse" Again, I'm assuming they're a pair of mycologists? How about "mycologists Alexander H. Smith and Elizabeth Morse"?
Sure. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "thelephoric acid" I'd normally expect a wikilink- is there anything to say about this?
Added bit in text ("...and the presence of thelephoric acid, a mushroom pigment common in the family"), and also started stub, as it's notable enough to deserve its own article. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Is Index Fungorum definitely reliable? Also, why italics?
Removed italics, also added link to MycoBank to corroborate Fungorum's familial placement. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "the hymenium), which" Where do those brackets/parenthesis open? Is that a typo?
Yes, fixed. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Do we have a picture of a dark Alaskan specimen? The infobox image looks pretty dark- perhaps clarify whether that is one of the darker specimens in the image caption?
It's not Alaskan, just a dark specimen, but within the color range I've seen in other pictures. I'll look around to see if there's a free pic of a black Alaskan version (but I doubt it). Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "brittle, breaking easily" Tautology?
  • "ellipsoid" Not a common word- link?
  • "nonamyloid" not sure I like the fact half of the word in wikilinked- also, shouldn't that have a dash?
Yes, I dashed it (which hopefully makes the 2nd-half linking more tolerable). Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "iodine" linky.
  • "acyanophilous" Again- link? Explanation?
It was previously, but I can see why it was missed because of my ambiguous placement of punctuation. Fixed. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "filamentous" Ditto. The section is appropriately technical (I do not support dumbing down), but we do need to try and make the technical terms accessible to the non-expert reader.
  • "cuticle" Ditto.
  • "(the pileipillus)" Is this "also known as the ...", or "in this case, the ..."? If the latter, what precisely is a pileipillus?
  • "septa" Again, technical.
  • "trumpet- or tubular shaped" Does "tubular" not also need a dash? (Not red hot on dashes...)
  • ""fragrant chanterelle", Cantharellus odoratus," How come this common name is in quote marks, but others aren't? Personally, I wouldn't use them- your choice.
  • Mention Alaska in distribution?
  • "and is cultivated in Asian countries such as Korea, Japan, and China." It's cultivated in China, but has never been collected wild? Clarification would be good.
  • "preserved by drying.[23]" Any affect on the taste? You mentioned a change in smell above, I think.
  • "Alzheimer's disease" linky
  • "compound polyozellin—isolated and purified from P. multiplex" too technical for me to really comment, but would that not be better as something like "compound polyozellin—a chemical which can be isolated and purified from P. multiplex"? Also, is that chemical unique to this species?
  • What's kynapcin? Link or explanation?
"...similar dibenzofuranyl derivatives of polyozellin, each with different chemical properties, including kynapcin..." Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "extract" Looks like overlinking (contrary to what I said above!)
I used extract 3 times in the article and have now linked at first mention. I think its a useful link in this case, as it gives explanatory background that helps understand the statement. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref 18- could you clarify that it is Mushroom Expert? Currently no publisher listed.
  • The Pilz reference is only used once- perhaps move it into the notes section? Or is it being used as a "general" refernece?
Good eye. Was supposed to be 2 separate page refs from that source. Fixed. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Is Gen. Tech. Rep. a journal? Full name?
Have unabbreviated it so it matches the title on the cover.

That's what I'm seeing now, hope it proves useful :) J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

All other points you raised above and to which I've not explicitly replied, I agree with and have made changes based on your suggestions. Thanks for your careful reading! Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Technical read! Because the article is so small, some paraphrasing of the technicalities could make the article more accessible to the lay reader.

  • Can we have "earthfans" liked to the relevant Wikitionary article?
Earthfans is a common name applied to the Thelephoraceae family, which is linked a bit higher up in the paragraph. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hum, OK, but I wanted a link on earthfans specifically. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've now unlinked Thelephoraceae, made a redirect for "leathery earthfans" to Thelephoraceae, and linked to this. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Should 'Alaska' be linked?
It was linked twice, in the Habitat and distribution, and in the description. I've now changed so that it's only linked once, at its first occurrence in the History and Taxonomy section. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The first occurrence, in the lead, is not linked. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Now linked in lede. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Should 'polyozellin' be redlinked?
Sure, why not. I dislink red-links, so it will likely compel me to make an article for the compound :) Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Great. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "they appear translucent (hyaline)"
'hyaline' is placed here in brackets a bit bluntly. Maybe add a few words to explain what is hyaline or why it is relevant to the sentence
Changed to this "Viewed microscopically, they are hyaline, meaning they appear translucent or colorless." Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Great. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Should 'cuticle' or 'pileipillus' be linked?
Have now redlinked pileipillus, article coming soon. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Great. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Update: there was an article already, I had the word spelled incorrectly (should be pileipellis). Sasata (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • but not at all the cell partitions (septa)
Same as above, 'septa' is put here too bluntly
I've taking the word septa out of the sentence, but have instead linked to it via "cell partitions". Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Great. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Should 'extracts' be linked?
It's linked at first use in the "Bioactive compounds" section. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it should be linked. Actually, I think this is a common word that should not be linked. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I thought it might be useful, but you're the second person to point this out (see comment by JMilburne above), so I have unlinked it. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, the articles I write often border on "too technical", and it's very useful to have commentary from a non-specialist. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Support (moral or otherwise as wikiproject fungi member) I am happy with Kuo as a reference for the reasons J Milburn outlined above, I feel this is exhaustive and the prose straddles the line between accuracy and accessibility well. Well done, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • More comments As requested on my talk page, I'll give the article another look.
  • "blue- to purple-colored clusters of vase- or spoon-shaped caps with vein-like"
A large concentration of dashes there! A bit difficult/unnatural to read.
The hyphen usage is correct (compound modifiers and suspended hyphens, as per hyphen, but I've changed vein-like to veiny, hope that helps. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "A monotypic genus, it" and "An edible species, it"
A bit of a repetitive construction for the lead
Changed the wording of the second example. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "purposes. P. multiplex"
The two dots next to one another is slightly disturbing. Maybe rearrange or expand P.
Have used the full name so the sentence doesn't start with P. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "up to 1 meter (3.3 ft)"
you abbreviate cm, in, ft but not meter
In general, I try to unabbreviate the first usage so there's no ambiguity, then abbreviate all examples after that. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "30 centimeters (11.8 in)"
another catch
As per above. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "more typically"
redundant?
Probably. Changed to "usually". Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "nearly as long"
Ambiguous, is that 'almost as long' or 'a bit longer'?
Now "almost as long". Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you please Annotate as many pictures as possible? That would REALLY help.
Hmmm, did not know about this feature, but it looks pretty cool. However, I'm not sure what kind of annotation would benefit the reader here... could you give an example? Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe precisely locate the "fruting body", the "hymenophore", the "individual caps", the "white powdery accumulation of spore deposit", the "hymenium", the "stem", the "tomemtum", etc. Right now, I can't visualize very well what's where on the fungus.
  • "5.5–8 µm" and "3 to 5 cm"
Sometimes a dash, sometimes a 'to'. Be consistent.
Good point. All are dashes now. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Scale your pictures.
By this I mean do something like File:Jumping_spider_with_prey.jpg.
Good idea in theory, but I didn't take the pictures, so don't know the scale. I'm hoping the description information will give the reader a sense of the dimensions of the fungus. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The black chanterelle is edible"
Any specific/interesting recipes out there?
Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that's outside the purview of a WikiPedia article :) Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I realize only 50% of the pictures are of the actual species.
True, but there's not a lot of free pics available, and the two that are there are by far the best ones I could get. The two other similar-appearing species are discussed in their respective sections, so I think are justified. Sasata (talk)
  • What does the fruiting body look like?
I was hoping that the "Description" section covers this adequately. Is there something you think is missing? Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "kynapcin-12,[36] kynapcin-13 and -28,[37] and -24"
Ok, so what is kynapcin, why is it interesting? Maybe add a link/expand.
"Chemicals that inhibit PEP have attracted research interest due to their potential therapeutic effects.[35] Further analyses of extracts from P. multiplex revealed similar dibenzofuranyl derivatives of polyozellin, each with different chemical properties, including kynapcin-12..." Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "water fraction"
Add a link?
I just removed it as unnecessary obfuscation. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "a tendency for increase in the molecule glutathione"
Molecules don't increase! (Well, that's not what you meant, right?)
Is now "...and increased the abundance of the molecule glutathione." Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "by initiating a sequence of events leading to a cell's death"
That doesn't sound good. Maybe clarify that it leads to the death of tumorous cells
Have hopefully clarified by inserting a word thusly "... by initiating a sequence of events leading to a damaged cell's death."
  • "Skeletal formula of polyozellin"
This caption ought to have a reference.
Good idea. Done. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "gastric cancer"
Link? Is this the same as stomach cancer?
Yes, linked and simplified. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "It also increased the expression of the gene p53"
The referenced thing by 'it' is a bit far away. Grammatically speaking it may even refer to "The study" from the previous sentence.
Changed "It" to "The extract"
  • "fragrant chanterelle, Cantharellus odoratus"
Doesn't this species deserve a link?
Yes, it certainly does. Currently a redlink, but that'll change soon. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "but it is orange"
The 'it' is confusing here. The sentence reads better without it.
Have refactored the sentence. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "is similar is shape"
typo
Fixed. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "and light violet to pink in color"
'in color' is a bit redundant, but no big deal
Redundancy removed. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "mutualistic"
Isn't that a common word? If you think it's a bit of a fancy words, maybe link to Wiktionary.
My guess would be that the average reader wouldn't know what the word was, and the linked article is decent. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "plant species"
'plants' reads simpler
Agreed. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Polyozellus multiplex is an ectomycorrhizal species, meaning that the hyphae and mycelia of the fungus grow in a mutualistic association with the roots of plant species"
Good faith attempt to explain the concept of "ectomycorrhizal", but instead of having to following one link, I now have to follow two! (Namely 'hyphae' and 'mycelia'.)
Ok, I took out mycelia, the definition is close enough for this purpose. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "spruce and fir"
These plants seeem to be important for the article. Can we have a picture of both put aside (like in here, for example).
Ok, done. That's a handy template. In the caption, I didn't include the specific names of the trees, as it's distracting extra info, but instead linked each picture to its respective species article. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Greek words poly meaning "many", and oz, meaning "branch""
Are poly and oz really full words, or just prefixes etc.? Maybe remove 'words'. Also, Wiktionary link poly and oz!
Not sure if they're words or not, so removed the word "words" from the sentence. Can't really wikt-link them as they are Greek and the English word has a different meaning (eg "oz" = ounce). Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Craterellus cornucopioides is a lookalike species"
This caption shouldn't contain a full stop.
True - fixed. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The (small) section Antitumor properties uses the word 'increase(d)' three times.
Thanks to Roget and his thesaurus, increase is now only used once. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Fruit bodies may be preserved by drying."
Is there a reason this is not 'fruting bodies' (as elsewhere in the text)?
"Fruit body" and "fruiting body" are used pretty much interchangeably in the literature, but to be sure I checked the Dictionary of the Fungi, and saw that they endorse "fruit body", so changed all instances in the article to be consistent with that. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "extreme growth form"
Add a link?
Ok, linked to Plant life-form which is a synonym for the same concept. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What would really be awesome is a picture a some packaged (for commercial purpose) Polyozellus.
Or maybe a picture of a dish containing Polyozellus!
Yes, those would be good. Or a picture of a basketfull being sold at an open market in China. I poked around the 'net a bit, but no luck. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "by Elizabeth Woodworth"
Is this information really important/necessary?
In retrospect, nah. I hope the ghost of Elizabeth does not come to haunt me for failing to recognize her part in the discovery of this species :) Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "It was later (1910) transferred"
I would prosify the bracketed date.
Ok. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "In 1920, part of a Japanese collection compiled by A. Yasuda was sent to mycologist Curtis Gates Lloyd, who believed it to be a new species and named it Phyllocarbon Yasudai."
What does 'it' refer to? 'part of a Japanese collection'?
Sentence recast for less ambiguity. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In History and taxonomy a big part is dedicated to taxonomic reclassifications based on the macroscopic features of Polyozellus. But have any genetic studies been made to help clear up the debate? This is not mentioned. GeometryGirl (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No genetic studies that I know of. But I also don't have a source that explicitly says that no DNA studies have been done, so would be uncomfortable putting a statement like that in the article. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Fixing these details is great, thanks for the close reading. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
More comments from J Milburn, I'll see if I can see anything else!
  • "he noted "the plant is a remarkable one " shouldn't that be "he noted that "the plant is a remarkable one "?
  • According to the MOS, we shouldn't start sections with left hand images, as you have in the description section.
  • Perhaps the mycomorphbox should be moved to the description section, rather than placed in the header?
  • "it Phyllocarbon Yasudai.[3]" Is that capital correct? Is there any particular reason the specific name is capitalised? I've never seen a capital even when it's named after someone.
  • Ref 22: "Bigelo HE. (1978). "The cantharelloid fungi of New England and adjacent areas". Mycologia 70 (4): 707–56. doi:10.2307/3759354. ISSN 00275514." Unless I'm reading the template wrong, you're citing 49 pages for two facts. Any chance of narrowing it a little?
  • "The black chanterelle is edible," Why is it suddenly known by its vernacular name? I'd stick to the specific name the whole way through.
  • "(which includes the genera Cantharellus, Craterellus, Gomphus, and Polyozellus)" Craterellus is already linked a few lines above.
  • Perhaps a big ask, but some more information about it in the Asian countries would be interesting. The article currently seems to lean towards the American populations- is it as rare in Asia? Why is it in both Asia and America?
  • "No further reported collections of the fungus were made until 1937" No further collections were recorded? I'm sure people still found/picked/ate it, just no one bothered to write about it.
  • It mentions it is collected for sale in China, but doesn't mention that it is found there in the distribution section?
  • "poly meaning "many", and oz, meaning "branch"." When quoting a single word as the word itself, such as in translations, should italics not be used? See Wikipedia:ITALICS#Words_as_words- the examples seem a little ambiguous.
  • There still seems to be a little bit of inconsistency with common names in quote marks- there are the Polyozellus common names in quote marks, then other common names without them, then the lonely "The "pig's ear Gomphus", species".
  • Caption "Craterellus cornucopioides is a lookalike species" forms a complete sentence- full stop?
  • Has the species ever actually been used to combat tumors? Or has research merely found in contains a chemical? Perhaps the chemical when isolated from other locations has been used? "Research conducted in 2003 suggests that extracts from Polyozellus multiplex have suppressive effects on stomach cancer." Suggests that it has been done, if not, perhaps "Research conducted in 2003 suggests that extracts from Polyozellus multiplex would have suppressive effects on stomach cancer." would be better.

Hope these will be useful. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

California's 12th congressional district election, 1946

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the FA criteria. The fifth, and perhaps final (though I am considering an article on the Alger Hiss imbroglio) in my Nixon series, it covers Nixon's first election campaign. It's a GA, in which our WP Nixon expert, Happyme22 was asked for a second opinion by the reviewer and endorsed the GA, and received a peer review by Brianboulton, who was favorable (favourable, in his case) about the article. Most of the photos were taken by me on a visit to California earlier in the summer, at which I also visited three archives to obtain the official Statements of Vote and seek other appropriate sources (such as newspaper clippings from 1946 not available online) that would help this article. I think it's ready to go.Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments Good article; interesting read. The only thing I noticed is the last source (1946 election results) is missing publisher, date etc. Dave (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's now fixed. I have the official California statement of vote too, but better to have an online ref there, I think. Thanks for the praise!--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Aren't that many anyway, someone could do it manually in very little time I suspect. This is an article mostly from offline sources. Thanks Ealdgyth!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've looked from the top down to the start of "Background".

  • Comma required after "Nixon" in the opening para.
  • Bit clunky, or at least unnecessarily "marked" with bumps: "which would, almost a quarter century later, lead to the White House". Consider "which would lead to the White House almost a quarter century later."
  • Why is "World War II" linked? Is it an obscure event that even a few readers have never heard of?
  • "and to connect" might be better than "and successfully connect", given that the previous "to" is way back and that to connect is to connect.
  • Perhaps "in the election" rather than "in November", since non-US readers will be unfamiliar with the constitutional setting of the ?first Tuesday in November for elections for all levels of government.
  • "explanations have been made" – Consider "put forward" or "proposed" or "considered". "ranging" might be dropped.
  • "such errors" doesn't work—it's plural, but refers back by comparison to a singular "campaign". It's also a little laboured, I think. Could you express the opposite in substantive terms? "while Nixon ran a skilled .... ".
  • "encompassing such (at the time) small towns as"—clunky; perhaps "at the time encompassing such small towns as"?

This demonstrates the need for fresh eyes to copy-edit throughout. Two things that might be watched are comma usage and the awkward placement of phrases in the middle of sentences. Tony (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start looking for someone to look at the article, but I may await additional comments so as to consolidate things, and perhaps one of the reviewers will be minded to do some work. Since this article is almost entirely my writing, it therefore displays my writing quirks. As for the White House sentence, I think it important that the sentence end with the words "White House", I'll look at alternative phrasings. Otherwise some of the effect is lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've made most of the specific changes Tony noted. I struck the parenthetical (at the time), because doing it the way he suggested would lead to an ambiguity, the reader could see it as a statement that the 12th district no longer includes any of those towns, which is actually true, since the present 12th district is up by San Francisco, but that's not the point that is trying to be made. I delinked World War II and also Washington D.C. All other comments were acted upon, and I'm seeing about getting a fresh set of eyes.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
"which almost half a century later would lead to the White House.", perhaps? Reviewers are under no obligation to edit nominations—in fact, I would discourage more than a little of that, since we are so short of reviewers. Unfortunately, we are reduced to providing examples from small portions, then returning to re-assess; or at least that is how I try to cover as many nominations as possible. Quirks? Not sure about that unless the readers are likely to find them easy to get; what is most important is a smooth read. Tony (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Quarter century. Yes, your suggestion is fine. Frankly, I'm happy for help at any hand.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Tony's comments have been addressed, and I dropped a note on his talk page so stating.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent and balanced article, both well-written and well-sourced. I have only a couple of suggestions:
    • Maybe add a picture of Voorhis?
    • In the South Pasadena debate, you write that Hoeppel asked one question -- do you know what the question was? It's not crucial to the article, but it might be interesting to the reader. Coemgenus 14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Unhappily, I have not been able to find a free use picture of Voorhis. That's why I fell with glad cries on the license plate attachment at the Nixon Museum which includes a picture of Voorhis (figuratively, it was behind glass), and I photographed that, it's three dimensional and for public display, perfect free use! As for Hoeppel's question, the actual question is not in any source I've been able to find, but it, according to Bullock, had to do with a group in the Spanish Civil War that Voorhis had supported (I gather, though Bullock is imprecise, on the losing side) which was by 1946 believed to be Communist Front. Bullock describes the question as "tricky". Bullock does not say what Voorhis said in response. Gellman doesn't mention it. Morris mentions it, using similar language, and cites to Bullock. I'd be open to putting it in a footnote. Let me know what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That's too bad about the picture. That's one of the difficulties of writing about post-1923 figures. As to the question, if it's not that relevant, maybe it's best left out, or relegated to a footnote. I have the Gellman book, which doesn't list it, so I was curious. Anyway, great article -- good luck with the FA nom! Coemgenus 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Good news about Prof. Gellman. The archivist at the Nixon Library told me he's almost ready to go with the second part of his projected three part bio of Nixon. He was out sick for quite a while. Thanks for the support!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments, leaning to support: I was involved in the peer review, and most of the substantive issues I raised there have been addressed. In general this is an excellent addition to the growing collection of early Nixon articles, and Wehwalt is to be commended for the depth of his research and for his narrative abilities. I mentioned at the review that the prose might need some final polishing, and that still appears to be the case. I have fixed a couple or so minor glitches; here are a few more to be looked at:-

  • Lead
    • I suggest: "First elected to Congress in 1936, Voorhis..."
    • Also, "For the 1946 contest, Republicans sought a candidate..."
    • I'd avoid the repetition in the third paragraph by saying: "...while Voorhis did not return from Washington D.C. until..."
    • ...and in the last paragraph, rather than repeat "defeat of Voorhis", I would simply refer to Nixon's "victory".

Done with minor changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • District and campaigns
    • "Voorhis was re-elected by 13,000 votes in 1942"; without knowledge of the total vote, this doesn't tell us whether the 1942 election was close or a walkover. Could "a majority of x%" be added in?
    • Just a thought: are military school principals by definition weak candidates? Otherwise, in regard to 1940, it might be appropriate to say something like "he faced a military school principal with no political experience" - or some such.
      • After digging through Bullock, I find he says that the principal, Capt. Irwin Minger "was an unknown". I'll give him the benefit of the down and call him "little-known".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Search for a candidate
    • "Tammany Hall" will mean nothing to the great majority of non-American readers (except for the odd geek like me who did an American politics option). Although the term occurs within a quote, this is, I think, an occasion when a wikilink inside a quotation would be helpful.
    • I appreciate the concern to avoid repeating Nixon's name, but calling him "the naval officer" is too anonymous. There are other repetitions in these two sentences which in my view are equally distracting. Thus, I would go for: "When the Committee met on November 28, Nixon received over two-thirds of the vote, which was quickly made unanimous. Chairman Roy Day immediately notified the victor of the Committee's endorsement."
      • Fair enough. You've read my prior FACs when I've been nailed for rep of the name of the subject. I've changed that and also changed two other allusions to Nixon to his name and hopefully the wind won't hit me from the other side.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Suggest instead of "The naval officer was a virtual unknown..." say "The candidate was a virtual unknown..."
      • I just changed it to "Nixon". See previous note.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Two consecutive sentences begin "Charles Voorhis..." Could the second start "Voorhis Sr"?
      • The elder Voorhis is probably more formal, and I've used it with good effect elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Primary campaign
    • "In mid-March, Nixon was approached by former congressman Hoeppel, who hated Voorhis." In view of the strong verb "hate", shouldn't this statement be cited?
        • Not a problem. Just found it in Bullock. "a bitter, relentless foe throughout his life" Nixon bios also call him "enemy" and so forth, but they've all read Bullock too.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "Nourished by the PAC controversy, the campaign had new life..." Suggest "the Republican campaign"
      • Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional debates
    • "The candidates were compared to Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas" Surely, the comparison was with the Lincoln-Douglas debates rather than, as implied, with the personalities? This should be clarified. Also (for the benefit of Brits etc.), it should be mentioned that the debates in question took place during the 1860 presidential campaign.
        • No, they were referred to as being like Lincoln and Douglas. Bochin's book is online, see here, page 18. Now, I do have a Newsweek post election article where it refers to Nixon having bested Voorhis in five Lincoln-Douglas debates and Voorhis saying of Nixon "The fellow has a silver tongue" but I'm suspicious of it, it does not sound like Voorhis, even a Voorhis trying to be gracious.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It would help my fellow-Brits if some explanation was added as to why the Lincoln and Douglas comparison was made. Could you add the words "who had debated before the 1860 presidential election" or some similar wording, using thr link? This is a suggestion, not a request. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there any reason/history behind Warren's letter praising Voorhis? It seems an odd thing to have done.
      • Warren probably did not intend it politically, from what I gather. Voorhis used a very nice letter Warren had sent him for helping to get a bill passed in the campaign. Warren did not endorse congressional candidates, but Nixon's people went to Warren and said that since Voorhis is using your letter in his campaign, you should disavow the letter or else endorse Nixon. Warren said Voorhis deserved the compliment and he wasn't going to endorse Nixon. Do you think I should add more exposition there?
        • Perhaps add to the sentence "claiming his action was not political." Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Historical issues
    • "In 1981, three years before his death, Voorhis denied in an interview that he had been endorsed by the NCPAC." Perhaps this should say "In an interview in 1981, three years before his death, Voorhis repeated his denial that he had been endorsed by the NCPAC."
        • No, you've fallen under the spell of Chotiner. It was the CIO-PAC he denied. He didn't know about the NCPAC until South Pasadena. A little revisionism on Voorhis's part. He "indignantly denied it", too!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "Nixon's backers, especially in the Committee of One Hundred, have been a matter of controversy..." Is it not the identity of Nixon's backers which is a matter of controversy?
        • I've rephrased. I had consecutive paragraphs basically comparing and contrasting the same things. I've combined them. You always catch the things that are bothering me a little, but not quite enough to do anything about it. Now I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will be pleased to switch to full support when these matters are tidied up. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the amendements that have been made, and have registered full support, above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will put in those suggestions. Right now Mattisse is busy copyediting and I don't want to ec her, so expect the changes a little later on. I'm please at the reception this article is getting, it gave me a lot of trouble, I started it before the Senate article but found that one was easier to work on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Questions from Ssilvers
  • I am concerned with the very first sentence of the article that says, "An election for the United States House of Representatives took place in California's 12th congressional district...." Didn't the election take place throughout the U.S. on the same date? Shouldn't this say something like, "An election for the United States House of Representatives took place on November 5, 1946. In California's 12th congressional district, the candidates were...."? How do other high-quality election articles solve this?
I strongly believe the subject of the article, even if not stated in the exact same words as the title, should be in the first sentence of the article. There is an article about the 1946 elections, though it is mostly tables. I am splitting the first sentence into two sentences, which I think will address your concerns. It bumps "Nixon" into the second sentence, but that can't be helped. The only high quality election article is my article on the United States Senate election in California, 1950, which has a similar tone to the first sentence.
  • Does the Lead section give an overview of the entire article per WP:LEAD? Ssilvers (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked it over. I think it does. In very summary form, it tells what the article is about, and leads the reader through it quickly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Results section - What do the parenthetical statements in the Primary tables mean? Can you give a text note explaining their meaning? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hometowns. I'll find a way to put in a nice looking text note.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: Regardless of whether my above comments lead to modifications or not, I support the promotion of this article to FA. I have very much enjoyed reading it. The prose is lively, even compelling (and that's saying something for a Wikipedia article!). Congratulations to Wehwalt and the other editors of this article on a fine contribution to Wikipedia. Disclosure note: as I read the article, I made some minor copy-edits to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

THanks for the support! I've addressed your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This was listed on a list of articles requiring an image review. I have reviewed the images (only) on this article, and can find no issues with them. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    Great. Has someone looked at the alt text?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    The alt text looks good to me. (I particularly liked the thimble.) Eubulides (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    Cool (got it on eBay, the other objects photographed are in archives or museums). Is there anything else that needs to be done? This one's getting pretty senior at FAC, image, tech (subject to misbehaving programs), alt all done, three supports, copyedited.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Postman's Park

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Postmen, Anglo-Saxon kings, shredded corpses, Natalie Portman, bishops, decorative porcelain, German air-raids – there should be something for everyone here. A frozen-in-time snapshot of the social and aesthetic values of the England of the 1900s, and an unusual collaboration between four leading figures in very different artistic disciplines (George Frederic Watts, Ernest George, William De Morgan and Mary Fraser Tytler), with cameo appearances from a broad gallery of Eminent Victorians. – iridescent 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. (Sorry I didn't get to this earlier.. been a wacky week here!) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • I don't know why this nomination has received so little attention thus far. Perhaps it's because the opening paragraph is rather uninspiring. Basically, it informs us that the park is a park, and tells us where it is. It defines the subject, but doesn't explain why it is notable. The most historical and culturally interesting feature of the park, it would seem, is the Watts memorial, and this should definitely be mentioned in the introductory paragraph.
  • More generally, I think the lead is overdetailed, especially in the final paragraph which lists the actors in the film made in the park. This is not lead stuff; the lead should be a summary of the article's major points. There is probably too much detail in paragraphs two and three as well.
  • So, as a start, I would redraft the lead, with a punchier beginning, and trim the contents of the other paragraphs. I also think that the infobox image caption should identify the memorial more clearly. Personally, I would ditch the infobox and use a larger version of the photograph so that the details were clearer, but then I am averse to infoboxes on principle.
I will continue reading the article, and will make further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree regarding the lead. I was trying to keep it in a strict chronological order (graveyard → park → memorial → film), and thus wasn't mentioning the memorial and Closer until later, but I've restructured it.
  • I've taken the actors' names out of the lead - I agree they weren't necessary there. Regarding paragraphs two or three, I can't see a way to trim them without losing significant information; I don't think the lead needs to give the whole story, but IMO it should provide enough context that a reader who doesn't go on to read the rest of the article would still understand what it was about, and the complicated history (and need to explain the name) makes it hard to summarize more succinctly.
  • I generally dislike infoboxes, but I added one to this article; in this particular case I think it corrals key facts (size, date, location) which could otherwise quite easily get lost. The image isn't particularly inspiring, but it's a "least worst"; we have almost a hundred images of the park, but they're almost all of particular architectural details. This one I think works best of them at conveying the cramped nature of the park (despite being arguably the biggest park in the entire City, it's smaller than a lot of American houses' backyards), and is one of the few to include enough people to give a good sense of scale. – iridescent 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The sentence: "Following the 2004 film Closer, starring Natalie Portman, Julia Roberts, Jude Law and Clive Owen, itself based on the 1997 play Closer by Patrick Marber, key scenes of both of which were set in the park, Postman's Park experienced a resurgence of interest." reads awkwardly, there are too many commas. Can the "starring" be ommited, and possibly "itself based on the 1997 play Closer by Patrick Marber" be changed to "based on the 1997 play of the same name"? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It could, but I can't see an improvement. Unless you mean taking the cast list out altogether – which I'd be reluctant to do, as it's the four stars who provide the context that this is a big-budget studio blockbuster, not some obscure British indie film (I assume most readers' assumption regarding a film adopted from a play about a stripper stealing her identity from a memorial to dead Victorians) – "starring" would have to be replaced by "featuring", which is even longer. I really don't like the idea of "based on the 1997 play of the same name", which would mean inserting an easter egg link. Not sure what others think of that one and I'll defer to the majority here. – iridescent 19:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually second thoughts - are you referring to the listing of the stars in the article, or in the lead? My reply above is in the context of listing in the article body; if you mean the lead, I agree and they've been removed per Brian above. – iridescent 20:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes I did mean the lead, sorry I should have specified. I've done a little rewording myself, please tell me what you think of it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure I agree – "following Closer, there was renewed interest; key scenes were set in the park" breaks the chronological and causal development of the original "following Closer, of which key scenes were set in the park, there was renewed interest" – but it's not something I'd editwar over. – iridescent 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Well previously it was "key scenes of both of which", which personally sounds awkward. The way I formed the current revision was to leave the mention of key scenes to the end, to emphasise the fact that the interest resurgence was as a result of them being filmed actually in the park itself. Feel free to change it back if my explanation doesn't suffice, I'm not one who gives a hoo-ha over "edit wars" or the like. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

  • First of all...dude, gross. Secondly, it's quite fascinating.

Oppose until the following resolved: Support with some work on the lead taking place on the talk page.

  • You've got a lead within a lead here. The first paragraph is a summary of the lead. Can you simplify?
  • Cite the notes, please, per Alice Ayers.
  • In the William De Morgan memorial tablets section, we have the Great 2009 Battle of MOSIMAGES Guideliness. The image of Morgan looks right so it should be on the left. The Alice Ayers tiles sandwich the text and it's distracting. I think it would be fine to knock Morgan's image under the 2nd level section header to give it more room. I don't know the reason for that rule anyway. Does anyone else?
  • Similar sandwiching is done in the Postman's Park after the death of Mary Watts section. I'm not sure what it is, but the sandwiching thing makes me completely lose my rhythm in reading. Maybe it's the movement of the eyes, used to whole lines, half lines, whole lines. I get more ADD and I didn't think that really possible.
  • Cheesman Park in Denver was a public park/burial ground for squatters and the homeless until the early 20th century. I vaguely recall stories of vandals and thieves digging up the graves to steal jewelry and whatnot, and it was quite mismanaged, causing careless graverobbers to leave open coffins or remains on the city streets. Savannah too had a yellow fever epidemic so severe that bodies were simply stacked in the squares and not buried. But I heard that on a ghost tour, which I think is half full of lies anyway. At any rate, very interesting. --Moni3 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead-within-the-lead is the result of a rewrite per Brianboulton above. Initially, the first paragraph was just a simple "it's a park in the City of London" summary. The lead has to mention the memorial, since it's the most significant thing there, but merging paragraph 3 on the memorial with the "It's a park. It used to be a graveyard." paragraph 2 would, I think, overwhelm it - I can't see an obvious way to trim paragraph 3 further.
  • Notes all cited (except for one which I've removed as I decided it wasn't relevant).
  • I'd happily move De Morgan up to under the level 2 header, but (while I have no idea why) that seems to be one part of MOSIMAGE that's strictly enforced; I've moved him up anyway as I agree that, aside from anything else, a picture of someone should be next to the paragraph about him. I know the Ayres tile is distracting but I think it's necessary to have a picture of one of the tiles in this particular section, as there's so much talk about the design. If necessary, the De Morgan picture is expendable, although I think it's nice to give an idea what he looked like.
  • I've removed two photos from "After the death of..." - it's a shame to lose File:Christ Church Greyfriars, August 2009.JPG as it's a very striking image, but it's not of the park itself. File:Postman's Park London.JPG was there mainly to keep the left-right alternation in place, and thus allow the very long and tall image of the drinking fountain (which I think is necessary) to stay on the right and thus not interfere with the headers. – iridescent 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Brian can participate in this part here on the FAC or the talk page. I might try a rewrite of the lead, somewhat simplified and maybe we can reach a compromise.
  • Consider my idea for Alice Ayers, that if you have so many images some of them might fit in a gallery. Personally, I found this one striking and I'm glad you kept it in. --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I really dislike galleries. Besides, galleries can't handle the blessed alt-text. – iridescent 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Meh. --Moni3 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • SupportComments from Maralia
  • Some of the images were sandwiching text, and/or impinging on subsequent section headers. I made a single edit to tweak their positions within each section; undo if you hate it, but I think it's an improvement.
  • I don't feel that the second St Botolph's Aldersgate image adds much; no offense to the photographer but unfortunately it looks rather more like a portrait of a tree. (oh - I've just refreshed and read Moni's comments and your responses above. Perhaps replace this image with the Greyfriars one you removed?)
  • The conversion figures could use a consistency check (I see "£56 thousand" and "£19,000").
  • A couple issues with the sentence "Hailed as "The last great Victorian", on 7 July 1904 a memorial service was held in St Paul's Cathedral, 300 yards (270 m) south of Postman's Park": (1) why capitalize The? (2) the subject of the introductory phrase is Watts, yet the subject of the remainder of the sentence is a memorial service.
  • I'm decidedly not asking you to change this, but I wanted to point out that most Americans simply will not get the British usage of "in the event". Just food for thought.
  • "On 13 June 1917, Metropolitan Police officer P.C." - is there a less awkward method than three nouns in a row to communicate that he was a police officer?
  • "The tablets are arranged in three rows"...okay, there are three rows. "directly below in the fourth row"...oh wait, there are four rows. "The first and fifth of the five rows remain empty."...color me thoroughly confused. I've not tried to read/copyedit the remainder of that section since I can't quite understand it yet.

Altogether this is very well done. You've done a fine job of explaining the provenance of the parcels of land—I suspect this aspect might be the most interesting to you. I really can't get over their using the old gravestones to fence in the new park; bullets would fly over the mere suggestion of such a thing in the US. Maralia (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I've undone one of the image moves (in the William De Morgan memorial tablets section). Even though it will possibly cause this FAC to fail, I think it's more important for the article to be accessible to the reader, than to comply with a completely arbitrary guideline. There is no good reason for it to be unacceptable to have an image beneath a level 3 header but acceptable beneath a level 2 or level 4 header, and the dubious reasoning behind this guideline ("it disconnects the heading from the text it precedes") would only apply, in the case of a tall thin image like this, if the article were being read at an extreme zoom setting on a tiny screen. Accessibility is important, but it becomes unreasonable when the article is made less accessible to the vast majority of its readers just to pander to a hypothetical reader viewing the article at 1000% zoom. (FWIW, I've tested this particular instance and even on an ipod screen the image doesn't cause the text and header to disconnect.) The other image moves look fine.
  • Disagree about the second St Botolph's image. (Note: I didn't take the photo in question; this isn't me being precious about wanting "my" photo used.) This is a very distinctive building, with its tall thin bell tower, and only including File:St Botolph's Aldersgate.JPG would give a distorted impression that the building is a long low shed. The cramped and irregular shape of the park means there is no angle other than from the park from which another photo could be taken; besides, this is an article on the park, so the illustration ought to show the view from the park - this also shows how the park runs right up to the edge of the church.
  • The "thousand"/"1,000" were due to my being inconsistent in using {{formatprice}} and {{formatnum}} - fixed.
  • "The last great Victorian" is capitalised in that way because that's what was used at the time. Late 19th-century usage of capitalisation differed from modern usage.
  • I can't think of a transatlantic equivalent to "in the event". An Americanism like "it turned out" would IMO look jarring in this context. If anyone can think of a better wording, feel free...
  • I can't think of a way to shorten "Metropolitan Police officer P.C.". Non-Commonwealth readers can't be expected to understand the abbreviation P.C., but British police officers are invariably referred to by their rank (P.C. Smith, Sgt Jones, Insp Brown etc).
  • There are five rows. Rows 2, 3 and 4 are occupied by tablets, making three rows of tablets; the first and fifth row are empty. The paragraph in question is illustrated with this image to make the layout clearer - unfinished things are always hard to describe, as they don't have neat starts and finishes. I've reworded the first sentence to "The tablets are arranged on the second, third and fourth of the five rows", if that makes things clearer; however, this section is a summary style brief-skim of List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice, and I don't want to go into too much duplicated detail.
Using the old gravestones to fence in the park isn't quite as outlandish as it appears; British graveyards were designed to be reused, which is why there are so few really old gravestones in Britain. Remember, in this particular case we're talking about one of the highest population densities in the world (the entire City of London would fit within Central Park without touching the edges) with two thousand years of history, and an economy and culture based since Saxon and Viking times on asset-stripping other cultures and the ruins of the past. (Until relatively recently, the traditional West European way to source building materials was to dismantle the nearest Roman building.) – iridescent 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The one image placement change that you reverted wasn't mine. I too question that clause in WP:ACCESS.
  • I've taken another look at the two instances of "in the event", and I think the phrase could just be excised without any major loss of meaning. Your call.
  • Re "Metropolitan Police officer [[Constable|P.C.]]": I considered "Metropolitan Police [[constable]] P.C." as the term constable is familiar enough, and it does away with the easter egg link—but "constable P.C." may be awkward in its own way.
I had looked at that tablets image repeatedly, yet altogether failed to see the top row. Will take another look at that section. Maralia (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
All good in the tablets section now. I found a few niggles in ref formatting, and fixed them. Would still like to see the prose tweaked in the 'last great Victorian' sentence to avoid the misplaced modifier.
I can't imagine being given only 20 days to apply to move a grave, then seeing 20 years pass before they actually finished the damn park. Any hints (I presume nothing solid, or you would have put it in the article) as to why it took so long? Maralia (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Dabomb87 has re-reverted the image-placement; I've asked him here to discuss it since (as previously mentioned) I think there's no reason at all to apply this particular arbitrary style guideline in this case, and compelling reasons not to.
  • I've replaced one "in the event" with "it transpired". The other usage of the term (about the decision to use ceramic tiling) I've kept in; I can't think of an obvious synonym for it that won't be very clumsy. Given the subject matter the vast majority of readers of this article will be British English speakers, who will understand "in the event" as meaning "the end result was different to that originally proposed".
  • I don't think "Metropolitan Police [[constable]] P.C." works, as people familiar with the term (as per above, most readers of this will be British English speakers) will read that as "Metropolitan Police constable Police Constable", which is even more jarring. The problem arises from Metropolitan Police being his employer and Police Constable being his title, and both needing to be mentioned. The fact of him being Metropolitan Police needs to be mentioned; it won't be immediately obvious to anyone not familiar with the area, but it's counter-intuitive that he worked for the M.P., as they don't cover the City of London; that a Met officer was on duty so close to the park is down to a quirk of the old boundaries of the City (Postman's Park is about halfway between the words "City" and "Islington" on the map, near where a spur of Islington used to jut down into the City.)
  • I don't know why they took so long to open the park. I'd assume lack of funds - the British economy was heavily dependent on transatlantic shipping and cotton trading, both of which collapsed in the 1860s due to the American Civil War, and the Great Deflation sent prices haywire in the 1870s - but that's pure OR on my part.
I've rejigged the "Styles of tiling" table to put the photo of the five rows first, and thus next to the explanatory text - hopefully that will make it clearer. – iridescent 14:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Boys in Red accident

Nominator(s): Kuzwa (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this is one of the best disaster related articles on Wikipedia and as such exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. If people disagree than I will quickly change minds. All comments are much appreciated. Thanks, Kuzwa (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: The lead is lacking. It was the deadliest since 1989, but when was it? The lead can be expanded to summarize the article better. Reywas92Talk 02:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Reywas I changed the lead slightly in order to make it more clear when the event occurred and it's consequences. It's a brief touch up tonight as I have some limited time right now. Tomorrow though I will try to fully fix the lead to make it more engaging. Thanks for your comment! --Kuzwa (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

::I have a general idea of two new possible leads. However the one I prefer does not meet the WP:Lead rule of putting the article subject as soon as possible, usually in the first sentence. I think a better opening can be made putting the subject in the second sentence but I'm not sure if that is common place or even allowed in FA's. If requested I could make a draft and link here. Does anyone know if I could do this? --Kuzwa (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the above comment I've changed the lead and I hope it is now up to your satisfaction. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present; thanks. However, the alt text for the lead image, "Wrecked white van on snowy terrain" is a bit too terse, as it fails to capture useful info in that image that is not present in the caption or in nearby text. Please modify it to briefly describe the appearance of the wreck, e.g., the fact that the right side and rear of the van is sheared off. Eubulides (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
And thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn support - Interesting read, only one small nitpick.
  • The civic centre could only contain 3,500 people, so many mourners filled the adjacent rink to observe the service on a widescreen television. - cite. ceranthor 12:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your support. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't take this offensively, but I am withdrawing my support based on another read of this article. I think it could use a copyedit, so I'll run through. The reason I am withdrawing this support is the prose. ceranthor 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Haha no problem, care to point out what needs an edit though? :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The sentences are a bit choppy, try to make them more varied in sentence structure. There is nothing wrong with the current prose, just that it is a little boring. ceranthor 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it when I have time and am a bit more focused. Thanks for the suggestion. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to Weak support - The prose flows well, I think, and gets the job done, so I'll give it a shot. Please ask a copyeditor to run through, particularly one who does work with FA's. ceranthor 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ceranthor I'm still a bit busy and am fearing I may be somewhat inactive until the weekend. I have placed a request to the Guild of Copyeditors so that hopefully one of the members reviews it. As soon as I'm fully back I will pursue any major issues. Shouldn't hinder my ability to combat minor ones however. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed. Thanks for your comments. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I did some copyediting, and found a couple of things that make me feel this isn't quite ready. A more detailed run through by a good copyeditor would address quite a few things. I found (and fixed) a statement in the lead that was cited but not supported by the source given, and I also tried to improve the precision of some of the statements. The content appears to be all here, and the structure is fine, but the writing is not quite there yet. If I have more time I will try to take a pass myself. Mike Christie (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike thanks for your time you put looking into the article. I have already requested a copy edit as mentioned above so I'm currently waiting on that. I'm currently busy getting ready for a rather hectic year in school so pardon for my inactivity! --Kuzwa (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Werner Mölders

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is well researched. I am interested in anything that helps me improve the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (1a):Comment I am sorry to say that article's prose is a long way short of Featured Article standard. It looks as though a great deal of excellent research has taken place, and there is no reason why this article should not develop to the required standard. It is not there yet, however. I wonder whether, before nominating this, the nominator checked the FA criteria to see whether the article conformed to these? The following is a sample of points taken from the lead alone:-

  • The explanation of the term "flying ace" is inappropriate, given that the term is explained in the immediately previous link.
    Well I don't mind changing it here, but putting in the way it stands now was the outcome of a previous review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Third sentence needs reconstruction, and splitting. I suggest: "Initially rejected by the Luftwaffe because of air-sickness, he became the leading German flying ace of the Spanish Civil War with 14 confirmed aerial victories. He later became the first pilot in aviation history to claim 100 aerial victories."
  • It is a little confusing to read that two different organisations honoured him in a number of different ways, and that "the decision" was revoked in 2005. What exactly does "the decision" refer to?
  • There are various problems in the second paragraph.
    • Non sequitur: "As a successor to Adolf Galland and squadron leader of the 3. Staffel (fighter squadron) of Jagdgruppe 88 (fighter group), he flew the Messerschmitt Bf 109."
    • Tortuous sentence: "During World War II he became the first pilot to claim 20 aerial victories earning him the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes), the first fighter pilot to earn the award, only to be shot down and taken prisoner of war one week later."
  • Third paragraph
    • Odd phraseology. e.g. "shortly later"
    • Wrong grammar: "Flying as a passenger in a Heinkel He 111 the return flight to Berlin got into a heavy thunderstorm and one of the engines of the aircraft failed."

These are examples. Someone needs to go through the whole article to refine and polish the prose. I am frankly a little surprised that the article has apparently gone through GA, peer review and a MilHist A-class review, and yet these problems are still evident. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Later:I see that the lead section has been more or less completely rewritten, so my earlier points are superseded. However, I found quite a few prose problems with the revised lead:-

  • I suggest that the first two sentences are combined, and the language tweaked, to give: "Werner Mölders (18 March 1913 – 22 November 1941) was a German Luftwaffe pilot who became the leading German fighter ace of the Spanish Civil War, and the first pilot in aviation history to claim 100 aerial victories."
  • Second paragraph reads as though the Battle of Britain was part of the Spanish Civil War. Needs to say something like: "After the outbreak of the Second World War, Mölders fought in the Battle of Britain and was the first pilot to claim 40 victories." The jump in the next paragraph to 68 victories in the next sentence is confusing, so perhaps you should say he was the first pilot to claim "in excess of 40 victories."
  • "Mölders and the JG 51..." You need to explain what the JG 51 was, thus: "Mölders and his unit, the JG 51,..." done
  • My understanding is that Operation Barbarossa began on 22nd June, so "By 22 June 1941, he had 72 aerial victories" is a bit confusing. Does this mean; "By the end of the first day of this operation he had increased his aerial victories total to 72;"? fixed
  • Is "banned" the right word to use here? It carries the connotation of punishment. Perhaps "prevented"? Also, the "although" at the beginning of the sentence is redundant and should be removed. fixed
  • Suggest you say "...from flying further combat missions...", and delete "as" before Inspector General.fixed
  • "He was only 28", especially as a discrete short sentence, carries a strong POV. If you want to mention his age, omit the "only", and weave it in to the previous sentence: "Prevented from flying further combat missions for propaganda reasons, at the age of 28 he was promoted to Oberst, and appointed Inspector General of Fighters." fixed, good suggestion!
  • Bring the 22 November date forward, and avoid over-short sentence, thus: "On 22 November 1941, on the flight to Berlin, the Heinkel He 111 in which he was travelling as a passenger encountered a heavy thunderstorm, during which of the aircraft's engines failed. While attempting to land, the Henkel crashed at Breslau, killing Mölders and two others." fixed
  • Suggest "each honoured him" fixed
  • Not a prose point, but I see you have not used no-break spaces, as recommended by MOS. See WP:NBSP thanks....in progress....

I don't think I will have the time to go through the rest of the prose with the attention I have given to the lead. What a pity the article didn't come to Peer Review. However I'll do my best to check it out and suggest further improvements. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking again. The article was peer reviewed please check Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Werner Mölders. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you have fixed most of my new list of lead points. I still think the phrasing at the beginning could be improved, and it still not clear that the Battles of Britain and France were Second World War affairs. I have now read through the "Early life and education" section, and was quite disappointed to find many problems, in a section which I undertand has been subject to "stringent copy editing". Below is a list of these points. I don't like sounding negative, but I can't agree that the prose is yet up to FA standard. I believe it needs a full copyedit from an uninvolved, competent editor who can devote considerable time to getting the prose right. I'd do it myself, but I simply don't have the time.
  • Early life and education section
    • The section title is inappropriate, since most of the text is concerned with his early military career. I suggest you retitle it "Childhood, education and early career". done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There are numerous untranslated German terms, some linked, others not. This makes reading tedious. In the latter part of the section you start adding English translations, which is helpful. However, I think that some of the German formulations are unnecessary and should be dropped. For example, "Mölders joined the II./Infanterie-Regiment 2..." could become "Molders joined the Second Infantry Regiment..." There are many instances in the section where this could be done; this is, after all, English Wikipedia. Otherwise I sugest you show English translations/equivalents. being done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "a Leutnant of the Reserves " - Why not "A Reserve Leutnant? done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Same sentence: the formation is clumsy, with the semicolon. The sentence should begin "After his father", and the semcolon replaced with a comma. done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "From 1919 to 1931, Mölders attended the Grundschule (Elementary school) and "Saldria-Gymnasium" in Brandenburg an der Havel." This reads as though he was attending two schools at the same time. Why are there quotes around "Saldria-Gymnasium"? I also think the repetition of Brandenburg an der Havel is unnecessary. done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "...and expressed a desire to become an officer." Specify "an officer in tha armed forces" done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Date range (6 February 1934–31 December 1934) at end of sentence, should be incorporated into the text. It should be made clear what these dates refer to. done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "...he suffered continuously from nausea and vomiting" "Continuously" means without interruption or interval. I think you probably mean "continually" ( repeated at regular intervals) done, well spotted JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Overlong, tortuous sentence: "After completing the next phase of his military pilot's training, from 1 January 1935 to 30 June 1935 at the Kampffliegerschule (combat flying school) in Tutow and at the Jagdfliegerschule (fighter pilot school) at Schleißheim near Munich, he received the newly created Pilot's Badge of the Luftwaffe on 21 May 1935." Suggest this is reorganised, and split into two shorter sentences. done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "Remilitarisation" does not require capitalising. The sentence would read better with the date at the start, thus: "On 7 March 1936, during the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, Mölders...." done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "Mölders met Luise Baldauf, whom he eventually married..." In this case, it is "who", not "whom" you are mistaken: it would be "who married him", but "whom he married"; "he" is the subject, "whom" is the object JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Avoid repetition: "...numerous promotions were handed out, including Mölders' promotion..." done JN466 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have struck the oppose, in view of the good work in response to my comments, above, and as I probably won't be able to get round to a detailed study of the rest. The article will make it eventually, I'm sure. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'll go through the article and do a copyedit. JN466 10:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The timeline in the third paragraph of the Early Life section needs attention. We have him beginning training at two different schools on 6 February 1934. Could you have a look? JN466 12:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    fixed, good spot! MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: the content of this article is superb, and well documented. I agree that the English is "sluggish" but it is easily fixed. When JN is done with a copy edit, I'll do a second one, this weekend probably, and that should take care of most of the language issues. I hope we could encourage people whose native language is not English to offer their knowledge to the english encyclopedia. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Update I've completed one round of copyedits, and worked on a few minor content queries with MisterBee1966. The language should be adequate now; Auntieruth is doing further work on it to polish it further. JN466 22:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Stringent copy editing has been done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is present, but has some problems:
  • Several images lack alt text; see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. I expect that the two instances of Image:Balkenkreuz.svg should be marked with "|link=|" as per WP:ALT #When to specify.
  • Several phrases in the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded or moved to the caption or whatever, as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "Schwarm formation and cross-over turn", "Major Dr. Wenzel (Mölders' aide), Adolf Galland, Werner Mölders and Theo Osterkamp", "Arthur Laumann", "Knight's Cross to the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves", the "victory" in "victory marks", and "Werner Mölders wearing his Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves".
  • Some phrases duplicate the caption and should be removed, as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "Werner Mölders Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-2, Stab/JG 51, in June 1941" and some of the phrases noted in the previous bullet.
Eubulides (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am in the process of revising the alt texts to make them descriptive of the images. JN466 12:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Alt texts revised/added, pls review. JN466 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was a very good job. I particularly liked the clear expression of the aerial maneuver. I consider the job done, but if you'd like to improve it further you might consider making some of the descriptions shorter, removing phrases that provide relatively little useful info about the topic of the article; phrases such as "Black-and-white photograph of", or the detailed description of the birthday party table. You can move the full-length detailed description to the image page itself. Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I noted that WP:ALT says not to put "drawing of", "photograph of" and so on. In this case I thought it might be helpful to convey the feeling that these are contemporary photographs taken 70 or 75 years ago, but I'm still in two minds about it. I'll shorten the descriptions a little further and see if the longer versions can come in useful on the image description page. Thanks for the feedback and ideas. --JN466 22:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Links checked with link checker tool. All are in good, working order.
pictures checked with alt text tool. All have the required alt text
No dabs here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, with the caveat that I've now been up and down the article multiple times and have made well over a hundred edits to it: I am no longer an uninvolved party. (I wasn't involved or aware of this article before it came to FAC though.) From Friday, I'll be without regular Internet access for a week. I'll check back in tomorrow and will check in at the end of next week to see if the nomination is still open and anything else needs to be done. Good luck with the nomination in the meantime. JN466 22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This is an informed, and interesting article. Like JN, I make the caveat (for the sake of transparency) that I have been through the article several times, made significant copy edits (primarily focused on fixing "Germanisms") and made 86 edits. The editor of this article is not a native speaker of English, consequently there were initially some issues with the English. As far as I am concerned, these are resolved. There may be other commentators who quibble with minor points here and there; these can be easily dealt with. I encourage the promotion of this article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I can confirm no copyright issues with any of the images on this page. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

February 2009 tornado outbreak

Nominator(s): Showtime2009 (talk), Cyclonebiskit (talk)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article meets the FA criteria. It is well-written and documents one of the most notable severe weather events of 2009.Showtime2009 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Images are fine; they were checked last FAC and no new images have been introduced since then. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned by the Wichita Eagle.[29]
Being mentioned ≠ reliability. The article was just sending birthday wishes to a writer for the magazine. A better indicator of reliability would be if a major news site used the magazine as a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Here the California State University Northridge site uses it as a source.[30]
Leaving this out for other reviewers to comment on. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Its the the official newsmagazine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
For the purposes of what's being cited, this should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned by Florida International University.[31]
The link you provided doesn't work. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed source with Storm Prediction Center link.
Fixed. Showtime2009 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - Prose-wise.
  • link to Tornado outbreak
  • By 2:14 pm CST (2014 UTC), it was beginning to develop a hook echo, and the hook echo was fully developed four minutes later. - wordy
By 2:14 pm CST (2014 UTC), it formed a hook echo, which was fully developed four minutes later.
  • It continued showing signs of rotation on Doppler weather radar as it moved northeast across Oklahoma County. - continued to show
Done
  • At 2:52 pm CST (2052 UTC), the supercell produced its second tornado near Edmond and moved into neighborhoods and subdivisions on the northwestern side of Edmond, produced its most severe damage near the Oklahoma and Logan County line. - grammar
At 2:52 pm CST (2052 UTC), the supercell produced its second tornado that moved into neighborhoods and subdivisions on the northwestern side of Edmond. It caused its most severe damage near the Oklahoma and Logan County line.
  • I did not read over the confirmed tornadoes section.
  • At 6:48 pm CST (0048 UTC), a large wedge tornado touched down near the Red River.[5] - I know what this is, but the general reader wouldn't - Remember to explain jargon, with either a link (in this case it's a redirect) or a parenthetical explanation
Done.
  • Damage was extensive in the community. Buildings were reported to have been thrown off their slabs, the local chamber of commerce office was flattened, a furniture store was destroyed and two mobile home parks were also destroyed.[44] - End is redundant, watch out for redundancy, plz
Damage was extensive in the community. Buildings were reported to have been thrown off their slabs and the local chamber of commerce office was flattened. A furniture store was destroyed and two mobile home parks were also destroyed.
  • One of which, Bar K, contained 40 homes.[48] - Grammar

One of the mobile home parks contained 40 homes.

  • The UPS building was also damaged[44] with its glass lobby being destroyed.[48] - Remove with; there should be a comma between the two phrases
Done
  • Eight people were confirmed dead,[56] though early reports suggested that as many as 15 people were killed as a result of the tornado.[57] ' - Again, redundant, it's obvious that they were from the tornado
Removed as a result of the tornado.
  • The eighth fatality occurred when a truck driver was pinned under his vehicle on Interstate 35.[48] - Suggest you move to end of section, after the pickup truck sentence
Done
  • Allegheny Power stated that the loss of power due to this system was the largest ever experienced by the company. -cite?
Ref 69. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So, that's from a quick, detailed read-over. ceranthor 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - On prose only. ceranthor 11:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. 04:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Showtime2009 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding some alt text. There are some issues, though:
  • Three images still lack it. Click on the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page.
  • The alt text that is present is almost entirely a repetition of the caption. However, alt text is supposed to not repeat the caption. Instead, it's supposed to describe visual aspects of the image that are not present in the caption. See WP:ALT #What not to specify.
Eubulides (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok look at it now. Showtime2009 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Considerably better, but I'm afraid it still needs work.
  • Several phrases focus too much on superficial detail and not enough on the essence of the useful info that the image conveys to the sighted reader, and their alt text nees to be rewritten as per WP:ALT#Essence. These phrases include "A Green oval outlines the area under a", "the red oval", "The area where the colors are a dark orange and red", "line of darker orange and red colors show the severe thunderstorms", "Darker orange and red area on the radar shows the severe thunderstorm", "Darker colors near the thunderstorm's hook echo show the location of tornado", "Track, time and location of the Lone Grove tornado". Where was the tornado? The visually impaired reader would like to know.
  • The maps and satellite images typically have alt text that don't tell the visually impaired reader the useful info in those images. See WP:ALT#Maps.
  • Some phrases can't be verifiable just from the image, and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "indicate the supercell.", "the Lone Grove tornado"; pretty much all proper names.
  • The lead image (in the infobox) still lacks alt text.
Eubulides (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Any better? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Better, but I'm afraid it still needs some work. The main problem is that the map alt text does not convey the essence of the map's info to the visually impaired reader; please see WP:ALT#Essence. Here are some of the instances I found:
  • "A map of the United States with a series of colored lines depicting thunderstorm forecasts." doesn't convey enough useful information to the visually impaired reader. The only useful info is that it forecasts U.S. thunderstorms. But the point of that map is that the MDT region is in Arkansas, NE Texas, and SE Oklahoma, etc. The "colored lines" is relatively useless info and should be removed. Again, please see WP:ALT#Maps. (Also, interestingly enough, that map does not say that it is about thunderstorms and thus the alt text shouldn't say "thunderstorm".)
  • "A map depicting the tracks, times, and locations of tornadoes." has a similar problem. It says very little that's not already in the caption. Please pretend you're trying to tell somebody over the telephone the useful info that the map conveys.
  • There are similar problems with "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms.", "A map depicting the track, time and location of a tornado.", "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms.", "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms.", "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms." The last three entries are nearly identical, which would lead the blind reader to incorrectly assume that the three images are identical. Please describe the gist of how they differ.
Also, a minor point: Appending a period to "A tornado close to some buildings" is just the opposite of what WP:ALT#Punctuation suggests. Eubulides (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a brillianty written article with nice images as well as being well-doucmented on the subject. John Asfukzenski (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • John, please comment on the queried sources above, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well after looking at it, the institution clearly shows it's getting its info from the south central golf website. I believe it makes it reliable. John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 70 in Colorado

Nominator(s): Dave (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


This is easily one of the more notable highways in the U.S., due to the engineering required to build it. This has been a work in progress for over 2 years, hopefully it is ready now. Dave (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments (unfortunately I don't think I'll have time to do a full review) -
    • In this canyon I-70 reaches the western terminus of U.S. Highway 24 which meanders through the Rockies before rejoining I-70. - U.S. Route?
      • U.S. Highway seems to be the vernacular used on other Colorado road articles. I just chose to be consistent rather than fight it.
    • This portion features grade warning signs with unusual phrasings, such as "Trucks: Don't be fooled", "Truckers, you are not down yet" and "Are your brakes adjusted and cool?"[1] - How does source 1 source this? (I could be missing something).
      • The source is a menu to select a variety of data reports for this highway. Unfortunately, I can't link to the outputs of each of the reports used, or I would do so. The relevant report is the "Structure List" report, which lists the MP, inventory designation, and pictures of the text for of most of these signs. What the source doesn't support is the characterization of "unusual". I asked a couple of people if they thought that word was a valid description; so far all have said yes. However, I'm more than happy to remove the word unusual should people here think that's not a fair summary.
        • It was mainly the signs I was concerned about. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Exit list - East end of US 50 Overlap - overlap should not be capitalized.
      • Whoops, thanks for catching that.
    • former Port of Entry - former should be capitalized; should port of entry be? Not sure.
      • I'm pretty sure it's not a proper noun. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Thanks.
    • Is there a reason for the unusual source citation at the bottom of the exit list?
      • I've gotten mixed feedback on that. some people tell me that's what all tables should do, others hate it. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I'm willing to go with whatever.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 05:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

      • Thanks for the review. Let me know if my responses do not resolve your concerns.Dave (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Not a problem. To Sandy / Karanacs: I do not oppose this nomination; the only reason I am not supporting is because I don't think I have time to read the article, and it would not be fair for me to support without reading through it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I performed a detailed review during this article's WP:USRD A-Class Review, and believe it was elevated greatly in that process. I have been watching the article since then and have not found any additional concerns since its promotion to A-Class. The subject matter is very interesting from a road/engineering perspective, and it is a well-written, high-quality work. Thus, I feel the article meets the qualifications of FA status. --LJ (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for doing the tedious checks that need to be done.Dave (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this for FA:
  1. "the Rockies" sounds colloquial.
    My intent was to alternate wordings between Rockies and Rocky Mountains to avoid repetition. Please consider this, and advise if you agree or not that were I to replace all instances of Rockies with Rocky Mountains if the article would sound repetitive.
    On second thought, I suppose I could alternate between Rocky Mountains and just mountains, but this might be too vague. Same with the Eisenhower Tunnel below. Thoughts? Dave (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    If "the Rockies" is a commonly used official term to describe the mountains, then it would be okay. "The Rockies" may work since it is a commonly used term. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    "the Rockies" doesn't sound any more colloquial than "The Rockies". It would be prudent to establish whether "the" should be capitalized or not in reference to this common name. Rocky Mountains seems to indicate "the" is not part of the common form. If we take that as official, the MOS states that "the" should remain lower case. If "the" is indeed part of the common name, it should be capitalized. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    Assuming I did the search right, all I currently have is "the Rockies". So should we get an authoritative voice saying it should be "The Rockies" a simple search and replace should do it.Dave (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. "This tunnel is both the longest mountain tunnel and the highest point along the Interstate Highway System." in what? the U.S.? North America? the world?
    In the Interstate Highway System. I've asked a few others, and so far all have said this sentence is clear. Once somebody from outside the U.S. Roads wikiproject chimes in, I'll ask their opinion.
    I also think this is clear, with the term "both" linking 'the tunnel' and 'the highest point' to "the Interstate Highway System". However, changing "is" to either "includes" or "comprises", as well as changing "along" to "on" might better connect the two thoughts. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. "the Eisenhower" also sounds colloquial.
    Same reasoning as above with the Rockies.
    In this case, I would suggest adding "Tunnel" after "Eisenhower" as the tunnel is likely not officially referred to as "the Eisenhower". Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    Done.
  4. "however, internationally it has been exceed by more recent tunnels, such as the Fenghuoshan Tunnel", it may be helpful to indicate that this is a railroad tunnel in China. Also, what is the highest vehicular tunnel in the world?
    The Fenghoushan tunnel currently (vehicles include rail). If you mean "automotive tunnel", AFAIK it's still the Eisenhower, but I don't have a source to back that up. I had mentioned the tunnel was in China in a earlier version. I'm not sure why I took it out. I'll play with the wording with the next round of fixes.
    It would help if you could clearly indicate the Eisenhower Tunnel is the longest automotive tunnel, try looking for a source. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. "The Eisenhower Tunnel is also the longest mountain tunnel". Again, in what?
    This is a repeat of point number 2.
  6. I still feel the Great Plains section of the Route description needs some more information. It comprises a significant part of the route in Colorado but is only described in brief detail.
    A couple of people have opined this during peer reviews, etc. The problem is, I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel to get what is there. I'm surprised nobody here has complained about trivial information in this section. I'll scrape some more; but frankly, the sources just aren't there for this section. Even according to CDOT, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build the freeway over the Rocky Mountains. The other half, just kinda appeared one day. =-)
  7. "Taylor state road"? Is that what the capitalization should be or is it a colloquial term?
    This is a proper name, thanks for catching that.
  8. "central New Jersey" should not link to Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project, it should link to Central Jersey and a brief mention may be made to say that the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project will complete the route.
    I've got an idea for an improvement. Please advise if this is better. For the record, Rockies is no more colloquial than "Jersey". =-)
    I would suggest saying in parentheses the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project will complete the route. By the way, Central Jersey (along with North Jersey and South Jersey) are commonly used terms in the media to describe these parts of New Jersey. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    I've tweaked some more. To be honest, I'm not a fan of parenthesis, and normally try to avoid them. However, I've tried something else that may work, please advise.Dave (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    The current revision works, as any parenthetical mention of the I-95 project is not extremely relevant to this article. The current revision also addresses the next point. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. I believe there are more than two gaps on the Interstate Highway System, see List of gaps in Interstate Highways.
    I guess that depends on how literal you want to define gap. Those are the only to remaining gaps, as defined as unconstructed pieces. I'll clarify.
    Also, the list article you mention does support this, once you filter out all of the freeways that were not included in the 1956 plan.
  10. The sentence "As one conservationist lamented, I-70 "changed rural Colorado into non-rural Colorado"" sounds like a weasel words.
    This is a direct quote. If you don't like it, I can remove. However, I do think it is a good concluding statement. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to get more opinions on this.
    This quote works well as a concluding statement to the Legacy section. Perhaps there might be a slightly better way to state it? I'd look at it in the original source for ideas, but don't feel like searching through 12 PDF chapters to find it right now... --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. Any reason for the source row in the Exit list? Dough4872 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    As stated above, most people I've asked outside of the roadgeek community have stated they prefer this formatting. I recognize most of the USRD project hates it. IMO we should go with what the at-large community thinks.
    This method has a more professional appearance than the way USRD cites things in the header, so it doesn't bother me too much. Perhaps the shading of this cell should be changed to match the header row, so that it is not viewed as a row of the table (this shouldn't conflict with the "no colors" consensus at USRD, since it wouldn't be considered data within the table). --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I would prefer to get additional feedback regarding some of these requested changes.Dave (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I have made some replies above. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I have provided comments above regarding some points discussed in this review. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started on this. As I am just now learning about this guideline, and have no practice. I request a review from someone with more experience, to ensure I've done this right.Dave (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; what you've done so far is quite good. The few problems I see are:
  • I found a couple of words that cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and need to be removed or reworded. These are the "south" in "south canyon wall", and the "car" in "A car is about to pass under a traffic signal" (isn't that an SUV in view?).
  • A minor grammar problem: "A highway near the top of a ridge, on either side ..." surely that should be ". On" rather than ", on" with a period at the end of the next sentence too.
Just as a heads-up, the highway shields are all purely decorative as they merely repeat adjacent text, so they do not need alt text and instead should be marked with "|link=" as per WP:ALT #When to specify. The one possible exception is the lead shield at the top of the infobox, where you may prefer alt text. You can see an example of all this in Template:Infobox road/doc #Example. The map in the lead infobox will need alt text, though; use the "map_alt=" parameter. Eubulides (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
What would you suggest for alt text for the map? (WP:ALT is news to us at USRD, so we're trying to figure out how to update the standards / articles). Also, the example on {{infobox road}} is very atypical of most implementations; look at the code for {{infobox road}} and {{jct}} in Interstate 70 in Colorado. I'm not saying that we're not open to compliance with WP:ALT; it's just going to take some time to figure out how to do this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
An update: I believe the only things not in compliance on this particular article are the large shield at the top and the map, both in the infobox. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I found 3 images other than that, all generated from templates, which I fixed with this edit and this edit. As I wrote in WT:USRD #WP:ALT it seems that the simplest thing may be to generate the alt text automatically for the large shield at the top. For the map, I suggest something like "I-70 runs generally east-west through Colorado, and intersects a north-south Interstate at a spot a bit northeast of the state's center, from which spot a third Interstate heads northeast." Eubulides (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Thanks for checking. I have made your requested changes. All images now have alt text except for the I-70 shield in the infobox. This will be generated at the infobox level, so no changes will be required to this article. This will be implemented shortly. The reason why this isn't done yet, is this template is used in over 10,000 articles for highways all over the world. There are a lot of scenarios to check to ensure nothing gets broken. However, this has been discussed on several talk pages and the IRC forum. Everybody (so far) is supporting the change, just need to make sure it's done right.Dave (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And done, if I would have waited 10 minutes before posting that. =-) Dave (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all that work. I tweaked the map alt text, which was simply "Map of Colorado" and not that useful, and the resulting alt text looks good to me. Eubulides (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Traumatic insemination

Nominator(s): Raul654 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


A little something I've been working on for a while. I nominated it 4 months ago and it failed, but I think I've subsequently addressed all the issues from that first nomination. Raul654 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The article's references mix YYYY-MM-DD, Day Month Year, and Month Day, Year dates. It is best to pick one format and stick to that. --an odd name 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Done. In cases where there is a full date, I use YYYY-MM-DD, and in cases where there is a month and a year, I use Month, Year. Raul654 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    Nice. A very minor flaw: some of the "Month, Year" ones are actually "Month Year" (no comma): to be fully consistent, remove the commas from the rest, or talk with the cite template people about adding them. (I prefer removing the commas, as in most articles I've read here; just adding them in the cite template month attributes would look bad.) --an odd name 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Done; thanks. Images need alt text per WP:ALT. Shubinator (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added captions to the second and third images. The first and fourth do not need them, per WP:ALT, because the alt text would be identical to the caption. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Also, is the indefinite semi-protection necessary? Shubinator (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, I semi'ed it when it was on the main page because it was getting quite a lot of vandalism. (Not surprising given the subject matter). I've unprotected. Raul654 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Shubinator (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The way to mark that any alt text would be redundant is to use something like "|alt=See caption."; omitting alt text entirely doesn't work because a screen reader will then read something not-that-relevant such as the name of the file containing the image. However, I don't see why the alt text would be identical to the caption in the images in question: they both contain useful info that's not in the caption, and the gist of that info can be put into the alt text. Also, the existing alt text could be improved, as a good deal of it repeats the caption. The only useful non-redundant text I see are "A microscopic image of the spiny" and "vagina"; most of the rest of the alt text could be removed, with more visual details added. Eubulides (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I've further revised the alt text of the pics. Raul654 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, much better. Your eyes were much better than mine would have been in picking out the gist of thos images. Eubulides (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The phrase "being bred" is used a few times in the article to refer to the act of insemination. Although I've never heard this phrase used in this way, it is apparently an acceptable, though uncommon definition (8th of 8 in the Random House Dictionary). If other reviewers are also unfamiliar with the use of this phrase, perhaps it should be changed to something more straightforward. Is it perhaps a British usage? I've honestly never heard it before.
  • "—Gilbert Waldbauer" Why is this source credit just sitting there unassociated with a quote?

Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    • In this article, "insemination" implies traumatic insemination; breeding implies non-traumatic insemination. In the case of the bean weavil caption, the latter is correct. (Bean weavils don't traumatically inseminate)
      • I don't see this. Every instance of the phrase in the article refers to some kind of traumatic insemination. Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Assuming the phrase you are talking about is "bred" or "breeding" - it occurs four times in this article. The first time, in the bean weavil penis caption, it does not refer to traumatic insemination - it refers to non-traumatic insemination (good old-fashioned penis-into-vagina breeding). The second time, in the interspecies section, it is talking about TI. The third and fourth time, in the "Similiar mating practices" section, it refers to non-traumatic insemination. I've removed the second instance to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I missed the last two instances. I guess I was confused about the weevil caption. Bean weevil sex sounds pretty traumatic, but I guess it doesn't meet the technical definition of the term. Thanks for fixing the other instance. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know what the deal is with the hanging credit. It has something to do with the quote template. I've switched over the the more familiar blockquote and removed the citation (there's already a reference there). Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • In IE8 and Firefox, it's hard to tell the Waldbauer part is a blockquote because it is close to the squirrel mating plug image and the indent doesn't get applied (in IE8 or the latest Firefox release, at least) where the image juts in (depending on window size). I think the blockquote fonts should be shrunk slightly to show they are quotes and not plain body paragraphs—or their background color should be changed, or some other style tweak—to avoid any (unwarranted) cries of plagiarism. I actually thought they were body paras until I saw the source credit (when it was there). --an odd name 01:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I found an easier solution -- I just re-aligned the squirrel pic to the right side. Raul654 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Image review by NuclearWarfare - The four images are fine to use. NW (Talk) 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments -
  • Decide if you're going to go "page" or "p." and be consistent.
  • Current ref 16 (B. N. Ruck..) needs a last access date
  • Decide if your references gare going to be last name first or first name first and standardize.
  • What is up with the links and wikilinks in current ref 15 (Rezac)? Surely we don't need to link terms in the references?
    • Fixed.
  • What makes the Holland, Erik ref reliable? iUniverse is a self-publishing company. http://www.iuniverse.com/
    • For the paragraphs from Holland that I cite, Holland in turn cites J. Carayon's "Insemination traumatique heterosexuelle et homosexuelle chez Xylocoris maculipennis" (1974, Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences). I've provided the citation, and requested the article (although I don't speak french so I won't be able to get much out of it) Raul654 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't we be better off referencing the original source then? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
        • That is not proper academic citation style. If someone gets information from document A, which in turn references document B, that person is supposed to cite document A, not B. Optionally, that person can also state that A references B, so that anyone who follows up on that citation can easily find both documents. In this case, that is exactly what I do - cite both. I'm not going to cite just the original, because (a) that's improper academic style, and (b) possibly a mischaracterization (since I don't know what it says because I don't yet have access to the original - I should be able to get to it after labor day - and even when I do, it won't be of much use to me since I can't read french.) Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm uncomfortable with citing a self-published source unless the guy is an expert in the field. Is he? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I've added yet another reference to that section which also cites the french paper, making 4 references for that paragraph total. IMO, that should be more than sufficient. (The new reference is John R. Krebs, Nicholas B. Davies - An introduction to behavioural ecology) Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've now dealt with all outstanding issues. Raul654 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Names of genera, such as Auchenacantha, Citellina, Passalurus, Austroxyris and Pomphorhynchus, require capitalisation. William Avery (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - All genera and species need to be italicised. 89.240.41.65 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe all issues have been addressed. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am beginning a look-over now and will jot down queries below - some of the paragraphs are small and give the text a choppy appearance. I will make straightforward changes, but please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Use in the animal kingdom section could do with some buffing - I note that all are invertebrates and many are worms of some sort, so some overview or covering statement indicating what groups of animals the phenomenon is most prevalent in would be good (if possible). Furthermore, I do acknowledge that the phenomenon has been most studied in bedbugs, but if it were possible it'd be good to embellish some other species.
I note that all are invertebrates - this was already noted in the intro, but I've added a second mention in the Use in the animal kingdom section. It's not a coincidence that they are invertebrates -- TI doesn't work in animals with a closed circulatory system, which limits the practice exclusively to invertebrates.
so some overview or covering statement indicating what groups of animals the phenomenon is most prevalent in would be good (if possible). - there is, insofar as I am aware, no unifying group or characteristic for the taxa I've listed there other than their practice of TI (and consequently their open circulatory systems and lack of a spine, both of which are mentioned in the article).
Furthermore, I do acknowledge that the phenomenon has been most studied in bedbugs, but if it were possible it'd be good to embellish some other species. - can you be more specific please? Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of the critters listed could do with a couple of words indicating what they are too.
Done. Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written article about a fascinating and disgusting topic. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Turok: Dinosaur Hunter

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


If you're interested in the sad business decisions of a 1990s video game company, then consider Turok: Dinosaur Hunter your primer. It's got guns, dinosaurs, and serious revenue shortages... read on! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - yet another great Fuchs VG article. igordebraga ≠ 23:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Two of the three images lack alt text. The remaining image has only the alt text "North American box art", which conveys little info about the image. Please see WP:ALT for more about alt text. Eubulides (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I've taken a first stab at alt text. I'm not exactly sure how to explain a game screenshot, however. Can you take a look and see if I should go about it another way? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
      Thanks. Some comments:
      • "North American box art, depicting an" can be removed, as it duplicates the caption, and also it cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image (see WP:ALT #What not to specify).
      • "First-person view of a" Is this phrase needed? More important, that alt text doesn't mention the prominent frame around the image, which has a gun pointed at the dinosaur and other icons.
      • The 3rd alt text looks good.
      Eubulides (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, based on 1a crtieria of WP:WIAFA. "Keys, found on all the levels, enable access to the other stages of the game. When enough keys have been inserted into the lock mechanisms of a hub portal, the level is unlocked." this is confusing. "The player's main objective is to find pieces of a relic known as the Chronoscepter, one on each level" that too. "Turok was announced in August 1994 as an exclusive title for Nintendo's planned "Ultra 64" console, which would eventually be called the Nintendo 64 or N64" there's redundancy there. It needs a runthru. Martin Raybourne (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments: The article looks to be in good shape. Here are the issues which stood out to me.

  • Some words and abbreviations are used interchangeably without letting the reader know that one is an abbreviation. I suggest using "Nintendo 64 (N64)" and "three-dimensional (3D)" in the article for the first instance of the terms and using the abbreviation for the remainder of the article.
  • The image of the N64 seems a bit superfluous. Maybe mention the analog joystick's reception in the caption to better strengthen the connection.
  • The fourth development paragraph goes into a lot of detail about Acclaim's woes. This is great information, but it seems better suited for Acclaim's article and deviates too far from the subject of Turok in my opinion.
  • I know we disagree on the use of quotations in reception sections, but I still have to bring it up I guess: I think the quotes should be paraphrased more. This of course does not break any style guideline to my knowledge so you are welcome to do what you see fit.
  • The last section reads almost like a "Reception and legacy" section. Maybe consider renaming it. Also, the latter half of the last "Development" paragraph sounds more like reception and legacy content to me, and would fit well with the renaming.
  • Not sure, but I think a comma is needed after "contrast" here: "In contrast William Burrill of...'".
  • Are there any other sources to use in place of the older IGN and GameSpot ones?

I'll probably be offline most of the weekend so I'll check back Monday at the latest. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

  • I've hopefully clarified the 3D and N64 terms, added the N64 joystick info to the photo caption, and renamed the last section. To me the last bit of the development section was more about release and thus didn't really mesh with the reception that well. What do you mean by other sources to use in place of the IGN and GameSpot ones? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Disregard the comment about sources. Further inspection removed my concerns. IGN was an offshoot of Imagine Publishing in the early days and the GameSpot sources are only being used for opinion and a release date.
      What about the tangential details of Acclaim's woes?
      "Both "Nintendo 64" and "N64" are used throughout the article. The clarification removes the confusion, but I think only using one would be more consistent and improve readability. Everything else looks great. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC))
      • I've gone ahead and swapped N64 out for Nintendo 64. As for the details about Acclaim's woes... yeah, it's a bit tangental as it doesn't deal directly with the game's development, but I think it contextualizes a lot and explicitly states how badly Acclaim needed its first big next-gen title to be a hit. Better to err on the side of more info than less, especially in an article that's not threatened with becoming too chunky, is my standpoint. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Support: Looks good to me. Though I don't agree with all the content's presentation, it does not seem to violate WP:FA?. The prose is well-written, the article is informative, and the sources look good. Another excellent article David. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Support - based on Citerion 1a. Is the prose clearer to this non-gamer because games have become much more complex over the past ten years :-) ? Graham Colm Talk 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - A thorough article and a pleasure to read. I've found no errors in the article and no reason to object. Well done!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - no image/non-free issues. Black Kite 14:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Icos

Nominator(s): Shubinator (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive overview of the company. The article has been through peer review and GA, and I believe it's now up to featured article quality. Shubinator (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Replaced with the USPTO document it's referring to. (Hopefully the link will last.) Shubinator (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments – requested by the nominator on my Talk Page. This is an interesting article, which is generally well written, but I don't think it is quite ready to be promoted. The first paragraph of the Lead focusses on Cialis, rather than Icos, and the second paragraph is mainly a blue list of medical conditions, which is not at all engaging—quite the opposite in fact. There are glitches in the prose. This sentence, for example, lacks logical flow, "The name Icos comes from a shortening of the word icosahedron, a 20-sided polyhedron, as many viruses have this shape." Changing "as" to "and" would help a little, but many readers will be left wondering about the relevance of the viruses here. Later we read, "Originally, the company's plan was to research such viruses involved in inflammation, but they were never studied." Why "such viruses", and indeed which viruses, an example would help. I also saw "Gates. Gates" and many lazy uses of "ads" instead of "advertisements". I was not happy with this sentence "The drug is a monoclonal antibody that suppresses white blood cells which become overly active during shock." Suppresses what? their production in the bone marrow, antibody or chemokine production by them, phagocytosis, white blood cells have a multitude of functions. And this sentence is wrong, "It inhibits a compound that plays a role in the inflammation seen in sepsis." It does not, it inactivates a protein, which is not the same thing—this is correctly given in the source. Here's another example of lazy writing, "In addition to the termination of Icos employees, other aspects of the acquisition were similarly legal." How were they terminated? I saw these problems during my first reading of the article, and I suspect more would be revealed by a closer scrutiny. In summary, I think the article lacks focus and the prose would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes. Graham Colm Talk 12:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. I hope the nominator does not take my use of the word "lazy" personally; clearly, a lot of hard work and dedication has been gone into this contribution—I am only describing the writing-style as I read it. I have made a few suggestions [32] (not all mine), but sadly, I feel too much work remains to be done that can be achieved in a reasonable time here at FAC. I think that this FAC could be very protracted and humbly suggest a withdrawal, which would allow for a fresh start later. Graham Colm Talk 22:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I've addressed your specific concerns (with your help). It was suggested at the GA review that the lead should focus more on Cialis, which is why Cialis was highlighted in the first paragraph. I have changed it back to the format it was before, but this may be down to editor preference. I fixed the "Gates. Gates" and changed all "ads" to "advertisements" (though the sources themselves use "ads" in their newspaper titles). Also added a sentence on LeukArrest inhibiting white blood cell movement to the brain, changed "inhibits a compound" to "inactivates a protein", and changed "termination" to "layoff". I don't take it personally; I know it becomes harder to spot errors the longer you work on a piece. As I've said below, I'll leave this open a little while longer since FAC is one of the best ways to get fresh eyes. Shubinator (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments – I'll start looking over it and massaging prose and making some suggestions below. I am mindful of what Graham has noted above but let's try and get a handle on what needs doing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The cialis section is ungainly - see the 'Tadalafil' at the stat of each para. I am sorry that I didn't offer more at Peer Review. My impression is either pushing on for a (possibly very messy) FAC, or drop it and work on it before renominating. I will chip in either way but have a lot on my plate at the moment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The section was rearranged to avoid starting each paragraph with "Tadalafil" (thanks Graham). Any help/suggestions are appreciated. (see below for my comment on withdrawing) Shubinator (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I realize this may have a small chance of passing now, but I would like to leave the FAC open for at least a few more days to get suggestions for improvement (especially in the science). The article was looked over by a few others (Looie496, Mattisse, Enigmaman) before, but I'll try to find another copyeditor. Shubinator (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I will try to have a look later again, today (Sunday) is looking pretty busy. Leaving it open for a bit is fine, all going in the same direction :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments (no particular section, or order:

  • Is the footnote necessary in the sentence The company focused on developing drugs to treat inflammatory disorders in the lede? If this is repeated elsewhere, or if it's clear throughout the article anyway, then it might not be necessary to have the footnote in the lede.
    • I've removed the redundant citations. Shubinator (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Icos conducted clinical trials of a dozen compounds, three of which reached the last phase of testing : The article has sections on three 'other drugs', plus Cialis, so I want to check to see if I'm understanding it right... is Cialis not included in the total there because GlaxoSmithKline, not Icos, did the clinical trials? (And if that is the case, what does it mean to say that Icos "developed" the drug?) And, while we're on that, what does "reached their last phase of testing" mean? I'm not familiar with pharmaceutical stuff, so I'm not sure if this is an important milestone in drug development or anything...does it mean they were never released on the market but they were still 'official' anyway?
    • Oops, I miscounted... I guess the three being referred to are Cialis, LeukArrest, and Pafase? And Sitaxsentan sodium and TBC3711 (which I had been reading incorrectly as one drug) did not make it to the "last phase of testing" before Icos sold them? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's correct. Cialis, LeukArrest, and Pafase are the ones that reached phase III clinical trials. I added "FDA" to the lead to make this a tad clearer. Shubinator (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In a lower section, As a result, Cialis advertisements were also the first to describe the side effects in an advertisement, as the FDA requires advertisements with specifics to mention side effects : I don't quite see the cause-effect relationship here, or why the aside about the FDA requirement is necessary. Is it that FDA didn't have this requirement before, and then they introduced it, and Cialis was the first drug to be marketed under the new requirements? If that is the case, it could probably be made more explicit.
    • The regulations require disclosure of side effects if you essentially say "Buy our product!" The other ED drugs described ED, and said "see your doctor for more", so they didn't describe side effects. I've added a bit to clarify this. Shubinator (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Who was Paul Clark (before becoming CEO and chairman)? His name seems to pop up rather suddenly.
    • Added a bit on him; he was an executive at Abbott. Shubinator (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For Cialis, why are sales figures listed for 2006 and no other years—ie, what is significant about 2006? It seems like it might be that 2006 was the first year Icos ever made a profit, but I had to search around for that a little bit. Also, this raises two other questions: 1) when was Cialis first put on the market?; 2) if Cialis didn't go on the market until 2006 and/or Icos never made a profit until then, what were they doing for their first 16 years???
    • Oops, I just found the answer to the first question, down in the next paragraph. But I think the section could be reorganized a bit... either the Cialis timeline should be mentioned earlier, or the sales stuff mentioned later. I was confused to see sales figures being mentioned before I had read when the drug hit the market, etc. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • 2006 is special because it's the only year I have third-party data for :) A few other drugs were being developed during that time (see lower down in the article). Drug development takes a while. I rearranged the first part in the Cialis section to be more chronological. Shubinator (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It has also been approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in the United States, and marketed as Adcirca.[10] : This sentence is more or less repeated at the bottom of that section, and probably doesn't need to be. I imagine you were trying to use the first paragraph of the section as sort of a mini-lede, but the section is short enough already that I don't think that's necessary; I would probably just hold off on mentioning Adcirca until the bottom of the section, (the paragraph beginning "In May 2009..."). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I cut up the mini-lede (it was also contributing to the confusion in your previous comment). Shubinator (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Issues in the "lawsuits" section:
    • Pfizer and Lilly Icos have contested many lawsuits : slightly awkward wording, at first it made me think they together had to face lots of lawsuits from outside (class action suits or whatever), and it wasn't until later that I realized it meant they had lots of lawsuits against one another.
      • Changed to Pfizer and Lilly Icos have filed many lawsuits against each other. Shubinator (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In the United States, Pfizer filed suit against Lilly Icos soon after receiving a broad patent for PDE5 inhibitors in October 2002. : I had to re-read this because at first I was like "wait, but I thought they didn't get a patent?" After looking more closely, I guess the understanding I'm supposed to get is: 1) Pfizer gets British patent 2) Lawsuit in British court 3) Pfizer gets US patent 4) Lawsuit in US court. Anyway, I understand that it would be quite awkward to write "Pfizer filed suit in the United States... after receiving a broad patent in the United States...". But I do think it's necessary to do something to make it clearer that we're talking about two different patents.
      • Changed "broad patent" to "broad US patent". It's tough to add in more US's and Britain's without cluttering it up. Shubinator (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pfizer moved to block sales of Cialis, arguing that there could be consumer backlash against Pfizer should Cialis be pulled from the market as a result of an ongoing patent lawsuit. : This sentence stumped me for a bit, I think because I don't understand the difference between "blocking sales" and "pulling from the market". Do you mean that Cialis had not yet gone on the market at all, and Pfizer wanted to keep it off the market altogether so it wouldn't be pulled back out of the market later? If that is the case, adding a date or a little mention of where this was with regards to the Cialis timeline would be helpful.
      • Yes, Pfizer's saying the drug shouldn't be sold now, because it may be pulled from the market later. I changed that part to "Pfizer moved to block sales of Cialis five months after it was approved there". Shubinator (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In general, the section sounds a bit anti-Pfizer. I don't know much about all this, so for all I know maybe they really were being jerks... but if there is anything that could be done to balance it or present their side of the story, that might be helpful.
      • I looked over all the lawsuit section sources, and there aren't any comments from Pfizer, or analysts giving a more balanced picture. There's just more like "Pfizer has mounted a worldwide patent challenge against Cialis and Levitra". Shubinator (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Marketing section, Cialis has sponsored many sports events, such as the America's Cup and the PGA Tour, and was title sponsor of the PGA Tour Western Open tournament.[1] might not be necessary. It doesn't seem like a huge deal, given that lots of drugs sponsor lots of events, and this one is already notable enough that it doesn't need to struggle for WP-notability with refs like this. But, since I don't know much about pharmaceutical stuff, maybe this is a bigger deal than I realize.
    • I removed it; it was a random tidbit. Viagra and Levitra have similar sports sponsorships, so it's not unusual. Shubinator (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm still not quite sure what advertisements directly targeting consumers refers to, even after reading the source (which just confused me more). In the source, it says that Viagra commercials went from being Viagra-pushing to just saying "talk to your doctor about ED"; from your comments, it sounds like Cialis did the opposite (marketing Cialis specifically). But both are described as being "aimed directly at consumers"...
    • I removed this sentence too; it's not really related. Before 1997, none of the ED ads would have been allowed. The idea was that only doctors should be telling you what medicine to take. Shubinator (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For the long list of conditions at the beginning of the "Other drugs" section, is there a source? Or is this just a compilation of sourced things from below?
    • It's a compilation. It was in the lead before, but I moved it later since it's not friendly to readers. Shubinator (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "the gene for Pafase"? The gene that the drug manipulates/effects?
    • Pafase is a protein, and all proteins are encoded by genes. That's what the sentence is referring to. Shubinator (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For Pafase, a couple sentences say early trials showed a reduction in 28-day death rate, but then next it says a later trial showed that it didn't increase "chance of survival"...why the discrepancy? Did the later trial have different methodology, or more subjects, or something like that? Or was it measuring "chance of survival" using a different standard?
    • The source [33] doesn't specify any differences. They were at different stages of clinical trials though, and as trials progress more subjects are used and in general they become more rigorous. Shubinator (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Eos would have non-exclusive rights to Icos's CHEF1 enhanced mammalian protein expression technology. : this is the first (and I think only) time this technology is mentioned in the article. Is there any other technology stuff, other than drug development/trials, that Icos did that is not described in the article?
    • I'm not sure. There aren't any third-party refs of other technology; even CHEF1 is from a press release, so I don't want to give it undue weight. Shubinator (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Eli Lilly increased its offer to $34 per share, a 6 percent increase : how much does this increase work out to in the total amount? (I suppose I could do the math to find out, but I bet most readers won't want to :) )
    • Added it in ($2.3 billion). Shubinator (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is the long list of all the managers' severance packages necessary, or could it just be replaced by a brief mention?
    • How about cutting out the values and saying these people received over $1 million? I don't want to remove it since much of the news at the time of the acquisition was about the packages. (This was reflected in the Wikipedia article too; this was what it looked like before I touched it.) Shubinator (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Last thing: is this about all there is to say on Icos, or is there anything more? Specifically, I'm thinking, could you go through the Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company articles (and any other relevant ones in Category:Pharmaceutical companies), looking at their structures/TOCs, and see if there are any analogues for Icos? Since Icos was shorter-lived and smaller than those companies, I don't expect this article to be as long or have as many sections, but I figured we should at least check to see if there are any holes left.
    • I glanced at those, as well as Bayer and Merck & Co., and the one piece that might apply is environmental stuff. However, I've scoured all the newspapers that mentioned Icos before, and they don't mention anything environmental. Some stuff like Corporate Architecture only makes sense for large companies, and the Awards sections seem tangential (and the newspapers didn't mention Icos getting any award worth mentioning). I think I've used the meat (of reliable refs) to the bone. Shubinator (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Last comment: I'm still concerned about the inclusion of the long list of names; to me it seems almost petty (no offense intended to you, it was there before you even touched the article). If it were up to me, I would just say "X high-level employees of Icos got severance packages of over $1.5 million" or something along those lines. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I see what you mean. Done. Shubinator (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support An informative and well-researched article, and it seems to say as much as there is to say on this topic—I see no big holes. I notice there has been some more copyediting in the past day or so, but IMO it all looks pretty minor, so I'm not worried about it. As for concerns about this article's overlap with Tadalafil, I'm satisfied that it's handled well: that article has more information on scientific details and stuff that aren't in this article, while this article focuses more on business-y things and, in general, stuff that Icos did with the drug (so it's more about Icos' handling of the drug than about the drug itself); also, I'm not bothered by the fact that this article focuses mostly on that drug, since it does seem to be Icos' main claim to fame. Another image or two (for example, of the former Icos headquarters, or some of their other drugs, or its founders and people like that) would be nice, but I don't think the article is suffering for lack of images. All in all, I think this is a fine article and meets all the FA criteria. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm trying to get more pictures. A former employee emailed me a beautiful picture of the headquarters during sunset, but it turned out Eli Lilly owned the copyright, and their legal department wouldn't budge. (Also, it immediately fails NFCC #4 since I don't think it's previously been published, so no fair use.) Shubinator (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. A comprehensive and commendably well-written piece of work. I worked a bit on the prose where it was still somewhat clumsy (particularly the Cialis section and subsections), and am convinced that the rest of the article meets criterion 1(a). A couple of nitpicks:
    • I like to link the different phases of clinical trials (II/III etc.) to their respective sections in the clinical trial article. Just a suggestion, though.
    • In "LeukArrest": LeukArrest was also tested for treatment of heart attack, multiple sclerosis, and stroke. Unsuccessfully, I presume?
    • In the Pafase section: the enzyme was discovered in the mid-1980s by graduate student Diana Stafforini, Steve Prescott, Guy Zimmerman, and Tom McIntyre. Was Ms. Stafforini the only graduate student in the group? Are there any institutional affiliations worth mentioning, e.g. were they all from academia or was somebody an Icos employee? Also, The gene for Pafase would be clearer as The gene that codes for Pafase or The gene that encodes Pafase.
    • I've changed all instances of sitaxsentan to sitaxentan (the new International Nonproprietary Name). You may want to note that sitaxentan development was successful—it is already available in Europe if memory serves.
    • I've also made some changes for accuracy, in response to your wishes at Maralia's talk page.
  • That's it. I agree with Rjanag that this is a very well-researched article—congratulations—and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Phases linked.
  • Added "unsuccessfully". I think all the clinical trials were stopped once the phase III one was stopped.
  • Yes, she was the only graduate student, and the group's from the University of Utah (clarified/added in the article). I don't think any went on to become Icos employees; the Salt Lake Tribune article from 2000 suggests they're all still at the University of Utah. Changed to "The gene that codes for Pafase", much better than my version.
  • Added a sentence that on its approval in Europe, Australia, and Canada.
  • Thank you for looking into the scientific side of things (and Graham as well); specialty editors in general are hard to find. Shubinator (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support tweaked nicely and succinctly. Comprehensive and to the point. Maybe some more copyediting in it but no dealbreakers prosewise nor omissions stand out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bubbles (chimpanzee)

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


I would like to nominate this rather unusual article for Featured Article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I think it is comprehensive and engaging, although the latter is probably due to the interesting facts within the article, as opposed to extremely excellent writing on my part. With that said, I welcome any comments or suggestions. Thank you. Pyrrhus16 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments ... This is one of the more unusual articles around, yes? It is nicely written, modestly illustrated. There were a few punctuation inconsistencies, which I simply fixed. I hope that's okay (some punctuation outside the quotation marks, some inside, stuff like that). Two of the links were firewalled, but I had no trouble getting through when I clicked on them directly (not using the aides provided above).
Writing. Nicely written. Clear sentence structure, no major grammatical errors, and in fact no minor ones either. The portions on the maids and the previous chimps was a bit unclear. It probably should be clearer that Bubbles didn't throw his feces on the wall, but some of his predecessors did.
Notability. Uh....well anything about MJ is notable, I suppose, and since Bubbles' autobiography is coming out, there will be some interest in his life.
Images. I'm not qualified to check these. Someone who understands free use mumbo-jumbo will have to do that.
Comprehensiveness. Do we know anything about Bubbles' life before his years with Michael Jackson? There is also that chimp in Ohio who went wacko and tried to rip someone's arm out. Is this a pattern when male chimps get to be a certain age? Is there something that the experts have to say about that?
Last Question. Is this for real? Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Is what for real? This nomination? –Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I've tried to find more on Bubbles' life before Jackson, but to no avail. I'll see if I can find anything on other chimps being aggressive, and perhaps add it to the article as you suggested. Pyrrhus16 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. We need more information, assuming it exists, about Bubbles before and after the Jackson years. Unless Jackson was a closet ALF activist, he probably didn't "rescue" Bubbles as such, so what did happen? Also, the suicide attempt afterwards sounds implausible. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • 1) I've tried Google Books, Google News and the Jackson books I own. I couldn't find anymore on his life before meeting Jackson. 2) I've changed rescued to adopted. 3) There has been no scientific evidence to rule out animal suicide, which is why it's presented as a possibility in the article, but not an outright lie. Pyrrhus16 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've found a couple of potentially useful news articles. I can email them to you if you want. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be great! I have wiki email enabled, so you can send it from here. Pyrrhus16 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (Outdent) A note on where Bubbles was born has been added, as well as some additional info. Pyrrhus16 18:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • Is there a link missing in current ref 6 (Huey, Steve..)?
  • There was a link to the article, but following Jackson's death it redirected to an MTV tribute page for Jackson. Pyrrhus16 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Have replaced. Pyrrhus16 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What have you replaced it with? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Have replaced. Pyrrhus16 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The Daily Telegraph. Pyrrhus16 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you aware you're referencing "When Jackson's longtime friend Elizabeth Taylor attended the opening of the Whitman-Walker Clinic's Elizabeth Taylor Medical Center, she was accompanied by the singer and Bubbles. Jackson and the ape wore matching military uniforms." to a book classified as fiction??? http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn%3A080217048X
  • Lol. I didn't notice that; I only read the one page on Google Books. I have removed it. Pyrrhus16 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thus, nicely illustrating why it's not wise to rely on Google books for sourcing, what'd you replace it with? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't replaced it with anything. I've removed the two sentences. Pyrrhus16 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. :) Pyrrhus16 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The problem with the article is that it buys into the tabloid perspective that Michael Jackson rescued some poor animal, gave it a home, loved it, then sadly they had to part. But from a cursory reading of some of the stories, it seems that Bubbles was born into an animal lab, then was removed from his mother and sold to Bob Dunn of Bob Dunn's Animal Services, [34] a Hollywood company that trained animals for movies and commercials. At some point, Jackson seems to have purchased Bubbles, though the animal continued mostly to live with Dunn, being borrowed by Jackson when the latter wanted Bubbles around. The larger Bubbles became, the less that happened. Dunn reportedly decided to retire in January 2005, [35] and Bubbles was sent to an animal sanctuary, along with Dunn's other non-human primates: 11 chimpanzees and six orangutans in all. The "attempted suicide" story is almost certainly nonsense. (Though Dunn said he was retiring, his website still exists. [36])

The United States Department of Agriculture has criticized Dunn a few times for unsanitary conditions. A PETA investigation in 2004 led to further criticism. [37]

Many of the newspaper stories about Bubbles adopted a tone of mockery, which the WP article copies. I think it needs a rewrite, more sources to pin down where Bubbles was born and who purchased him from the lab, if that's what happened — or at least to report the discrepancies — and generally a more neutral tone and perspective. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Bubbles was purchased by Jackson through Dunn, the middle man. I couldn't find any more sources to shed light on his early life. Suicide in animals has not been ruled; it is believed to be a possibility. I doubt there will ever be a position on the topic that people agree on, and there probably won't be a conclusive answer to the debate on it. Pyrrhus16 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
A few questions: do you have any reliable sources that offer evidence of non-human primate suicide? Do you have any that seriously suggest Bubbles did this, not counting mockery? What is your source that says Dunn bought Bubbles on Jackson's behalf?
Also, here's a link to the Washington Times story so that you don't need to link to a subscription-only site. Note that it says Bubbles wasn't visited by Jackson at the sanctuary, that's he's being maintained by public donations, that he could live until he's 60, and he was born in 1983. That probably belongs in the article. You might also want to research whether anything was left for Bubbles or the sanctuary in the will. Note also the discrepancy between the W/Times and a Telegraph article that says Jackson did visit him at the sanctuary.
There's a clip here suggesting that Jackson used sign language to communicate with Bubbles, which would be interesting to explore. [38]
The problem with the article is that it simply repeats the news sources — many of which were in turn repeating press releases from Jackson's staff, which were designed to make him look good — rather than using the news sources as a way of getting deeper into the story. For example, you repeat the claim that Jackson taught Bubbles to moonwalk, but there are clips on YouTube of Bubbles doing this, and he is simply walking backwards. [39] Do chimps tend to walk backwards anyway, or is this likely to have been mimicry? You may not get to the bottom of it, but an FA needs to explore it briefly, assuming the sources exist.
If I were writing this article, I would e-mail Bob Dunn (his address is on the website I linked to), and get as much information from him as I can. Then I would use what he tells me to find articles about it. He may even have an archive of articles he can direct you to, though bear in mind that he may not direct you to anything negative. Try some of the animal-welfare organizations to see if any of them wrote about the Jackson-Bubbles relationship. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It is this profile that makes it sound like Bubbles was bought by Jackson through Dunn. I'll certainly add some of your suggestions to the article, and note the discrepencies about Jackson visiting Bubbles. I'll also look into emailing Dunn, to get some details from him. Pyrrhus16 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, animal suicide has been reported for many years, as seen in this article. In the Bubbles article, it is not presented as something he definitely attempted, but notes that it has been alleged as a possibility. Pyrrhus16 17:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Your suicide source is from 1884. You'd need something more recent and rigorous. None of the sources you're citing are reporting it as a serious thing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any rigorous recent sources in my search. However, it doesn't change the fact that the suicide attempt claim was made, which is what is reported in the article and the references. It does not state that Bubbles did attempt suicide, but that the media reported an allegation. Pyrrhus16 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The sentence "The center for apes, where the care for each animal costs around $17,000, also houses 41 other chimpanzees and orangutans." needs to state the time period that the $17,000 figure applies to. JN466 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Pyrrhus16 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Images. I've written to the Center to ask if they could release some images of Bubbles. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Pyrrhus16 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure what the external link right after the birth year is supposed to be. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Must have been added with the intention of using it as a ref. I've removed it, along with the date, as Bubbles couldn't have been born in 1983 if he was adopted at the age of three by Jackson in 1985. Pyrrhus16 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—Big problems with the tone and the prose.

  • Opening sentence: "... Jackson. Jackson ...". Why not "... Jackson, who adopted ..."?
  • Erky-perky, not a good sentence (third one): "Despite the pair enjoying a close relationship, many media sources mocked what was reported as a friendship." There's noun plus -ing in a very awkward guise. The logic (based on "despite") is unclear—there was mockery and reporting of a friendship in the press, yes? Which bit is despite the "close relationship"? My head is spinning.
  • "The association"—that refers to this "relationship/friendship"? Now we have three words for the same thing; very confusing for the poor readers. "The association—along with other factors—led the public to think of Jackson as a bizarre eccentric, obsessed with recapturing his childhood, and he was subsequently dubbed "Wacko Jacko"." Are the other factors the child sex allegations? May as well not be coy about it. The giggles at the subsequent sharing of a two-bedroom hotel suite are already palpable.
  • "Thoughout" is odd.
  • It's all looking very bizarre; perhaps you could warn the readers before they get to the private toilet bit and the suicide attempt that this relationship was part of Michael Jackson's highly eccentric persona? The place to do it is in an expanded text around where you talk of the mockery. Needs a careful foregrounding right there. Tony (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Without getting into the pros-and-cons of the prose, the "other factors" aren't the child sex allegations, which came much later; they're undeniably weird but not particularly interesting tabloid claims - "He sleeps in a pyramid!", "He bought the Elephant Man's skeleton!", "He lives in a hyperbaric chamber!", "He lobbied Spielberg for the role of Peter Pan in Hook!", "He tried to file a patent on leaning backwards!" (those last two were true) and so on. They all built up the gradual "Whacko Jacko" figure, and deserve a mention in Michael Jackson (as indeed they are), but aren't significant enough in and of themselves to warrant listing here. – iridescent 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it was several years before the first set of allegations that he was named "Wacko Jacko". I've altered the lead per your concerns, and am working on your last request. Pyrrhus16 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts I–IV

Nominator(s): Drewcifer (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


This is the second attempt with this article here at FAC. If I may summarize the previous FAC's comments on the article, the concerns that doomed its previous nom seemed to focus on the quality of the prose and the relative proximity of the nomination to the album's release not allowing sufficient time for proper perspective. I believe both of these problems have since been addressed; the article was copyedited shortly after the previous FAC failed and has since been re-copyedited and cleaned up by myself more recently, and the extended time has allowed for additions of some additional content that would not have been possible so closely after its release. All comments are welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call, added alt text to all four images. Drewcifer (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I tweaked the syntax to get it to work; you can check this sort of thing by clicking "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support/Comment-The article is in very good condition, and I support the FA nominee, but I would like to ask a question, is the image seen on the left really needed? It doesn't really add any more info to the article that isn't already there. And I think people reading it, would be fine without it KMFDM FAN (talk!) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not majorly ultra-important, but I would argue it helps verify and illustrate the numbering system of the LE edition, as well as fill some empty space to the right of the list of release versions. And it's a free-use, Creative Commons image, so it's on good terms legally and all that. Drewcifer (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it's like having a picture of an Elephant just ot show that they're gray, but okay. I was just thinking it takes up space, and could have been repleaced with a better image. (i was thinking an image of the Ultra-Deluxe editio)KMFDM FAN (talk!) 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I concur with KFKDM FAN. I feel having that picture is of interest to NIN fans, but isn't very enlightening to the general reader. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed the offending image. Sigh. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • NPR has cited it (link), and they've released an album for charity, which as been covered by PopMatters link.
  • Not sure what to say about this one. It's Creative Commons. Besides, all of the times it's cited is about CC-type stuff, so I'd assume Creative Commons would be the expert on Creative Commons.
Well, it is a primary source, which we generally should avoid due to POV concerns. The post cited is pretty self-congratulatory. Can you find a secondary source that covers the information? Also, I'm not too keen on Amazon.com listing (this is one retailer out of many; why not list rankings for other retailers?) and feel you definitely should take out the Last.fm rankings (these are not notable in of themselves; if you can find a secondary source that covers this, then I would be more inclined to keep it). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've swapped two of the three. The last one is the one pointing out the fact that it's the only CC-licensed music to be nominated for a Grammy. That info isn't available anywhere else as far as I can tell, so there's no way around that one. Drewcifer (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • All About Jazz was named the best Web-Site Concentrating On Jazz by the Jazz Journalist Association. It's also been cited by Examiner.com (link). And it's being used to cite an interview, not investigative reporting or anything like that, so I'm sourcing the interviewee, Adrian Belew, not All About Jazz. Drewcifer (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm generally not a fan of "Release history" sections (mainly because they are generally unnecessary and uncited) but in this case it might be a good place to move the "Release versions" section so you don't have a bulleted list smack dab in the middle of prose sections. Alternatively, you might want to convert the section into prose. Pick which of those solutions works best for you. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't use "#" signs and write out all numbers below ten. Thus "#2" should be written out as "number two". WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the pound sign thing. Working on the releases. Drewcifer (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Redid the release section section a bit. Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Link to disambiguation Fixed. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 15:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments It's looking pretty good. I made some changes to address easy problems, but some other issues follow:
    • Lead: "licensed under a ... license" Gotta do some about this, but unsure what.
    • "The music arose improvisationally" This statement lacks clarity. How precisely does music "arise", and what do we mean by "music"? The written music? The recorded music?
      • Reworded, hopefully better. Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Viglione, who contributed percussions" ?
    • "National Public Radio and Rolling Stone's reviews also compared the album to Brian Eno" Requires clarity—I'm sure they didn't compare the album to Eno himself?
    • "The album is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license, in effect allowing anyone to use or rework the material for any non-profit purpose, as long as credit is provided and the resulting work is released under an identical license." You've sourced this to a press release of some kind, but we really also need a secondary source for your interpretation of this particular license type.
      • Added another source, explaining what the license means, which pretty much echo what is described in the article. Drewcifer (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Ghosts material was performed in this manner most notably during the "Lights in the Sky" tour in 2008, immediately after the album's release." Why "most notably"? Which of the two sources given backs up that statement?
    • "During these segments, the music was largely acoustic" When is music not acoustic? If you're trying to express that the instruments used were acoustic rather than electric, revision is needed. Also, the "among others" is kind of hanging out there, not doing much. You've already said "included", indicating there would be more.
    • "Subsequently, on the NINJA and Wave Goodbye Tours, the Ghosts section has since been scrapped" The "subsequently" is redundant to the "since"; pick one.
    • "charted on ... charts"
    • Please check for MoS issues, per WP:LQ. If I found a complete sentence quoted with the period on the outside, I moved it in. For partial quotations that seem to end in a period, you are handling it inconsistently. Either always put them inside or always put them outside.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Checked every quotation, fixed more than I care to admit. Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it is ready. I've checked several of the sources and verified that they support what they're attached to. Everything in the lead is represented and cited in the text. On an image note - I see that you have a CC-licensed promo photo, and it looks like there are others on Flickr with appropriate licenses. Is there anything else we can grab that would add anything to the article? I see there are several production photos but unfortunately they are non-commercial. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Awesome, thanks for your help and your support. I've scoured the NIN Flickr account as well, and there's not much there that isn't non-commercial, unfortunately. And non-NIN-created content is pretty scarce too; the above image which I removed was the only one I could find that fit. So I guess it is what it is. Drewcifer (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Covent-Garden Journal

Nominator(s): —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC) and Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's of appropriate length, provides necessary and concise information on the topic, is well-researched and -referenced, and is of a generally high quality. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Added my name per AD's comments on my talk page. If there are any concerns about sources or if someone wants access to the sources, I will try and process that quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Support: An engrossing, comprehensive article on an interesting corner of literary history. The prose is not quite there, yet, but I believe it can quite quickly be brought up to standard. Sources look good. Here are my detailed comments:-

  • Lead
    • "...under the pseudonym of" – "of" is unnecessary
      • Fixed.
    • Questionable use of quote marks: ..."war" on the "armies" of Grub Street. In the main text "the armies of Grub Street" is all within quotes; I suggest you use the same form here, and probably drop the quotes round "war".
      • Fixed.
    • "...the letter, initially attributed to a 'Humphrey Meanwell', was in fact written by Fielding operating under a pseudonym." The last four words are intuitive and could be omitted.
      • Fixed.
  • Background
    • Opening phrase jars: "a" followed immediately by "the". I know "The" is part of the journal's title, but I don't think the "a" is necessary.
      • Fixed.
    • "Published pseudonymously..." Again, we can infer pseudonymous from the previous text, and the word can be omitted.
      • Fixed.
    • Third paragraph: some work needed here.
      • You say Fielding began "plotting his next course of literary work". That reads as rather stilted - is "course of" necessary?
        • Fixed,
      • To link with what follows in the paragraph, you need to say somewhere that he decided that this next literary work would take the form of a journal. Otherwise, when you say "he gave it the title The Covent-Garden Journal", it is not clear what "it" refers to.
        • Fixed.
      • It also says: "In alluding to his past publication...". The sentence should not start with "In". Also, from what has been said, it wasn't "his" publication, merely something he gave a hand to. I suggest "the earlier" replaces "his past". Thus: "Alluding to the earlier publication,..." etc
        • Fixed.
      • Could you be a bit more precise than "...because of Amelia."?
        • My sources don't really specify, I think. I assume it would have been stock standard production affairs. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Maybe say "because of work related to the publication of Amelia? Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Given the Duke's journal of the same name, did Fielding's journal begin at No. 2, or did he begin again at No 1?
        • Remember that Fielding never admitted to participating in the hoax (as far as I know), so I don't think he would have regarded it in issuing the Journal. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Content
    • "Fielding injected a certain degree of wit or "liveliness" not seen in his previous publications" - does the source say the "not seen..." bit?
      • I don't have access to that source. Perhaps Ottava Rima will know. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Thankfully, google has a copy of this one also (I have physical copies of all of them, but this is convenient for others to check) - p. 47 says "More aggressively than he had done in his earlier periodicals, Fielding here makes wit (or liveliness, or urbanity) a distinguishing, thus unifying...". The "not seen" is connected to "a certain degree" and a paraphrase of "more aggressively than he had done..." to the end of the sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The structure of the sentence beginning "Exceptions included..." is far too complicated, with long subclauses and an immense quotation. And while I think of it..."Exceptions included" sounds a bit like something Sam Goldwyn might have said. So I suggest "Exceptions were...", then reconstruct the material in a slightly more digestible form.
      • Still pondering that. Would it be remiss to remove the quotation? It would be a shame... —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • How about this?

Exceptions were those in numbers 42, 50 and 58. No. 42 mocked the Country Tories by imagining how an Ancient Greek or Roman would react to party politics: "...convey [him] to a Hunting-Match, or Horse Race, or any other Meeting of Patriots. Will he not immediately conclude from all the Roaring and Ranting, the Hallowing and the Hazzaing, the Gaming and Drinking, [...] that he is actually present at the Orgia of Bacchus, or the Celebration of some such Festival?". Number 50 blamed the growth of the London mob on poverty laws, while number 58 targeted the "Independent Electors of Westminster"

That would retain the whole quote, but I believe the quote would be equally forceful if it began at "Will he not...". Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That reads well. Thanks. I've inserted it, but changed "while" to "and"; the link between the two clauses seems additive, not contrastive. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • "In his literary reviews, Fielding often wrote with a biased hand." This, and similar judgements such as "Fielding's reviews were not always partisan", and "Fielding had a noted tendency to be prejudiced toward certain authors", need to be attributed, otherwise they read as POV.
        • No access to that source either.
          • The source. It covers multiple pages, so you will have to look around. Saying that a work is opinion based is not controversial, and they are already attributed. This wasn't a newspaper but series of editorials that were printed as a satirical journal. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm sure the source says what you say it says. However, when you say that Fielding often wrote with a biased hand, gave immoderate praise, or had noted tendencies to be prejudiced in certain directions, whose opinions are these? Although the comments are cited, we need to be told specifically whose opinions/judgements these are. Thus the paragraph should be introduced: "According to the Battestins' analysis..." or some such. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
              • They aren't POV or controversial. They do not need to be directly quoted. Based on your rational, saying someone wrote an opinion column would need to be attributed directly to a critic. It is not an "According to Battestins" as there is no critical involvement of opinion. It is a -fact-. The journals were not news, they were not objective, nor is there any possibility of claiming they were anything but parody and opinion pieces. Thus, there is no way to claim that the above characterization is even close to being controversial enough to warrant such statements. Find -one- source that claims the journal is objective and neutral. Unless you do, you have no grounds to claim it needs to be directly attributed, especially when it is a common statement in -all- works on Fielding dealing with the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
                • Sorry for the delay on picking this up. OK, I think you are arguing that Fielding's unquestioned status as a polemicist means that his writing was naturally biased, immoderate and prejudiced, and that these terms do not require attribution as they are self-evident, not a matter of opinion. I am half-convinced. If no other reviewer picks up on this I won't press the point, but part of me is uncomfortable with not knowing whose words these descriptive phrases are. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
                  • If you want, the language can be toned down. The term "prejudice" tends to have a negative connotation in the US with racial undertones, so that word could easily be swapped for another (prejudice just means choosy or selective, or in favour of something). Immoderate shouldn't have such a connotation, as it means that he went out of his way to support his friends, i.e. he wrote puff pieces and rather admittedly (most journals and reviews of the day contained puff pieces and little objectivity). Here are some other sources: this says that there was no political bias, but also "he was not always polite in his wit, or restrained in his observations... assumed, also, the right of censorship over his contemporaries-a right to ridicule and criticise them.." This source has quite a bit about his views - "he endorses Richardson by way of censoring Rabelais and Aristophanes". This is Fielding's attack on Smollett. As you can see, it is an attack piece (quite literally, as it has a lot about military and conflict in it). Another describing the opinionated aspect - "Much like Steele, Fielding had declared himself a moral censor and regularly held forth on the reigning vices and follies in his periodical writing." There are more, but it is hard to find the info available on google books for others to verify. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
                      • I've done some more rewording for the flow. It might be more toned-down. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
                        • As no one else has picked up on this, I'm not pressing it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Paper war
    • Delete article from section title
    • "The first four numbers of The Journal are of particular note because they featured an account of the "Paper War." The words "are of particular note because they" should be deleted as editorial comment and therefore POV
      • Fixed.
    • "with writers" better than "with the writers"
      • Fixed.
    • "...for the sake of generating sales" is wordy. Why not "to generate sales"?
      • Fixed.
    • "Fielding challenged the armies of Grub Street". Was this a challenge on a specific issue? Otherwise the word "confront" might be a better choice.
      • Fixed.
    • (Second paragraph) The words "In this way" are redundant
      • Fixed.
    • "especial" in this usage is OK but archaic; "special" is preferable.
    • The last sentence of the section requires a citation.
  • Meanwell controversy: isn't "controversy" rather over-egging it? (controversy: dispute, argument or debate, esp. one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement. Collins English Dictionary) Whats a good word for a "storm in a teacup"?
  • End of publication
    • Unnecessarily wordy: "Fielding himself had fallen into poor health" Perhaps "Fielding's health was poor,..."
      • Fixed.
    • Several references to The Journal. I believe this should be "the Journal". For instance, if a paper was called The London Advertiser you might refer to it as the Advertiser, but not as The Advertiser.
      • Fixed.
  • General
    • I think the whole text could do with a punctuation audit. I spotted a few cases of possible over-use of commas.
      • ...Where? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd have to go back and look for specific examples - it was more an impression I got, but punctuation styles can vary. Let's leave it, unless another reviewer picks up on it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Images need alt text.

Altogether, engaging and good. - User:Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll try to work on the few outstanding issues over the next days. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am happy with the responses to my queries, and have upgraded my comments to "support". Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. The attention to detail definitely helped (even when we argued over some of it :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. For more on the why images need alt text, please see WP:ALT and the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support—'tis very good. I've taken the liberty of enlarging the images. MoS advice on this is now clearer—they tend to be rather detailed. Please adjust if you don't like them. Tony (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support. To be frank, all the images now seem quite overbearing. Could you direct me to the MoS advice? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree - the images (apart from Smollett) overwhelm the text. They could be increased a little from their original sizes, but not I think to this extent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • (Later) The enlarged images cause squeezing of text, which breaches MOS Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • We could simply list a "click to enlarge" as a compromise between sizing if people would like. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I can confirm no copyright issues with any of the images on this page. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Question: Does File:Fielding and Hill.jpg have a source? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Added in the sourcing for the version found in Battestin and Battestin, even though the quality is different (his version is much more crisp and glossy than my copy was). It is enough to verify PD Old. If someone wants to get a better version, the Battestin and Battestin version seems to be a good source. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Aliso Creek (Orange County)

Nominator(s): Shannon1talk contribs 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed GA, received major cleanup, received a peer review, and received another major cleanup in and after the process, and received highly positive opinions on the WP:RIVER talk page. I feel this article is now referenced over enough and of a standard enough to reach FA. I know most of the river FA's are very small streams - this is the first one that flows directly into the ocean. Shannon1talk contribs 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Shannontalk SIGN! 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. The existing alt text is a good start, but there are some problems:
  • Done; but it won't show in the alt viewer. Shannontalk SIGN! 05:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the alt viewer is currently busted where it looks at an old (cached) version of the article. However, it is currently (correctly) showing that 7 images lack alt text. Of these, 4 (the highway sign shields) are purely decorative and should be marked with "|link=" as per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images; the other 3 need alt text. Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For Image:AlisoCreekReliefMap.jpg the alt text "Topography of the creek's watershed" doesn't convey much useful info to the visually impaired reader. What does that image say about the topography? The alt text should tell us that. (done)
  • Similarly, for Image:Alisocreek orange map.png the alt text "There are 8 cities in the Aliso Creek watershed." is a bit terse. Some cities should be named at least, perhaps the ones at either end, and the role of Sulpher Creek in that illustration should be mentioned, shouldn't it? (done)
  • The alt text "A large storm drain outlet on the right side of the creek" is mostly a repeat of part of the caption. Alt text should avoid repeating the caption, and should say what extra useful info the image tells you. (done)
Eubulides (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for working on it. Aside from the images missing alt text, as noted above, I currently see these problems:
  • In maps, please replace phrases like "upper right (northeast)" with "northeast". The "upper right" is a relatively unimportant detail, whereas the "northeast" is the gist of the image. Please see WP:ALT#Maps. (done)
  • "The beginning of the canyon the creek cuts through the mountains." is not a sentence. There's a similar problem with "The end of the canyon the creek cuts through the mountains, with the ocean beyond". See WP:ALT#Punctuation. (done)
  • "Large view of the creek's watershed" repeats the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition), and doesn't convey the gist of the image well (see WP:ALT#Essence). What does that large view look like? (done)
  • The word "hued" is redundant and can be removed. (where?) Image:Laguna Niguel Lake.jpg
  • The word "anadromous" is not something that one can verify from the fish's visual appearance, right? So it should be removed from the alt text as per WP:ALT#Verification. (done)
  • Similarly, the "polluted" in "polluted water" is not something that one can verify by looking at the image, and should be removed or moved to the caption. The resulting alt text doesn't convey much useful info that isn't in the caption, and should be reworded to do so.
  • The word "the" in "An artificial concrete waterfall built on the creek" can't be verified just by looking at the image, and needs to be reworded. (done)
  • "Juaneños' to the southwest". Surely that should be "southeast"? (done)
  • "watershed - including". Please use a comma here, or if you must use a dash, please use WP:EMDASH. (done)
  • "Sulphur Creek, at the lower right" should be "Sulphur Creek, in the southeast". (done)
Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The recently-introduced phrase "Drawing of" is not that useful here and can be removed as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
Eubulides (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that most of the above items have been fixed, and I've struck them; the only remaining item that's a real problem is the "polluted" one. Can you please fix that? Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Which one? Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It's the alt text for File:Aliso Creek heron and ducklings.JPG. I see no pollution visible there. Eubulides (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Working... Shannontalk SIGN! 23:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not using these sites for extreme claims or much information in the article; most of the article's info comes from the USACE, Orange County Watershed, Orange County Flood Control Division, and LA Times. As I mentioned up there, most of these are just for one figure, such as a distance or a date. Shannontalk SIGN! 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
How much or how little has little bearing on whether they are reliable. We need to use high quality sources, it's part of the FA criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The FA criterion 1c states that "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations" (italics mine for emphasis). Featured articles are our best work. Therefore, we expect that FAs use the highest-quality sources, just as we expect "brilliant" prose, professional-standard presentation (adherence to MOS), and complete coverage of the topic. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you take a look at the article I've actually started to add other citations to reliable sources after the ones mentioned up there... Shannontalk SIGN! 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is the nominator still responding ? There are many old, unstruck items above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes... just waiting for a second opinion. Shannontalk SIGN! 23:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I intend to copyedit this and will leave questions here as I work through the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I see Finetooth has pointed out most of the issues I planned to copyedit in the first two sections (thanks). I still have one major concern with something in the lead. The second sentence reads The stream rises in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, near the unincorporated city of Portola Hills, ... then the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead says Pollution, floods and development of the watershed and surrounding Orange County have blighted the water quality and wildlife of the creek since the 1960s,[6] when urban and suburban development of the eight incorporated cities[5] .... The File:Aliso creek map.jpg also shows only eight cities, one of which is Portola Hills, but that is not incorporated. Reading the Portola Hills article, I see it was a Census-designated place (CDP) that was incorporated into the existing city of Lake Forest in the year 2000. The Geobox however does not refer to Portola Hills for the location of the source, but instead places the source in the Cleveland National Forest. The "Course" section of the article mentions both Portola Hills and the National Forest. There are several issues here - some are relatively minor (in the lead I would use the full link Portola Hills, California, and not the redirect Portola Hills, in its current state I would also refer to it as a CDP and not an "unincorporated city") but the most important by far is that the article does not accurately reflect the current state of the creek. It now rises (and has done so for the past nine years) in the city of Lake Forest. Now I think it would be OK to say something like The stream rises in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest, near the Portola Hills area of the city of Lake Forest, ... but as it currently stands this second sentence is incorrect and contradicts the later lead sentence about 8 incorporated cities. I also note the "Course" section and map would have to be updated to reflect the proper city.

Hope this helps, I can be this nitpicky for the whole article if desired, just let me know here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I thought I'd pop in here too. You've done a lot of work to get the article this far, and I'd like to see you succeed. I've done a close reading of the lead and the first section and recorded my thoughts below. If you'd like me to go on with this, I'd be glad to. Just post a note here.

Lead

  • "The name, of Spanish origin, was given to the creek by Spanish conquistadors in the 1700s, although there are now many places in California that use the name." - Delete "of Spanish origin" since you've already explained in the first sentence that it's Spanish? (done)
  • "As of 2004, the 30.4-square-mile (79 km2) watershed... " - If you round to the nearest tenth in miles, shouldn't you round to the nearest tenth in square kilometers? You can do that easily by adding a rounding parameter, in this case "|1" to the template. (done)
  • "that dates from the late Eocene to the Pliocene eras" - Would it be helpful to readers to add date ranges? Also, these two are technically epochs rather than eras. I think it's OK to avoid that complication by saying "that dates from the late Eocene to the Pliocene".
  • "The creek's watershed then became a major portion of the 1842 Rancho Niguel Mexican Land Grant, granted to Juan Avila and later purchased by Lewis Moulton." - Tighten slightly by deleting ", granted"? (done)
  • Lewis Moulton. He is mentioned in the lead, but I don't see him in the main text. (Yes, he is, in the 20th century section.)
  • "and its watershed as a municipal water source date back to the early 20th century" - Tighten by deleting "back"? (done)
  • "Pollution continues to be a major problem for the creek, which has received many water quality and feasibility studies, but in similarity to many other Orange County streams, little work has been done to correct pollution in the creek." - Suggestion: "Pollution continues to be a major problem for the creek, the subject of many water quality and feasibility studies, but, as with many other Orange County streams, little has been done to correct it." (done)

Name

  • "The Native American name of Aliso Creek has almost for certain been lost. The time of origin of the current name of Aliso Creek is not known, but it is certain that the name was given by Spanish conquistadors sometime between the 1750s and the 1800s." - What is the source for these claims? (done)
  • "Other derivatives for Aliso Creek's name have arose since then - including "Los Alisos Creek" and "Alisos Creek"." - This should be "have arisen" rather than "have arose". Also, the spaced hyphen should be replaced by a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash, thus: "then – including" or "then—including". Ditto for all of the other uses of the spaced hyphen in the article. You might also consider using a comma rather than a dash in at least some of these cases. (done with derivatives, will work on hyphens eventually)
  • "One road, Aliso Creek Road, is named for the creek, although ironically it only crosses the creek once and does not parallel it." - Delete "ironically" since it is an editorial comment that would be hard to verify? (done)
Finetooth (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: Thanks for your attention to many of the suggestions above. Here is another set of comments that apply down through the "Water quality" subsection.

Etymology *Nitpick. It would be better to flip the order of the refs [8][4] to put them in ascending order, [4][8]. (done)

Course

  • "The creek crosses under Trabuco Road and Jeronimo Road; the latter was once the site of a stream gauge." - Wikilink stream gauge? (It's linked in the "Discharge" subsection but should be linked on first use.) (done)
  • "The southeast-flowing Dairy Fork was once a prominent canyon that followed the present-day form of State Route 73, until it was flattened in the 1960s and 1970s to build the city of Aliso Viejo." - I find this a bit confusing. Would this be better: "Southeast-flowing Dairy Fork once flowed in a prominent canyon that was filled in the 1960s and 1970s to build the city of Aliso Viejo; State Route 73 runs above the former canyon"? Or something like that?> (done)
  • "After receiving the fork, Aliso Creek passes into four massive culverts that cross under Pacific Park Drive, whose fill nearly bisects the valley." - Delete "whose fill nearly bisects the valley"? It sounds like original research, though it might not be. In any case, it's a bit hard to imagine and probably isn't needed. (done)
  • "which is about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) in length... " - Nitpick. Tighten slightly to "long"? (done)
  • "Flowing almost due south through a valley with slopes dissected with many deep side canyons... " - "By" rather than "with"?
  • "as it enters private property less than 1-mile (1.6 km) from the mouth" - Delete hyphen? (done
  • In reviewing the changes you made, I noticed a couple of other problems. You describe Dairy Fork as southeast-flowing, but the watershed map in the geobox shows it as southwest-flowing. In another place, you say the main stem "makes a bend to the southeast then veers back south". Should this be "southwest" as well?

Discharge

  • "The former received runoff from about 95% of the watershed, while the latter received runoff from 7.91 square miles (20.5 km2)... " - Rounding? (done)
  • Caption. "Due to tides and erosion, its mouth is ever-changing and never the same." - Delete "and never the same"? (done)

Geology

  • "The Santa Ana Mountains, which now bound the creek to the north and east... " "Border" rather than "now bound"? (done)
  • "It also happens that the uplift of the hills changed the course of Aliso Creek's largest tributary, Sulphur Creek,... " - Possibly tighten to "The uplift also changed the course of... "? (done)
  • "Wisconsinian glaciation" - Would Wisconsin Glacial Episode, linked directly to the relevant subsection of the the "Last glacial period" article be better? (done; originally tried to do that, but wouldn't work)
  • "During the Wisconsinian glaciation, when the San Joaquin Hills had begun to uplift, the climate of Southern California changed radically. From an arid, semi-desert climate, sea levels dropped as water became locked up in ice during the Wisconsinian ice age, as it is now known. At that time, Southern California's climate changed to become reminiscent of that of the Pacific Northwest. Suddenly, prodigious rainfall turned the ephemeral streams of the region into large and powerful rivers." - Tighten for clarity? Suggestion: "During the Wisconsin episode, after the San Joaquin Hills had begun to uplift, the climate of Southern California changed radically from arid to wet. Prodigious rainfall gradually turned the small streams of the region into large and powerful rivers." (done)
  • "The drop in sea level also helped in the process, allowing the rivers to flow steeper and faster and thus to possess more erosive power." - Suggestion: "A drop in sea level during the glacial period allowed rivers to flow more rapidly and to erode with power." (done)
  • "It is estimated that at that time period, Aliso Creek was a 16-mile (26 km) waterway... " - Delete "period"? (done)
  • "By then, the rivers and streams had slowed down to their original volume." - "dwindled" rather than "slowed down"? (done)

Geography

  • "The ridge at the headwaters of the creek (see Course) separates the Aliso Creek watershed from Santiago Creek." - I'm not sure it works well to embed a "jump back" link (see Course) like this in the text or that you need to do it. I'd be inclined to delete it. (done)
  • "Surrounding Interstate 5, which can be said to bisect the watershed, is the primary urban area in the Aliso Creek watershed - consisting of Lake Forest, Laguna Woods, and Laguna Hills." - It might be useful to say whether I-5 cuts across the watershed lengthwise or crosswise and in what direction. (done)
  • "bordering a broad alluvial valley which Aliso Creek has deposited many sediments in." - Move "in" to the left in the sentence? Suggestion: "bordering a broad alluvial valley in which Aliso Creek has deposited many sediments". (done)

Water quality

  • "adversely effecting the ecology and wildlife of the creek by means of elevated flow level (urban runoff)... " - "affecting" rather than "effecting".
  • "The creek is part of the Clean Water Act list of impaired waters, which is defined as "impaired by one or more pollutants that do not meet one or more water quality standards" - Compress to "The creek is part of the Clean Water Act list of waters 'impaired by one or more pollutants that do not meet one or more water quality standards' "?
  • "This is sourced from pet waste, fertilizer, manure, and other organic pollutants that are washed into the creek. This results in a bacterial level 34% higher than levels declared safe under California law." - Maybe combine these to avoid starting three sentences in a row with "This is"? Suggestion: "This comes from pet waste, fertilizer, manure, and other organic pollutants that wash into the creek and raise the bacteria level 34 percent higher than levels declared safe under California law."
  • The quote is too short to set off as a blockquote, and the paragraph could nicely be attached to the bigger one above it. Suggestion: "A local activist commented that the water pollution problem has long been ignored by the county: " ...we're sick and tired of it. It's nothing but a cesspool stew, full of pigeons and pigeon droppings and nearly 90-degree water, right at the beach!"
  • "after having been bitten by coyotes that had drank" - "that had drunk"
  • "Also in 2002, tests in November of that year detected small amounts of the virus that causes... " - Delete "of that year"?
  • "It prevails in urban runoff because this source of runoff is created by tap water, whether used for irrigation, car washing, or other daily activities, flowing down storm drains." - Suggestion: "It prevails in urban runoff, which consists largely of chlorinated tap water used for irrigation, car washing, and other daily activities."
  • "Ironically, carp... " - Delete "ironically"?
  • "to exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32 degrees Celsius)" - Wikipedia's standard format for this is 90 °F (32 °C).
  • "warned in a 1997 study that up to $4.2 million USD in damages" - No need to specify USD in a US-centric article.
  • "Spectacular events have also occurred at English Canyon Creek, an upper tributary of Aliso Creek,... " - Delete "also" since the preceding sentence describes a possible spectacular event but not one that has actually occurred.
Finetooth (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyclone Orson

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA requirements. I've thoroughly researched the storm and have found no additional information for it. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed that source and the tug boat information, just found that it's still in service. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the only 1, that appeared.Jason Rees (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments *Link "hPa" in the lead as it may not be familiar to all readers.

*"Despite the extreme intensity of Cyclone Orson..." can be changed to the more succinct: "Despite Orson's extreme intensity..."

*"Due to the severity of the storm..." can be changed to "Due to the storm's severity..."

  • "...the 40 km (25 mi) wide eye..." there should be a hyphen somewhere because "40 km" is modifying "wide"

*"The lowest pressure was, at the..." I think "The lowest pressure" should be "This" because you only give one pressure as being measured.

*Should Dampier, Australia link to Dampier, Western Australia?

*"...people proceeded to cleanup litter, secured outdoor items and made sure their disaster kits were stocked." I think the verb tense is wrong. I think correct would be "...people proceeded to cleanup litter, secure outdoor items and make sure their disaster kits were stocked."

*"Initially, more than 20 fishermen were reported missing during the storm." You use both "initially" and "during"; which one is it?

*"On April 23, a rescue mission with three aircraft recovered roughly 20 fishermen and one was not found." The "and" makes it sound like something additional was found. I would suggest something like "...20 fisherman, while one was still missing."

*I would link swell to Swell (ocean).

  • Never knew it had an article before, linked it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

*"The waves knocked the drill used to find the oil out of position; it would take several days before the drill was repositioned." I would make that "knocked a drill used to find oil" and change the part after the semi-colon to "it would take several days for the drill to be repositioned". The current version sounds as if the drill was immediately repositioned, while the next sentence says it isn't.

*Change "...at the time of low tide..." to "...during low tide..."

*Why is there a comma between "Dampier" and "reached"?

  • I think my train of thought changed at that point, I think originally I was putting damage but put winds instead, removed the comma. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

*"...roughly $900,000 in damages." Indicate that this is Australian dollars, and give a conversion to US dollars.

*"...and was eventually removed" You can take out "was".

*"Due to the severity of the storm..." can be changed to "Due to the storm's severity..."

*Alphabetize "See also" and "External links"

*Should reference 12 be "Search and Rescue Finds 20 Fishermen"?

*Reference 14 uses "pg" instead of "p" for page; change to "p" for consistency with the rest of the article.

After these issues are fixed, I'll have no problem supporting. Mm40 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed all your comments. Thanks for the review Mm40 :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Supporting; very good article. Mm40 (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - The writing seems up to scratch though i would add the words tropical cyclone to the Australian intensity scale. Images and sources also seem fine. Jason Rees (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Added tropical cyclone and thanks for the support Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

North Island (Houtman Abrolhos)

Nominator(s): Hesperian 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


This is easily the most comprehensive account of this island, online or off. It is thoroughly researched, well-written, neutral and stable. Hesperian 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  • agree with the statement about the article being comprehensive but a couple of small points;
  • lead needs to be expanded, with at least a second paragraph
  • images horizon lines, especially the one in the flora section are tilted.

Also the wording I'd prefer to see the use of approxiamately rather than roughly Gnangarra 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do about the lead. I've fixed the images, except the fenceline one, in which the horizon probably does slope. They haven't purged through yet, so you'll have to take my word for it. I see you've changed one "roughly" to "approximately", and I've changed another to "around". I've left the last one: there's something mischievously poetic about "roughly diamond-shaped". ;-) Hesperian 12:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the lead somewhat. Hesperian 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support sorry for the late reply I'm happy with th changes you've made !Gnangarra 04:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Conspicuously absent is a map placing the island's location in context (i.e. showing both the island and some geographical feature, probably Australia, that would be immediately recognizable to most readers). Is there a reason for this? Steve Smith (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Point taken; I've added a locator map. Hesperian 05:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments -
  • What makes http://www.eneabba.net/Midwest/Island1.html a reliable source?
    <sigh> It isn't, I suppose. This is the only source I could find for the assertions that the island has a school and a pub—claims that are separately corroborated by equally unreliable sources here and here respectively. Therefore I succumbed to temptation. I've removed the claims and the citation. :-( Hesperian 23:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Query - Just wondering, why are there two images in the references section? ceranthor 17:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • They are worthwhile images that I couldn't fit in anywhere else. Hesperian 23:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • Good-looking article; the photos do a good job covering it. Were you on vacation there?
    • No; none of those photos were taken by me. Most we donated by the good people at eneabba.net. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the population figure, you state 130 seasonal fishermen in the infobox, as of 2006. In the body of the article, you state 130 seasonal fishermen, but it refers to something published in 2003. Are these figures likely to have changed since 2006/3? Which date is the correct one?
    • It must be 2003, since it is sourced to a 2003 paper. Fixed, thanks. Hesperian 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The founding of a permanent camp is given in 1947, and you state that the population increased to 130 by today, but aren't those seasonal inhabitants, not permanent?
    • Yes; it is a seasonally inhabited permanent camp. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Who considers it an "attractive" tourist site?
    • Looking... Hesperian 12:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The Human Uses section states that the chain is "vested in Western Australia's Minister for Fisheries" ... should that be the Ministry for Fisheries?
  • The list of plants seems to be overkill. It's longer than the entire Human Uses section, and doesn't add much. I'd suggest chopping it, since you did such a good job on the rest of the flora section.
    • I think it adds an awful lot; but then, I have an interest in these things. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any fresh water on the island?
    • There must be, if wallabies can survive all year round; but you wouldn't know it from reading reliable sources. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Are there any structures on the island other than the lighthouse and fishing camp?
    • A trig point, and of course the numerous buildings and jetties comprising the camp. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What's the water depth like around the island?
    • All I know about that is in Houtman Abrolhos#Bathymetry. Unfortunately there aren't any sources that refer to the bathymetry specifically around this island, and I'm reluctant to include general Abrolhos information here. Hesperian 11:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If temperature figures are available, I suggest using Template:Infobox Weather to spruce up the climate section.
    • Raw data for the island is available, and based on that some general assertions have been published about the island's climate, but monthly averages themselves have not been published. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to synthesise averages out of the raw data. Hesperian 11:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What makes it a good place for lobster fishing?
    • There are lobsters there. :-) Sorry; I don't have a better answer than that. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "permanent seasonal" seems to be a contradiction.
    • The camp is permanent; the population is seasonal. i.e. at the end of the season, the crayfishers go home, but the camp remains. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Changed to "seasonally-inhabited permanent camp". Hesperian 11:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "even further to the north and south" isn't really precise.
    • Changed to "over 3 km (2 mi) to the north and south". Hesperian 11:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You've got an "as of 2007" and an "as of 2006" in the article, which is a concern for an article in 2009.
    • Unfortunately, I have to work with the body of reliable sources in existence. Better to be upfront about the fact that some of this data is dated. Hesperian 11:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've gone through and given the article a scrubbing for smoothness, clarity, and grammar. If anything looks wonky, drop a note on my talk page. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review; much appreciated.

      I've restored a few little bits where removal might have created misconceptions or errors of fact; e.g. converting "Possible reasons for this include..." to "Reasons for this include..." results in a misrepresentation of the source. I also restored a little bit of variation in the prosody: I don't like every sentence to follow the same subject-verb-noun formula. Hesperian 11:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Comment Well researched, well illustrated and linked to a family of supporting articles in Category:Houtman Abrolhos, the vast majority created by the author. There are a few minor issues regarding wording in the following sentences:
    • Lead

"It is also used as conservation habitat for rare birds and vegetation communities"

    • 2 Geography

"Reefs that formed during the Eemian interglacial (about 125,000 years ago), when sea levels were higher than today, are above sea level, and make up the basement of the group's central platform islands: West Wallabi Island, East Wallabi Island, and North Island."

    • 6 Fauna

"it has been suggested that the island once had a native population of the introduced Tammar Wallaby"

Melburnian (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've rephrased all three, though in each case I'm not certain that I've addressed what you're driving at. I've assumed your points are: (1) "rare" could attach to one or both nouns; (2) horrid prose; (3) clash of "native" with "introduced. Hesperian 11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not being specific, the section of the first phrase that to me seems NQR is "used as", though you have rightly corrected an ambiguity that I missed. Melburnian (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
rejiggered. Now "reserved as conservation habitatat for..." Hesperian 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Support

  • "North Island was discovered in May 1840..." Are we sure that (1) There is no record of Indigenous occupation or use of the island, and (2) the Dutch, Portugese etc never identified it as an island in journals or charts? I typed "Houtman Abrolhos" into Google, and clicked on the very first link, and I found "Commonly referred to as “The Abrolhos”, the islands are named after Dutch Commander Frederik de Houtman, who came across several of the low-lying, coral-reef fringed islands in June 1619. The word Abrolhos is thought to be derived from the Portuguese expression Abre os olhos, meaning “keep your eyes open”." and "The Dutch East India Company's vessels, Batavia and Zeewijk, are probably the best known of the Abrolhos wrecks. The Batavia hit Morning Reef, near Beacon Island in the Wallabi Group, in 1629 while the Zeewijk was wrecked on Half-Moon Reef in the Pelsaert Group in 1727. Eighteen other historic wrecks have been discovered in Abrolhos waters." While i recognise these remarks do not mention North Island in particular, the failure to note this background or context, and to lead in with a 'discovery' in 1840, I think creates a misleading picture.
    • The stuff you found on Google is inferior to the material in Houtman Abrolhos#Discovery and naming, which I wrote. For example, "keep your eyes open" is a popular but false etymology.

      I disagree that the article is creating a misleading picture. All the evidence, and all the sources, point to an isolated outlying island that was unoccupied and undiscovered until 1840. The fact that some islands to the south have a much longer history is irrevelant. If you want to know about the history of the Houtman Abrolhos as a whole, read Houtman Abrolhos. That fact is, shipwrecks a hundred kilometres to the south are not "background or context" for this article, and the "'discovery' in 1840" was in fact the discovery in 1840.

      The only way I could address this comment would be to write that the islands to the south were known of since the early 17th century, but North Island wasn't discovered until 1840. Since no source has made such a juxtaposition, this would be a novel synthesis that advances the position that the late discovery of North Island is surprising. Hesperian 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, that being the case, I recommend the text read something like "The Houtman Abrolhos islands were first recorded by Dutch Commander Frederik de Houtman in 1619; however, the first record of North Island was in May 1840, during the third survey voyage of HMS Beagle. etc" I suggest this because one cannot prove a negative - if de Houtman 'discovered' the islands in general, i am presuming there is no way to prove that he did not see North Island, but also no reference in his journals etc that he did. I am suggesting a text that avoids making a claim either way. However, if the literature in the field does in fact suggest that a reasonable interpretation of de Houtman is that he definitely did not sight North Island, then I have no concern about the existing text. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer not to include information general to the Abrolhos here. If the point is to step back from a firm claim of primacy for the Beagle, then how about a short and sweet "The earliest known sighting of North Island occurred in May 1840, during the third survey voyage of HMS Beagle, commanded by John Clements Wickham." This qualifies the claim that Wickham was definitely the first to see it, and makes a little more explicit the fact that there is no evidence of indigenous habitation or even awareness. Hesperian 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I would be happy with that, and am switching to support. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Done, and much obliged: the article is better for your input. Hesperian 02:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The text should make some reference as to the islands' political geography - were the islands claimed by Britain directly? Was / is the island part of Western Australia, and when did it / they become so?
    • Yes, okay. I'll address that. Hesperian 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. Hesperian 01:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Under "Conservation": the reference to "finfish" may confuse a lay reader, who will wonder what sort of fish they are. The WP article fish says that "In some contexts, especially in aquaculture, the true fish are referred to as finfish (or fin fish) to distinguish them from [things like cuttlefish and jellyfish etc]" In the circumstances, i would replace "finfish" simply with "fish" in the North Island article.
    • Yes, done. Hesperian 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is, however, a generally impressive collection of information about an isolated location. Kudos for your research skills. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks, and thanks for the review. Hesperian 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Image review I don't think there should be images in the reference section. The images from eneabba.net are really poor quality; is there any way of getting better-quality images? Copyright status and alt text for the images seem fine, although I haven't gone into the OTRS tickets to check those. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

24th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


I am nominating this for featured article because it is an A-class article and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed both issues. —Ed!(talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Ed!(talk) 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, nice job. I tweaked it a bit for punctuation, and so that details can be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images. Eubulides (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • In the lede, what are the "other disbanding units" it was formed from? No units are listed to be others from, if that makes sense.
    • Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the lede, you might want to clarify from where and to where it was withdrawn during the Korean War.
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • According to my copy of Webster's, "post-war" should be written as one word, no hyphen.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The assertion that the Americal division, etc. were the last named divisions isn't covered in the Globalsecurity cite.
    • Removed that detail since I couldn't find a ref for it. —Ed!(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that the information about the "one post" concentration is copied directly from Globalsecurity. Even with the citation, it bothers me.
    • Reworded. —Ed!(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For the phrase "manned at higher levels", is that rank or numbers of personnel?
    • Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 16:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Triangular Division TO&E really needs to be explained, either in a footnote, parenthetical aside, or child article like the other TO&Es.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the fourth paragraph of the Hawaiian Division section, were all three regiments from the Hawaiian National Guard, or just the last one?
    • Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Phrases like "July of 1942" should be "July 1942" for simplicity's sake. There are a few of these.
    • Are there any more of these? I think all of them are gone. —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You've got tense shifting going on between past perfect and simple past tense ... in the first paragraph of the World War II section, forex, you switch from "would be" to "was" and back (fixed now, see diff). For simplicity's sake, I'd suggest just using "was" or "were" throughout the article.
    • Is there anywhere else where the tense isn't consistent? —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the Leyte map caption isn't a complete sentence.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The article alternates between using a comma after years. Forex, there's things like "October 4, 1944," and "October 4, 1944" throughout the article. Pick one and stick with it.
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know what the expression "mopping up" means, but it's a bit jargony. Can you wikilink it, explain it in a footnote, or a parenthetical phrase?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Divisional elements effected a landing on Marinduque Island", is that elements of the 24th or another division?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "under the hot sun on a well-defended Rock" is poetic, but pretty unencyclopedic. Did the heat affect the unit's performance, and/or can it be cited?
    • Removed terminology. —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Five days later" in Task Force Smith doesn't say what it's five days after ... I assume after the president's order, but no date was given in the preceding paragraph.
    • The first sentence of the preceeding paragraph states "June 25." —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain the "Kansas Line and Utah Line"?
    • Clarified that they are just lines of defense. —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "above Osan" isn't really precise ... which direction "above" the town?
    • Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear about the phrase "for the first month" ... when does that month start -- with the arrival of TF Smith, the main body of the division, or something else?
    • Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Citation 82 looks like it's doing something funky with the external link.
    • I can't seem to figure out what's wrong. Any ideas? —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason for the duplicate ISBN identifiers in the sources section?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What sort of equipment did the division use before the Gulf War? Even if it's only the standard U.S. Army stuff for each period, stating so would be helpful (if a citation can justify it, of course).
    • Added. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, it's mentioned as being active through 1970, but the article mentions a deactivation in 1958.
    • Clarified. The division was only deactivted and reactivated in an organizational sense; in reality it was only moved. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Citation No. 2 doesn't appear to cover the assertion that the division was inactivated in 2006. It only shows the 1999 reactivation.
    • Replaced with a better ref. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikilinking active duty, Army Reserve and Army National Guard in the training command section is odd, since all three appear earlier in the article. What's the reason?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Nicely cited, illustrated, and structured. I'll give the article a full readthrough when I get a chance. I've given the article a readthrough and made some changes. Don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions, concerns, comments, or just want to let me know that I screwed something up. (That happens quite a bit. The screwing up part, not the letting me know about it part.) JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I've addressed all of your points. Thank you for your thorough review. —Ed!(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good stuff. Three more comments:
  • On citation 82, I tried fixing it too, but couldn't get it to work. Looks as though the template is misfiring. I suggest just killing the template and using a plain-text solution formatted like the end result of the template.
    • Actually I just figured out what was wrong, the link ommitted the "http://" so the software didn't recognize it. —Ed!(talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you provide page numbers for citations 27 and 28 and an ISBN/ASIN for No. 28?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear on citation 86 ... is a title missing from that?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's about it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an excellent article with adequate prose and high-quality citations that appears to cover the subject in detail. All of my concerns and questions have been addressed, so there's no reason I can't support its listing as a featured article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:MOSDASH, indeed the MilHist style guide, for the spacing of en dashes in date ranges (infobox).