Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2011

August 2011

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:31, 30 August 2011 [1].

---

Drymoreomys

Nominator(s): Ucucha (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last nominated a rice rat at FAC. This one was only described this year, even though it occurs close to the two largest cities of Brazil. Understandably, little is known about its ecology, but we know that some aspects of its morphology are unusual for a rice rat, and it is apparently related to a species from far away in Peru. The article was GA-reviewed by Rcej. Thanks for your comments. Ucucha (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done.

• Ref 8: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's passim; the information cited is general information spread throughout the cited work. In any case, I won't have access to the paper version of that book until Monday at best. Thanks for the check. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No issues were found by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Looks good as always. I have not done a source review due to a lack of access. Below are my comments.

• "Atlantic Forest" is linked twice in the first two sentences of the lead, and sounds a little redundant anyway.
  • Sorry, fixed. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• For the conservation status, is it customary to put the suggested status in the taxobox, or should it just be mentioned in the article?
  • See Template talk:Taxobox#Suggested conservation status (and previously User talk:Stemonitis/Archive32#New status system, where I brought this up before. There doesn't seem to be consensus on this matter, but I'd be happy to remove the status from the taxobox if that's what people prefer. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I apologize for not checking back on that discussion. Personally, I'm leaning towards only mentioning it in the body text, and not in the taxobox. Even though the IUCN has guidelines anyone can follow, I'm not sure if the basic peer review process ensures that the results of the researchers will pass the IUCN's review. Since the IUCN does its own research and appears to do thorough reviews with multiple experts, it might be wise to wait for their official assessment... which is what I feel that spot on the taxobox represents. But that's just my opinion... and again, I'm just leaning. I would certainly value the opinion of other reviewers on the matter. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Coronoid proces" and others like it... is this an alternate spelling? The Wiki articles you link to spell it with two s's.
  • That was just a typo. Are there any other such errors? Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, there were 2 others just like it in the same sentence... which caused me to hesitate on fixing them. Anyway, they are fixed now. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• I know you're probably sick of me asking this, but would you like for me to contact the researchers who described it and request a photo? I know I haven't had as much luck with your stuff as I have with mine, but it's always worth a shot... unless you've already asked.
  • Sure, feel free to ask. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem. Email sent and I will keep you updated if I receive a reply. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, aside from the missing page number Nikkimaria pointed out, everything looks good. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: I'm still working on trying to obtain a photo, but no luck at this point. If you could send the email addresses of the other authors, I could try them as well. Otherwise, great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice looking article. [from J Milburn]

• Perhaps you could rephrase "combines the Greek δρυμός drymus "forest", Latin oreo "mountain", and Greek μῦς mys "mouse"" and "Latin albus "white" and maculatus "spotted""?
  • What exactly is your problem with this sentence? I've fixed the repetition of "combines". Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The strings of words- Atomician also raises it below. Instead of "Greek δρυμός drymus "forest"", how about something like "Greek drymus (δρυμός), meaning "forest"..." or "Greek δρυμός (anglicised as drymus) meaning "forest"..." J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• "ossified"?
  • That means "made up of bone", but "closed" works as well here, so I've swapped it out. Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The alisphenoid strut, a piece of bone that separates two foramina (openings), is present in Drymoreomys, except in one juvenile specimen." Odd line- gives the impression that every Drymoreomys animal apart from one has the trait. How about something like "has been present in all D... specimens examined" or something?
  • Reworded as suggested. Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• "In the penis, there are no mounds of the baculum (penis bone) containing the three digits at the tip. Of these three digits, the central one is the largest." I can't follow this.
  • That sentence was botched; fixed now. Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The loss of lateral bacular mounds," Again. Sorry.
  • I hope this is clearer now that the sentence dealing with this trait has been clarified. Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• "premontane forest. It has been found in disturbed and secondary forests as well as in pristine forest" Technical terms could do with links
  • I linked secondary forest; the others are not as far as I know specific terms of art, or at least I can't find anything to link them to. Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally looking very nice; it'd be great to get a picture, and there do seem to be a few online, so good luck to VisionHolder! J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. What do you think of the issue about the conservation status that VH brought up? Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing it from the taxobox. I think the nature of a taxobox/infobox is that it is for hard data- any complications need to be covered in the prose. In addition, of course, plenty of species out there don't have ratings, so it's not like the taxobox is massively lacking without it. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed it. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lengthy collapsed commentary from User:Atomician moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - I found this article lucid and fascinating. This is FA quality. A minor criticism is that I don't like "Several traits of the genitals". I know what this means, but it sounds odd. Could we say something like "the male's penis has...? Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose I could say "The penis has several traits that..." (females don't have a penis, so "male's" is redundant), but that does not sound much better to me than the current wording. What do you think? Ucucha (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - Despite my niggling issues, this was enthralling and very competently written, my commendations to Ucucha. Atomician (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, assuming there are no copyright problems. There are few sources, but there do not seem to be any more- the only way this article could really be improved is with the addition of a photograph- good luck to VisionHolder! J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. Would you mind doing an explicit image check for the convenience of the delegates? All there is right now is one map, and I'm pretty sure I've used the same base map in other FAs, so it shouldn't be too hard. Ucucha (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support and comments. No real problems, just a few mini-quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• The only species, D. albimaculatus, is known only... — can one of the "onlys" be lost or replaced?

• The first one is now single. Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• animals' occurrence — I'd be inclined towards animal's (species rather than collection of individuals), but no big deal if you stick with as is

• Yes, singular makes more sense. Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• little appreciable geographic variation — lose appreciable?

• Indeed, it's redundant. Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• three digits at the tip of the penis. — I can't visualise this, which may be just as well; are we talking long, finger-like projections?

• Yes. Since you correctly understood what was meant, do you think a clarification is needed? Thanks for the review, Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Although I understand the difficulty, I think the lack of a photograph of the rodent in the article is a serious weakness. Are there any pictures available on the web? If so they should be included with a comment in a External links section. Do the cited sources include a photograph? If they do then perhaps a comment noting this should be added at the end of the reference. Aa77zz (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• OK - I've now looked at Figure 2 in Percequillo et al. 2001 - the "ventral view of the dried skin" and I admit that it does little to help me visualize the live animal. Aa77zz (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Template:External media may be something to consider, but it is hardly ideal. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Visionholder and I are still trying to get images released; if that doesn't work out, I'll add an external link. Ucucha (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Is a coloured drawing a possible solution? Graham Colm (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Colored illustrations are a possibility (for examples, see Subfossil lemur), but that requires finding a skilled artist who's willing to create and share his/her work under an appropriate license. And the illustration needs to be accurate... which is not easy to create, especially when there are not many photos to work off of. Like Ucucha said, he and I are trying to obtain a properly licensed photo, but sometimes that's not a possibility. Anyway, the lack of an illustration is not a reason to hold up the nomination. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree, it's not. Graham Colm (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:31, 30 August 2011 [2].

---

Brunette Coleman

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Philip Larkin looked like an accountant, though he rarely wrote like one. In his early years, as well as his poems he produced all kinds of other stuff; as an Oxford undergraduate he assumed the persona of a woman, "Brunette Coleman", to write risqué stories and verses about schoolgirls romping sexily about. None of this material was published in his lifetime; it surfaced among his papers after his death, and has divided critics. Some think of it as worthless Peeping Tom drivel, some think it provides important clues to the mature Larkin's poems. Others think it is merely funny, even charming. If you want to judge for yourselves properly, you'll need to get the Booth book (inter-library loans, get ready for the rush), otherwise this article may whet your appetite. The detailed peer review, with much helpful comment, is here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support – I took part in the peer review, and my few quibbles were dealt with there. Clearly meets FA criteria 1, 2 and 4, and from expert comments at PR, criterion 3 looks fine too. Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - I also took part in the peer review, and my concerns have been addressed. I believe the article meets all the FA criteria, and it's an enjoyable read. Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I also took part in the peer review, and all the issues I raised there were addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thwaite or Thwaites?
• Why include date in Rowe citations?
• Ref 46: italicize The Observer
• Ref 47: page(s)?
• Be consistent in how you notate page ranges - for example, 241–52 vs 255–273. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Being nosy at the moment, I believe I have rectified the Thwaite, Observer and the page range issues for Brian.[3] Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki and Jappa. The Rowe citations are dated 2000 to distinguish them from the 2001 Rowe article which is also cited. In ref 47 I had inadvertently omitted the url from the citation; this is now rectified. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - I, too, have taken part in the peer review. My concerns were addressed and I believe this to be a well written, comprehensive text about a feminine pseudonym (and "her" works) used by Philip Larkin (I am confident Brian can easily address Nikkimaria's concerns above). The images are stored on the appropriate servers and are either licensed for "free" use or at least in the US public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• My thanks for their support to the gallant four peer reviwers, whose contributions can be viewed on the PR link in the nom statement. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Images: A source for File:Seniorprefect titlepage.jpg would be good- who scanned it? Other than that, very well documented images, all clearly free. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it was scanned by the uploader (who is no longer active on the WP project) from a copy of the book. I can't really say; the pre-1923 publication date seems to make the image PD in the US without question. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Alas, the peer review passed me by in a cloud of dust. I've caught up here though. I do have a few suggestions though:

• Lede

Interesting lede image. Is a more stereotypical schoolgirl a la St. Trinian's image available?

• Well, as you know, anything later than 1923 would mean copyright issues. I've done the best I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean contemporary to the 1920s? You might want to tweak to make that clear.

• I mean contemporary to the time that Larkin was writing his Coleman stories, i.e. 1940s. The style of schoolgirl fiction changed little in the first half of the 20th century; St Trinians in the 1950s (I'm amazed you've heard of it) was revolutionary. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• As I once played College Bowl at a decently high level, the US equivalent of University Challenge, I tried to educate myself about everything, and I have yet to call the junk-clearing service to clear out my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

" after the Coleman phase the following three years" I would say "the three years following the Coleman phase".

"was divided". Would not present tense be better?

• Either works OK, but as we are talking here about reaction to the specific publication of the material, the past tense makes sense. I am not sure that there is sufficient current critical interest in the Coleman material to justify using the present tense. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Origins:

How does the title or subtitle of that short story imply pornography?

• "Thoroughly unhealthy" might imply that it's a "dirty story". However, I've altered "pornographic" to "salacious" Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Some indication of any reaction by Amis would be good. I saw a mention in the lede that he more or less ignored the refs to Coleman.

• Can you clarify this point? What is the "mention in the lede" to which you refer? Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My own lack of comprehension, I'm afraid. Never mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Works

"separate from anything else" Maybe different or distinct? You might have to juggle synonyms here.

I admire your matter of fact recounting of such an outlandish plot.

" and the pair hit it off" Perhaps "become fast friends"?

"he can no longer be bothered to describe lesbian encounters in voyeuristic detail" Perhaps "bothered to" should get a slight rephrase.

" confined in" perhaps this is a matter where the language differs, but in the US we would say "confined to".

"has been loosely inserted into the typescript." I don't know what this means.

• Imagine a typescript of several sheets, stapled together. Someone slips in an extra, unstapled sheet. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Inter alia " Hm. As a lawyer I have a taste for such phrases, but I think I would say "Among other things".

• Critical reception

"bondage" Except if this falls under the undetailed confinement to the punishment room, no bondage has actually been mentioned.

• Yes, there is a little bondage in the punishment room, but it doesn't really fall into the "women punishing women" category, so I've dropped the reference to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done as usual. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for this review and for your support. One point I don't understand, others I have made comments on. The rest, you can take it, have been dealt with per your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Just a couple stylistic comments prior to voting. Have you specifically chosen to avoid using the harv template series to make linkable footnotes, or are you unfamiliar with them? They can assist greatly in connecting the citations to the reference. Second, is there a specific reason why "Somerville College, Oxford, the recognisable model for "St Brides", according to Motion" does not have its reference in the body of the text, with the information it supports? That would look better in my opinion.

Another comment, regarding accessability. You do not seem to have included any alt text for images, which would be helpful for people using screenreaders. Could you please add alt text per WP:ALT? If these have been addressed I will be happy to vote. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I do know about the harv template. I know it is the preferred method of some editors, though I'm not altogether persuaded of the benefits of its use, particularly in articles like this where the number of sources is relatively small. Wisely, WP does not insist on it, only that the method of referencing is consistent.

Following your suggestion I have included the information and reference re Somerville in the text. As to alt text, my view on the utility of this obviously differs from yours; I am dubious of its value and I have tended not to add it in any of my recent articles. However, I know some editors feel strongly about this issue, and when it is specifically requested I am prepared to add it. I have done so here; please feel free to amend or improve the alt text in any way you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Looks great, no problems with ALT text. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:31, 30 August 2011 [4].

---

Liverpool F.C.

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I finally think that this article is ready to be a Featured article. It has had numerous nominations before and failed but the issues form those nominations have been cleared up and the article is probably in the best shape its ever been in. The article has had a copyedit by the GOCE which should have cleared up any prose issues. The article has also received a PR which sould have cleared any issues about the structure and referencing of the article. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment - why is the "Home colours" image in the infobox different from the one in the "Colours" section? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The one in the infobox represents the kit that Liverpool are wearing this season as they change every few seasons. The one in the colours is just to represent the colours that Liverpool have worn since 1964. Persoanlly, I would like to change the kit in the colours section to the original kit that Liverpool wore in the 1890s, as I don't see the point in having two similar kits in the article. NapHit (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum. This article suffers from a problem common in articles about sports teams: are they to be considered singular or plural? Looking just at the lead, for instance, we have "Liverpool was founded in 1892 ... They have played at their home ground, Anfield, since their formation", singular and plural in consecutive sentences. The best rule of thumb, in my opinion, is to consider "club" and "team" to be singular as in "Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club", but "Liverpool" on its own to be plural, as in "Liverpool have won five European Cups". But whichever convention is to be adopted here it needs to be applied consistently throughout the article. For example, the Support section starts off with "Liverpool are one of the best supported clubs in the world", whereas throughout most of the rest of the article "Liverpool" is treated as a singular entity, as in "For much of Liverpool's history, its home colours have been all red". I note that this very same point was raised during this article's last FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes the copyeditor from the GOCE mentioned the singular/plural was a concern so he decided to refer to Liverpool in the singular throughout the article. The sentence ou mentioned in the support is my fault I recently added that sentence and I'll admit the singular/plural area is a weakness of mine so that's why it was there, I've amended it now. I think the rest of the article should be alright as the copyedit should have cleared the issue up. Would you be happy with the article if the club was referred to entirely in the singular or would you prefer the method you outlined? NapHit (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy for the club to be referred to entirely in the singular, but the article still isn't consistent. For instance, the lead still says "The club has played at their home ground ... since their formation". In the Support section it says "Liverpool were banned for an additional year, preventing them from participating in the 1990–91 European Cup, even though they won the League in 1990. I haven't checked the whole article, so there may well be other instances that need fixing as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've gone through the article and I fairly sure I have cleared up this issue now, the club should be referred to entirely in the singular. NapHit (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's still not fixed. From the Stadiums section: "It was originally used by Everton F.C. before they moved to Goodison Park". Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

After a few reads of the article I'm confident that this issue is now resolved. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've only dipped into the article so far, I'll read through the whole thing later. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Colours and crest

• "Liverpool's away colours is traditionally either white shirts and black shorts or all yellow". Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that "Liverpool's away colours has traditionally been either white shirts and black shorts or all yellow" is by no stretch of the imagination an improvement. The problem is that the subject, "colours", is plural. The same problem also crops up in the lead, which says: "The team's home colours has been entirely red since 1964". I'll leave the question of whether "entirely red" is really a colour for now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've altered the text now so hopefully the singular and plural issue is dealt with. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "A third kit is designed for European away matches, though it would also be worn in domestic away matches on occasions when the current away kit clashes with a team's home kit." The switch in tense from "is" to "would be" makes no sense. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed this, Giants raised the same point below NapHit (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rivalries

• I know it's what the BBC's staff reporter quoted wrote, but you really can't justify "Liverpool was considered the world's pre-eminent port" on several counts, not least of which is that world doesn't and didn't have a single "pre-eminent port". And of course it begs the question "considered by whom?" Equally significantly London had become the UK's most important port by 1884, eight years before Liverpool F.C. was founded. After the Manchester Ship Canal was opened in 1894 Liverpool and Manchester competed as ports, but even their combined trade didn't match that of London. The story of the 19th-century rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester is rather a complicated one, as the history of the ship canal shows, and it can't be reduced to a simplistic "Liverpool was a great port and Manchester produced lots of textiles". Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is a tricky one, as I agree the rivalry is more complicated than the article states. As a start I've changed world's pre-eminent port to major port. It is a tough issue but unfortunately I'm not sure how much more detail I can go into, I think the detail would be better suited to the parent article. I'll have a look and see if I can add another sentence which would improve the history of the rivalry. NapHit (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about the ship canal, I think this is the best that can be done given the fact that it only warrants a small section in the article. NapHit (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still not right though. It wasn't the opening of the ship canal that led to rivalry between the two cities; conventional wisdom has it that Manchester's business community perceived the charges levied by the port of Liverpool and the railways that transported freight between Liverpool and Manchester to be excessive, and decided to build a canal to bypass Liverpool and the railways. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this can be summarised in two sentences. Therefore, I've removed the sentences and just said the rivalry is a manifestation of their competition in industrial times. I think anymore is irrelevant and anyone wanting more can click on the link to the rivalry page. NapHit (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That works for me; it's a complicated story. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool football club in popular culture

• It's inconsistent to have "stadia" as in "went on to campaign for safer stadia" and a full section entitled "Stadiums". Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• fixed NapHit (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• "... the plot revolved around a young boy, Francis Scully, who tried to gain a trial match with Liverpool". How do you "gain" a trial match? Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, there is not much information on this TV series unfortunately and the page for the shoe says the same thing. I think if I change to earn a trial then that might clear it up? NapHit (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• "During the 2008–09 season Liverpool achieved 86 points, their highest Premier League points total" - source?

Found one. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is The Boot Room Boys 1989 or 1999?

1999 corrected the error. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 33: "serialised in" should not be italicized

removed serialised in and just got the times with st. john as author. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• adidas is not capitalized

fixed NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• What makes imdb.com a high-quality reliable source?

I thought it was but judging by your comment I assume its not considered one, so I've replaced the refs. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 101: formatting

fixed NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether or not you hyphenate ISBNs. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Addressed all your comments, cheers NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Support Generally looking sound from a football point of view, the latest peer review dealt with most of my concerns.

• The reference for Liverpool's rivalry with Manchester United is seen by many Liverpool supporters as even more intense than the rivalry with Everton, and many Manchester United supporters feel likewise about their rivalry with Liverpool compared to that with their own local rivals Manchester City supports neither statement, as it states only Alex Ferguson's opinion.

Ye, I can't find a reference to back this statment up so I've removed it. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I still think there is some unnecessary detail in the Ownership and finances section. Failed bids for the club have no lasting impact, so I'm not convinced they merit mention. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed them. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed to support, provided the prose people are satisfied. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• History: Would prefer not to see a sentence start with a number, like in "94 fans died that day...". There's another one in Support ("27 fans were arrested on suspicion...").
• Hillsborough disaster has variations as to whether the second word is capitalized.
• "Victory in the 1992 FA Cup Final was Souness' only trophy". Victory isn't really a trophy, last time I checked. A less wordy version would be a simple "The 1992 FA Cup Final was Souness' only trophy". Not sure the Final should be in this version, or in the following sentence.
• "their highest Premier League points total" has a bit of plural team name in it, which has been weeded out elsewhere.
• Colours and crest: "though it would also be worn in domestic away matches on occasions when the current away kit clashes with a team's home kit." Starting this as "though it is also worn" removes some passive voice and seems a bit cleaner as prose.
• Stadiums: "Liverpool announced plans to move a new stadium at Stanley Park in May 2002." A "to" is needed after "move", in addition to the one before it.
• Liverpool football club in popular culture: Do you have the year Liverpool played in the first televised match in color? Seems like that would be a small, useful addition.
• Ref 102 (really a note): "Doubles won in conjunction with the treble such as a FA Cup and League Cup double in 2001, are not included in the Doubles section." Needs a comma before "such", I believe. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Giants, I've addressed all of your comments. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support – Having seen the article during its last two FACs, I can say that this is in much better shape than it was back then. With the copy-editing that has taken place, and with these comments addressed, I think this meets all FA criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

• Two images (File:Liverpool 1892-1893.jpg and File:John Houlding.jpg are making a PD claim on the basis of life of the author plus 70 years. Yet in neither case is the author known. What steps have been taken to try and identify the authors? Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the two images and replaced them with ones that have no problems. The images are from [www.lfchistory.net] and the authors are not given on that site so I'm afraid I can't find this information. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As Fenway apparently no longer own Liverpool F.C. I'm not sure of the relevance of File:John W Henry-Fenway.jpg? Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. is obviously now a limited company, which it wasn't initially. Do you have any information on when it went public? What the flotation raised? Who bought the shares? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did you hear that Fenway no longer own Liverpool? Aside from that this confirms that they are in charge and the breakdown of the Directors. The people who hold shares are not disclosed except for John Henry who is the only one who owns over 10%. The only person outside who has shares as far as I know is LeBron James I can add a sentence stating this if you like? NapHit (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's rather confusing, because the article clearly says that "Liverpool was sold to New England Sports Ventures on 15 October 2010 for £300M". Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see where the confusion is. NESV was the name of Fenway Sports Group when they bought Liverpool and afterwards they changed the name. I'll mention this in the ownership section. NapHit (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. NapHit has worked hard to address my concerns, and I think this article now meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Fascinating — Everton started at Anfield... Liverpool were Everton Athletic and wore blue... They looked pretty good against Bolton too. I have soft spot for the club, having lived in the city for a year — didn't get robbed either {: — I read this twice without finding any serious concerns, credit to you and Malleus for his input. Now, can we have Suarez? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an image review or a sourcing spotcheck for close paraphrasing, copyvio, or accurate represntation of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Image review All images have appropriate licences, including FU rationale for crest. Freedom of panorama in UK, and adequate releases where appropriate cover the rest. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• Spotchecks I looked at half-a-dozen of the links, and couldn't see any obvious problems with copying text, close paraphrasing, or misrepresentation within the sample. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:09, 28 August 2011 [5].

---

Calgary Stampede

Nominator(s): Resolute 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply, the Stampede is Calgary. It defines this city's identity and history and is one of Canada's largest and most important festivals, and a party perhaps without equal in this country. It has drawn politicians, actors, dignitaries and British Royalty... and it has drawn criticism by animal welfare groups for its rodeo and use of animals. I have been slowly working on the article over a period of about two years, but with the centennial Stampede coming next year, I used this year's event to drive the final push in the hopes that it will be featured in time for next year's celebration. I open the floor in the hopes that you will agree. Resolute 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to note that I am a current WikiCup participant, so this is potentially a Cup nomination. Resolute 15:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Generally titles of website pages don't need to be italicized
• Not sure why, but your Foran and Reasons harvlinks aren't working
• FN 137: page(s)?
• Why include a location for Globe and Mail and not for National Post? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  Points 2,3 and 4 addressed (I found a url for ref 137), but I am not sure how to address the first. The italicization of the website links seems to be the result of the {{citation}} template's behaviour, and I don't see an alternative option. Thanks again for the reviews, Resolute 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support - after seeing the progress made with my small comments, and others more significant ones.

• Love reading about the Stampede.
• I have more to come, but just something to point out - in your section on Animal welfare (not my favourite, I must admit), mention of tie-down roping and not steer wrestling seems to ignore some modern incidents (and a bad year for the Stampede)(CBC Story from 2009). (The incident with the steer also inspired a rule change). A very fair presentation of the animal rights issues overall, though.
• Also, unless I missed it in your sources, this Maclean's article (Link) also covers steer wrestling and rule changes to promote safety.
• Kudos for including all aspects of the event, these links aren't meant to swell the section to undue weight, just to add in some of the more recent material. Canada Hky (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  I worry a little about getting too far into the minutae of the issue, but that is an interesting MacLeans link. I will see about how to integrate it into the article, as it does offer some good info. Thanks, Resolute 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  I second the concerns about going into too much depth here and a WP:UNDUE problem, as these issues are issues facing rodeo as a sport in general. The Stampede is sort of like the Kentucky Derby; because it's so big, it gets the most press and attracts undue attention, but the issues are actually industry-wide (Cheyenne Frontier Days just had kind of a bad year this way, too.) I'll defer to Resolute on any changes, but having fought NPOV issues across most of the rodeo articles on wiki, I just want to suggest that this issue is well-covered elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed, that it doesn't need a ton of weight - just that there were some sources that were not included from fairly prominent Canadian publications / broadcasters. I think the issue I raised has been addressed adequately, I will try to take a look at the rest of the article as time permits. Canada Hky (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Minor inconsistency between caption and article text about pancake breakfast: "up to" or "over" 60,000 people?
• Redundant description on File:CalgaryStampedeLogo.png is redundant. Really, though, if you're claiming the image is PD you don't need an FUR at all
• Clicking on the source link for File:Program_for_1912_Calgary_Stampede.jpg yields "your current query is expired". Also, which of the applications of PD-Canada are you claiming here? Should specify on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the 1912 image, I have encountered this problem with Glenbow Museum images before. It appears they do not assign permanent URLs to their files, you have to perform your search each time. 117Avenue (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If you go to the search page and enter the ID number for the image (NA-604-1A) in the keyword field, it will come up. I have fixed the pancake breakfast caption to be consistent with the source. The Stampede Logo one I am not sure of - I uploaded it as Fair Use because I wasn't certain of the copyright status. Someone else changed it to PD-Text but left my FUR. I was going to remove my FUR and leave the source, description, etc. behind, but it occurred to me that while US copyright law would argue it is PD, I am not certain about Canadian copyright law. I believe it is, but am not completely certain. I am trying to find something in the copyright law that will answer one way or another. Thanks, Resolute 14:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Connormah transferred it to Commons and fixed the description. Resolute 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. I was involved in an extensive peer review of the article and suggested some images for use here in that process. I have just re-read the article and find it meets the FA criteria. The article is very well done, cleanly written, and beautifully illustrated. I made one typo correction and found a missing word (assume this is not just an AM Eng vs Can Eng thing) Corporations and community groups hold lavish events throughout the city for their staff and clients,[139] while bars and pubs erect party tents, the largest of which draws [up] to 20,000 people per day.[140] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that was definitely a missing word. Thank you for catching that, and I appreciate both the review and the support. Cheers! Resolute 04:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Source-checking – Spot-checked about 10 or so references and found nothing troublesome. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comments reading through now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there an algorithm for figuring out when in July it is? Has it always been thus?

For many Calgarians, the event results in reduced productivity as workplace and personal responsibilities are relaxed - ermm, what? The last five words have lost me....

• Nice way to say "a lot of people party a lot and are too hung over to do much, and those who aren't take the week off anyway!!" (grinning, ducking and running) --MTBW

Otherwise looking pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Stampede always starts on the Friday closest to, but before, the 10th. So it will always start between the 3rd and the 9th of July. Problem is, I don't have a way of sourcing that. I'll have to do some more digging. Also, will attempt to reword the second passage. Thanks, Resolute 14:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reworded that passage. I am leafing through old media guides to see if I can cite the formula for the dates the event runs. Resolute 23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Support with further nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Might link Alberta in the lead for the poor neglected non-Canadians
• When did the official name drop the "Exhibition"?
• Does E.L. Richardson have an article?
• Per WP:MOSNUM, "12-hour clock times end with dotted or undotted lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm", not "AM"
• Comma use could be tweaked - some phrases need one (ex. ""Aggie Days", a program designed to introduce urban schoolchildren to agriculture, was introduced in 1989") while others need one removed (ex. "It is the largest, and most famous event of its kind in the world")
• "Offering a prize of $100,000 to the winner of each major discipline and $1,000,000 total on championship day alone, it also offers the richest payout" - offering...offers is repetitive, can a synonym be used? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  Appreciated. All of your points should be addressed, and no, there is no article on Richardson that I can find. Thanks again! Resolute 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought this strange:

The National Cutting Horse Association sanctions a World Series of cutting event,

The NCHA is US; the event is in Canada. Does that strike anyone else as strange? Should US be added before the NCHA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It is US-based, but seems to have a growing world flair. In addition to the Calgary event, there is also one in France in 2011. That said, I think noting that it is an American organization coming to Canada would add to the uniqueness of the event, so I will make a note as you suggest. Additionally, in response to your question in this edit summary, it is capitalized as a proper name, i.e.: the "World Series of Cutting". Thanks for your review, and the promotion! Resolute 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 01:46, 26 August 2011 [6].

---

Alister Murdoch

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This nom follows on directly from the recently successful FAC for Valston Hancock—similar subject matter, style and sourcing. From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock, and Murdoch. The first three have been through FAC, and now it’s time for the last of the quartet, Murdoch, whose article has recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. Thanks in advance for any input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tks Dank. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a note: I've read through all the questions and answers and I agree with all of Ian's replies, except that I don't have any firm answer yet for when to attribute a quote in-text. I'm now asking for attribution more than I used to. - Dank (push to talk) 10:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Coulthard-Clark Air Marshals of the RAAF
• Be consistent in whether you say "Retrieved on" or just "Retrieved"
• Why is Allen & Unwin wikilinked in Dornan and not Coulthard-Clark? Also, did it change locations? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Done, tks for spotting all those. A&U may have moved, on the other hand it may be vagaries of political boundaries -- St Leonards and Crows Nest are very close together, and North Sydney in its broadest sense covers both of them -- can only go with what the books themselves say... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Images check out, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Just several minor ones...

• Rise to Chief of the Air Staff: Is "fulfil" British English or a typo?
  • Good 'ole British/Australian English -- one "l" at the end.
• Is "Murdoch was promoted air marshal" missing a "to". or is this customary phrasing for military pages.
  • Heh, it is customary in militarise, however if WP reviewers object to it I don't mind changing... ;-)
• It isn't customary to wikilink a reference publisher, like in ref 7.
  • Yes but I have linked the publisher in an earlier ref (#4).
    • I didn't mean it the way I phrased it; I wikilink publishers on occasion myself. I was talking about having an external link to a ref publisher, like in refs 7 and 13. That, as far as I know, isn't customary for FAs. This is why I shouldn't review at night... Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't understand the question. - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually I think I do now, though I assumed it wasn't a big deal after the comment about not reviewing at night... ;-) I assume it refers to citations 7 and 13. Every FAC I've submitted uses links to external publishers of online refs, if WP doesn't have an article on them. I understood that was customary and it's never been considered an issue all the times I've done it -- that includes the three successfuly FAs immediately preceding this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Minor, but the page number in ref 44 has a space between the p. and number. This is inconsistent with most of the other references. The London Gazette refs are like this as well, but I understand a template forces them to be that way, so I'm not that worried about them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually I like consistency myself and generally modify all citations to match whatever the templates give, so will do so here. Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I went over this quite thoroughly during the MilHist A-class review and the few concerns I had were addressed there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Belated thanks, HJ... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments, most minor:

• "employment of helicopters in battle". Why "employment", when "deployment" is (I believe) normally used?
  • "Deployment" is certainly often used but I thought "employment" just as reasonable, and perhaps a bit less jargonistic for the lead.
• "Knighted in 1966, Murdoch was the fourth in a series of CASs who had been cadets at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, and as such was described by Air Chief Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger as "the last of the professionals"." A couple of points here. First, this isn't mentioned in the body of the article, which seems to focus more (but by no means exclusively) on his weaknesses as Chief of the Air Staff rather than his strengths. Repeating the quote (or even extending it) could help the balance. Second, I don't quite understand the connection here. Was Scherger saying that Murdoch was a "professional" because he had trained at Duntroon (as did Scherger)? Were later Chiefs who had trained elsewhere not subject to the same rigorous training? Clearly I'm not asking for a detailed explanation in the lead, but I feel the quote may need a bit more context.
  • Heh, re. the first point, I can't extend the quote because that's all there is. Re. the second point, the implication is indeed that Scherger was calling him "professional" because of the (shared) Duntroon pedigree, which is why I specifically said "as such". As far as later Chiefs' training went, it wasn't until 20 years after Murdoch that another graduate of a military college (the RAAF's own, this time) was appointed Chief.
    • As I say, it could help both clarity and balance if the quote was repeated in the body, and Murdoch and Scherger's shared pedigree at Duntroon reiterated. Apterygial ^talk 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure of the benefit of putting exactly the same quote in both places, however I wouldn't be averse to moving the quote to the main body, in the context of the Duntroon connection mentioned at the end of Rise to Chief of the Air Staff. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Sounds fair. Apterygial ^talk 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Was there something else, Apterygial? It looks like the comment has been moved down. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Sorry, forgot to strike this one. No, I'm happy with it. Apterygial ^talk 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Budgetary constraints imposed by the Great Depression". The Great Depression didn't directly impose budgetary constraints, it would have required intermediaries (presumably a cut in government defence spending). Perhaps "Budgetary constraints imposed during the Great Depression".
  • Fair enough, as expressed it was probably personifying the Depression a bit...
• "all were determined to serve with the RAAF and more than pleased with the prospect of entering their chosen service early." Another "were" before "more than pleased" would aid flow.
  • Heh, believe or not I was thinking the same thing but thought I'd wait till the FAC had progressed -- so no prob... ;-)
• I find it interesting that an RAAF officer was given command of an RAF squadron; was this a common occurrence? Did the two services regularly exchange airmen?
  • Not uncommon -- the RAAF welcomed the opportunity to give its officers exposure to the RAF's wider sphere of operations.
• It doesn't strike me as enough simply to link to Morotai Mutiny when you mention it in passing; if it is important enough to mention a (brief) explanation would be useful.
  • Okay, I can probably put a sentence of context.
• "would provide a "lifeline" for Australian forces" Who are you quoting here? Does it really need the quotation marks?
  • The word is straight from the source and seemed so appropriate I didn't want to change it, which is why I put it in quotes. I didn't really feel that saying "according to..." was particularly necessary for one word, however.
    • I reckon you could get away without the quotation marks, but it's not a big deal, so I've struck the point. Apterygial ^talk 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Air Marshal Sir Alister Murray Murdoch" "Murdoch was promoted air marshal". Is it normal to have capitals when the rank is used as a title but not when it is simply a rank?
  • I prefer seeing them always in caps myself but the guideline here is only when used as a title.
• "He further contended that helicopter operations in Malaysia had afforded the RAAF sufficient experience in the type of conditions they might face in Vietnam, though the former theatre offered "little if any hostile opposition, and there was none of the insertion and extraction of SAS patrols which was to become such an important part of the RAAF's Vietnam operations"." Is Murdoch being quoted here (which would be odd because it undermines his argument to some extent)?
  • It was another RAAF guy who wasn't notable in WP terms so I didn't name him, but I could put his position to clarify -- thanks for pointing that out.
• "would contribute to the RAAF's battlefield helicopters being transferred to the Army." Might flow better as "would contribute to the transfer of the RAAF's battlefield helicopters to the Army."
  • Actually I might alter to "would contribute to the government's decision to transfer the RAAF's battlefield helicopters to the Army."
• English Electric Canberra is linked both in Rise to Chief of the Air Staff and Chief of the Air Staff and Vietnam.
  • Okay, will lose the second.
• "on what were later described as "misleading" grounds". Described by whom?
  • The RAAF's official post-war history -- I can spell that out.
• The article is very dense with links. Do we need (for example) pundits, Malta, helicopters, Darwin and reconnaissance?

—Apterygial ^talk 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• • The original (B-Class) version of this dates back a couple of years when we did tend to link more than necessary. I'm quite happy to lose all of the above except Darwin, as I think it's helpful to link cities. Many thanks for taking the time to review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. All of my concerns were dealt with, or satisfactorily answered (save one, but I'm confident it will be solved). Apterygial ^talk 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate, just had a go at that last one as discussed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - no significant issues noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Cheers, Storm. Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 01:46, 26 August 2011 [7].

---

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this article; it has been well-received, and I aimed to write it to FA standard from the outset. I believe that it is a well-researched and well-written article that successfully documents its topic - a case that was notorious in its day but has since largely been forgotten about, though it sheds an interesting light on Victorian society. I would appreciate feedback on whether it meets the criteria for a featured article. Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Conley 2007

• Fixed.

• Newspaper citations without weblinks should have page numbers

• I don't have page numbers for all the newspaper citations (due to the poor state of preservation of some of my sources). I've provided page numbers wherever I have them.

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers

• I've added a few more locations, but generally I have given the location only the first time the newspaper source is cited. Should I be giving locations every single time?

• First time only is probably sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Check for consistency in citation punctuation

• I'm not sure what you're getting at here, could you clarify?

• Similar citations should use similar punctuation. For example, why does ref 5 have a period after the location while ref 9 has a comma? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. The reason was that some news sources used the cite news template, while others didn't. I've converted them all to use the template for consistency of formatting. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, looks good now. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Web citations need retrieval dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard

• Media Review A few issues, one opposeworthy.
  • The lead image, File:Kate Webster.PNG, has no source. Specifically, the source is "desconhecido", which if Google translate is correct, is Portuguese for "unknown". Unless a proper source is identified and put into the image description page, this image must be removed from the article and deleted from Commons. I know it's obviously PD, but that's actually irrelevant if there isn't a source. Until this is either sourced or removed, I have to oppose this FAC.
    • If this is sourced and kept, English translations are needed for the information in the Template:Information on the image description page.
  • All of the other images, save the color image, have "Anonymous" listed as their author. I find that highly unlikely (authorship might be listed somewhere surrounding the image or in the back of the paper) and therefore troubling. Normally I'd say that I have to trust the uploader here, however since the nominator is the uploader, I am going to say "please double check, thoroughly, for illustrator information".
• Sorry if this seems like I'm coming down hard on you. Attribution is important though. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Automatic oppose due to major issue in the media review. Oppose is nullified when the issue is solved. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are no bylines or credits of any sort anywhere in the newspaper (which ceased publication in 1913). This is not really a surprise as it was not common practice to use bylines or credits in British newspapers until well into the 20th century. (The Economist still doesn't.) I suggest that the best way to resolve this would be to attribute the "anonymous" images to the newspaper, as they all seem to have been produced on a collective basis - no individual, not even the editor, is credited at any point. It was clearly not the newspaper's policy to identify the authors of individual stories or images and there would certainly be no way of identifying them now.
• Regarding the lead image, it could probably be substituted for another one. However, I think you're mistaken about the source - it's given as "Arquivos Policia de Londres" or "Archives of the Police of London", i.e. the Metropolitan Police. The uploader's description "desconhecido" is given for the author, not the source. The image is a police mugshot taken (presumably) when Kate Webster was arrested. As such, it falls into the UK Government PD category of "a photograph created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957". The authorship is not going to be recorded - it would have been some anonymous police photographer - but the source is clear enough. I'd already added a UK Gov PD template and I've translated the uploader's description as well. Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Alright. I've struck the oppose. I also reinserted the Portuguese text into the image description page, alongside the English text. Please check the template I used, for future reference, as it is polite to use those when there are multiple languages in involved. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Additionally, I checked the captions, as I was recently reminded that doing so probably fell under the image reviewer's responsibilities. Please make sure that you use punctuation in your captions in the future (I fixed it this time around). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Zanimum

• Support, given all the changes made. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sarastro1

OpposeComments: While this is a very good piece of work, I'm afraid I have to oppose for now. While very interesting, it may be a little overdetailed. Some of the background could be cut and some facts seem to be included simply to include them; the information on David Attenborough is not really relevant and is probably meaningless to the majority of readers who will not be from the UK. Also, the use of quotations seems excessive and I'm sure some of them could be paraphrased; there are plenty which are possibly superfluous; the description after her flight for example. I'm also uncomfortable with the number of parentheses; they interrupt the flow of sentences and often do not really add to the article. If the facts are relevant, why not include them in the main sentence. If they are tangential, either cut them or include them in notes at the end. Also, there are a few parts which go a little over the top in terms of descriptive prose; this style is not really suitable for an encyclopaedia. Although my oppose is not set in stone, I would like to see these general issues addressed throughout the article. I have also left some more detailed points. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that you think the info on Attenborough's involvement is irrelevant, as it's a key part of the story. First and most obviously, it gives the case contemporary relevance. Second, the discovery of the skull was the direct result of Attenborough commissioning work on the site. Third, if you look at the media coverage of the case (see [8]), Attenborough's involvement was the hook - internationally, not just in the UK, as he's known worldwide - and it was the hook for the recent DYK as well. I've reduced the coverage of this a bit but considering that Attenborough was indirectly responsible for the skull's discovery we can hardly not mention it. I take your point about the other issues with the writing and will address them later today.

• "many aspects of Webster's actions": a little cumbersome; why not just "many of Webster's actions"?
• "violated": A little strong for an encyclopaedia?
• "Apart from the sensational and gruesome nature of the crime itself, many aspects of Webster's actions violated social norms of the day (particularly Victorian ideas about femininity), which served to increase the notoriety of the case." In fact, this is a long sentence which may need splitting. I'm also not a fan of the parentheses in the middle of the sentence which interrupt the flow. And no need for "served to".

• The three points above: I've rewritten and simplified this line.

• "jewelry": Should this be in UK English?

• It was originally - someone seems to have changed it since. I've changed it back.

• Second paragraph of background has a lot of unattributed quotes; they need in-text attribution. There seem to be other examples throughout and these should be checked carefully.

• I don't think anything in the article is unattributed. In the specific paragraph you mention, every sentence is cited; the citation covers everything in the sentence, including the quotes. Putting a citation after every quote would lead to a lot of duplication, for instance (every citation here goes to the same source):

She was said to have an "excitable temperament" and the reputation of being "very much a tartar with her servants". She was regarded as "distinctly eccentric" by her neighbours and frequently travelled, leaving her friends and relatives ignorant of her whereabouts for weeks or months at a time.

• Is that really the way it needs to be done? I can do that if needed but it seems a bit messy.

• "After returning to crime on leaving prison…" Odd emphasis. What about, "On leaving prison, she returned to crime and was arrested…" or better, "On leaving prison, she was arrested once more for larceny [this is implied in the text at the moment but should be explicit] and …"

• Changed to "Not long after leaving prison she was arrested again for larceny", which hopefully works.

• "However, the activity at 2 Mayfield Cottages did not seem to be out of the ordinary, as it was customary in many households for the washing to begin early on Monday morning." Is the address needed here? And the sentence implies the disposal of the body took place overnight and the "cleaning" was done early in the morning. I think this should be clarified.

• I think the address is necessary. Mayfield Cottages was a semi-detached house - number 2 was where the murder took place, number 1 was where the landlady, who played a crucial role later, lived. If you just say "Mayfield Cottages" then it becomes ambiguous as to where the activity took place - it could mean either of the properties.

• "Webster put on Mrs. Thomas's silk dress and paid a surprise visit to her old neighbours in Hammersmith, the Porters, whom she had not seen for six years. She claimed that she had married, had a child and had been widowed and that she had been left Mrs. Thomas's property by an aunt. She identified herself as Mrs. Thomas, despite her total lack of resemblance to her late employer, and invited Porter and his son to the Oxford and Cambridge Arms pub in Barnes." OK, this loses me a little. She went to whose old neighbours, hers or Mrs Thomas's? And was she claiming to be herself come into prosperity or Mrs Thomas? Either way, this is inconsistent as she can't claim both.

• Try this: "On 4 March, Webster travelled to Hammersmith to see her old neighbours the Porters, whom she had not seen for six years. Wearing Mrs. Thomas's silk dress and carrying a Gladstone bag which she had filled with some of Mrs. Thomas's remains, Webster introduced herself to the Porters as "Mrs. Thomas". She claimed that since her last meeting with the Porters she had married, had a child, had been widowed and had been left a house in Richmond by an aunt."

• "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and gave it a kick. The waterlogged container split open and disgorged a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper." This is not encyclopaedic and drifts a little close to purple prose. I also think it may be over detailed.

• It's a pretty straight description of the man's own account. I've shortened it as follows: "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and opened the box, finding inside a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper."

• "was not straight": idiomatic phrasing.

  I've changed the sentence to: "Meanwhile, Church realised that he had been conned."

• "(Church subsequently made a healthy profit from the increase in custom at his pub after the trial.[39])": This is distracting and would be better in a note.

• In all honesty it's probably not necessary; I've removed it.

• "her actions had violated various aspects of what Victorian society regarded as normative behaviour.": this reads a little cumbersome and could be simplified; why "normative" for example?

• Sociology-speak, I'm afraid; I've replaced the entire sentence with the simpler line "Her crime was seen as both gruesome and scandalous."

• The lead and "Social impact" section make a point about her impersonating her victim, yet in the "narrative", very little is made of it apart from her odd episode with the Porters and when she was caught. Is there more?

• The point here is that she posed as her victim for two weeks after the murder. She seems to have spent most of the two weeks at home, apart from the episode with the Porters, which was necessary to dispose of the body - she couldn't carry it all herself. I've added a bit more further up the article to state what she did during that time, i.e. posing as Mrs. Thomas.

• "Many Irish people had emigrated to England since the Great Famine of 1849, but met widespread racism and persistent associations with criminality and drunkenness." I'm not too sure about "racism" as race doesn't really come into it here. Prejudice? Discrimination?

  Prejudice works better, I agree - changed.

• "but the fact that it was deposited on top of a layer of Victorian tiles showed that it had clearly been buried in the 19th century" The source does not make this inference from the place it was located. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fair point. I've changed this to "but it had been deposited on top of a layer of Victorian tiles." Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Replies: I am happy to strike the oppose as several issues have been death with and the article is starting to look good. However, I still believe there are over-detailing issues, which I will outline below. I have also found some issues with sourcing which concern me slightly, although not enough to oppose at the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstood me slightly about Attenborough, and I agree with what you have done. My issue was not with including Attenborough's role, but the level of detail about what he did before the skull's discovery. I think it is about right now.
• "Its notoriety was increased by the way that Webster had behaved after the crime and during the trial.": I'm still not sure about this line as the prose is a little lumpy. What about "Webster's behaviour after the crime and during the trial further increased the notoriety of the murder."

• That's fine, I've added that wording.

• Regarding the attribution of quotes: In the case mentioned below, I would say that yes, the quote needs a cite even if the following sentence uses the same ref. All quotes need a reference after them. The case you have mentioned above is trickier in terms of citation but I would say that it is just about acceptable. However, this is not what I meant. I was referring to attributing in the text the person who said the words. For example, the case you mention quotes several views of Webster but does not say who said them. Was it O'Donnell or was O'Donnell quoting someone else? Another example would be: "Webster's first appearance at Richmond magistrates' court was greeted by "an immense crowd around the building ... and very great excitement prevailed."" In this case the quote comes from the Times, so the sentence needs to attribute this: "According to the Times correspondent, Webster's first appearance at Richmond magistrates' court was greeted by "an immense crowd around the building ... and very great excitement prevailed."" All quotes need attributing like this as well as giving a citation.

• OK, I think I've pretty much resolved this now. I've removed a number of quotes and worked them into the text as paraphrases. Elsewhere I've attributed quotes in more detail.

• I think the Porters issue is cleared up nicely now.
• "Meanwhile, Church realised that he had been conned.": I'm still not convinced by conned; what about deceived? It is a little more formal.

• Agreed, and changed accordingly.

• "Her crime was seen..." By who? It is usually better to say who had this view: "The public saw her crime..." or "Commentators saw her crime..."

• Thanks, I've used the latter wording.

• I think there are still instances of over-use of quotes and overdetailing. Here are some examples, but feel free to argue with them: the background to Thomas before the murder seems over detailed, the wanted notice seems unnecessary, as do some of the longer quotes from the trial. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've reduced it somewhat; the wanted notice and some of the longer quotes have been taken out. I think the background detail is necessary though, as it sets the scene and dramatis personae for the rest of the story.

• Sourcing issues: I only have access to the Times sources, but checking these has revealed a few issues. I may be able to spot-check one other source in the next few days, but I cannot guarantee it.
• "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and opened the box, finding inside a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper." Original text: " ... noticed a not very large box floating in the water. It was tied around with a piece of rope. Wheatley opened the box, and found what appeared to him pieces of a human body, each separate piece wrapped up in strong brown paper." Aside from the fact that some of the text is not supported by the cite (although it could be argued it is implied, so that doesn't bother me too much), I think this shows some us of "flowery" language. Cut the cord encircling it is too much, given the source is so simple. Why not just "Inside, he found what looked like body parts wrapped in brown paper"?

• Fair enough. I've reworded it: "He recovered the box and opened it, finding that it contained what looked like body parts wrapped in brown paper."

• Other issues from this reference to the Times: "The body was in such a poor condition that it was not even possible to ascertain the age of the victim"; this is not said in the Times, which confidently gives the age of the woman as 20 to 30. Although this was not the age of the person eventually revealed to be the victim, it is not what the source says, and if you want to say this, I would argue another source is needed. And the quote should read "a young woman with very dark hair"; the other text cited is "amid speculation that the body had been used for an illegal dissection and anatomical study" which comes from "It was at one time supposed that the remains found were parts of a body had for dissection and anatomical study, but the facts are in opposition to this suggestion." This does not mention illegality.

• Fair point, I've removed the word "illegal". As for the condition of the body, I've simplified this to: "The doctor who examined the body parts attributed them to "a young person with very dark hair".

• "where he was to remain until he could be put in an industrial school." Original source: "where he will remain until he can be put into an industrial school" Slightly close to the source.

• Now reworded as "until such time as a place could be found for him in an industrial school". Better?

• Quote given in article: "an immense crowd around the building ... and very great excitement prevailed." Original source: "There was an immense crowd yesterday round the building ... and very great excitement prevailed." Although just one word is missing, such quotes must be given reliably.

• Amended to add that missing word.

• "On a subsequent occasion, the police had to cordon off the building to fend off the crowd outside." I can find no reference to this in the Times article cited. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nor can I, which is odd. I think I mixed it up with another source but I haven't been able to find which. Given the doubt about it, I've removed the sentence. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment, leaning to support: Everything looks OK that you have done, and I think this is almost there. I will give it another read through in the next day or two before I support fully, and hopefully complete some more spot-checks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruby2010

Support with comments

• "The head was buried around the back of the Hole in the Wall pub a short distance from Mrs. Thomas's house, where it was found 131 years later." I realize you discuss this later, but you need a reference here

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• "I formed an intimate acquaintance with one who should have protected me and [was] led away by evil associates and bad companions." Sentences with quotes need citations (even if the following sentence has the same citation).

• Sarastro1 raised the same point above; I'm awaiting clarification. :-) Prioryman (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• OK, I've added a citation now. Thanks. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked it over when it was at DYK, and the superior quality still remains. Nice work on an interesting subject. Ruby2010 comment! 22:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mm40

Comment: None of the Harvnb links for D'Cruze work, and the single Gaute link (ref. 36) doesn't work either. Mm40 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea why those aren't working - they don't seem to be any differently formatted from any of the working references. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Harvnb format to be able to fix it myself. I'll ask around to see if someone can help. Prioryman (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

fixed - if there's more than one author, they must all be in the {{harvnb}} and the biblio needs them listed as "first2", "last2" instead of "author2". If you don't want all authors in the short-form ref, it's possible using "CITEREF" - give me a shout, if needed.  Chzz  ►  09:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, noted for the future. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz

Being as I'm here (see above!) I have some comments. I've also made a few bold edits, which I'm sure Prioryman can check over.

• The murder of Julia Martha Thomas, dubbed the "Barnes Mystery" or the "Richmond Murder" by the press, - are those scare quotes really necessary / appropriate?

• Probably not. Removed.

• Please add alt text to the images. I'm not sure if that is a requirement, but it's easy enough, and a Good Thing™.

• I suspect it probably is a requirement somewhere, but you're certainly right about it being a Good Thing™. I'll work on that tomorrow. Now done.

• I'm not sure about one of the most notorious crimes in late 19th century Britain - POV? Unless I'm missing proof of this claim within the body.

• It's a rough paraphrase of comments by various commentators who allude to her infamy, not just at the time but for many years afterwards. I'll see if I can make this clearer by quoting more directly.

• I believe, throughout, it should refer to the victim as just "Thomas", not "Mrs. Thomas" (apart from first mention) - e.g. Part of Mrs. Thomas's remains

• A couple of comments about this. First, virtually all of the sources I used referred to the victim as "Mrs. Thomas" (see e.g. [9]) Second, I did actually start writing the article referring to her as "Thomas" before realising that this introduced room for confusion - as it is a male first name it raises the question of "who is this Thomas person and what does he have to do with the story?" I presume this is why other writers have virtually all used "Mrs. Thomas".

• resulted in the press "teeming with descriptions I consider that wiki-link unnecessary and confusing. There's a second, in the same section - and that should definitely go; advertised as "comprising Twenty Handsome Pages

• It wasn't a wikilink until you turned it into one. :-) It was merely a pair of square brackets indicating a place where a tense has been changed - a standard typographical convention. For instance, the original text of the advertisement you quote above read: "comprises Twenty Handsome Pages".

Probably more later.  Chzz  ►  09:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Sir" re. Dickie Attenborough: I wasn't sure about the use of "Sir" here, but it seems like a) you probably don't need the "Sir" at all, b) if you do keep it, it needs to be part of the link, ie ...the naturalist [[David Attenborough|Sir David Attenborough]]. instead of the current ...the naturalist Sir [[David Attenborough]]. (Discussion was User_talk:Tony1#Sir).  Chzz  ►  14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dickie is his brother Richard, a lord, not David, a baronet. I think I would prefer to keep it; it's how he's customarily referred to, so we might as well stick with convention. Your suggestion for the link style is a good one so I've done that. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

All the above is fine; thanks. Sorry for introducing the [ing] thing; it's a cleanup-script that always goes awry on those [...] things; usually, I spot it before saving. And apologies for mixing up my dickies. I will try and find time to read it some more.  Chzz  ►  12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarastro1 again

Weak SupportComments: This is now looking very good. I've read through again and just found a few nit-picky things. Once these are addressed, I am happy to switch to full support. However, I have been unable to do the spot-checks I hoped on one of the books and it is unlikely I will now be able to do so any time soon. The only ones I managed were those outlined above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Employing a live-in domestic servant at her house was thus probably as much a status symbol as a fulfilment of a practical need." A little wordy, and "thus" seems over-elaborate.

• Changed to "Her desire to employ a live-in domestic servant probably had as much to do with status as with practicality."

• "On 18 April 1874 she gave birth in Kingston-upon-Thames to a son, whom she named John W. Webster": Minor point, but I'd be inclined to move "in Kingston-upon-Thames" after "son".

• Done.

• "She was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment at Wandsworth Prison." Slight redundancy here: maybe "sentenced to 18 months in Wandsworth Prison".

  Done.

• "On this occasion, however, Webster overstayed at the local alehouse and returned late..." Overstayed is an odd choice of word. Maybe "stayed longer than usual", or it implies she was staying after closing or something else "illegal". If you mean that she was required to be back, maybe a better phrase could be used.

• Changed to "visited the local alehouse".

• "An unusual and unpleasant smell was noticed by the neighbours." Maybe "The neighbours noticed an unusual, unpleasant smell" would be a little more elegant.

• Done.

• "A Mrs. Hayhoe, proprietress of a nearby pub..." I don't think we need her name, and "The proprietress of a nearby pub..." would be better.

• Done.

• "Leonard Reginald Gribble commented that..." I think a word on who he is would benefit the reader here; e.g. "Leonard Reginald Gribble, a writer/historian/crime writer, ..."

• Changed to "Leonard Reginald Gribble, a writer on criminology".

• "Miss Ives, who was Mrs. Thomas's landlady as well as her neighbour..." If this is the same Ives as before, the fact that she was the landlady belongs in the first instance.

• Done.

• "the game was up..." Idiomatic, and I would be inclined to leave this phrase out of the sentence.

• Reworded.

• "Webster was defended by Warner Sleigh and the case was presided over by Mr. Justice Denman." The inclusion of these names suggests significance, but a few words as to their importance would be helpful here.

• I've added an explanatory preface to Sleigh and linked Denman.

• "A final surprising twist..." Editorialising? I think this sentence and the next could be recast here; there is no need to set up the pregnancy claim by describing it as a "twist". I would simply give the fact.

• OK, I've reworded it accordingly.

• "The Law Times reported that "upon this a scene of uncertainty..." A very odd link here for "upon".

• It shouldn't be there at all. I suspect that's due to Chzz's script (see above). I've fixed it now.

• "It may be noted that John Church, the publican whom Webster had attempted to implicate, was himself a former servant who had risen to lower middle-class status and earned a measure of prosperity through his hard work and effective management of his pub. Webster, in contrast, had simply stolen her briefly-held middle-class identity." Another piece of editorialising here which does not really say much but does seem to pass judgement. If it is an opinion, it needs attribution. Otherwise, I think it should go.

• It's attributed already (to D'Cruze) - she makes the point of highlighting Church's status as a person who had risen to lower middle-class status by "respectable" means, i.e. the work ethic that the Victorians so valued. I've reworded the piece accordingly.

• "She had had a succession of male friends, one of whom had fathered her child outside wedlock, which suggested promiscuous female sexuality..." Although correct, "had had" never looks particularly good. What about "Her succession of male friends, one of whom had fathered her child outside wedlock, suggested promiscuous female sexuality..."

• Yes, much better - done.

• I noticed a couple of instances of numbers over ten given as words; I believe these should be changed to figures, per WP:MOSNUM. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I could only find two (and one was in a quotation, so I've left that alone). Were there others? Prioryman (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: While I'm sure there could be some further tightening in places, I think this article comfortably meets the criteria now and I am switching to full support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Amandajm

Comment: Finally, the fact that she was Irish was undoubtedly a factor in the widespread revulsion felt towards Webster in Great Britain.

There may be a lot of evidence to suggest that the her Irish nationality was a factor in the "revulsion" towards Webster, but this is an opinion, non-the-less. As an opinion, the author of the opinion needs to be cited directly, not merely with the title of the book in a footnote, as if you stating a "fact". There needs to be a statement that says:Such and such an author suggests that the fact that Webster was Irish contributed to.........

Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I've amended the article accordingly [10]. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Support I'm late into the review but a large quantity of problems have been pointed out and fixed. I see no glaring and outstanding issues with this article presently. It's a nice read and the lead pic is scary business. Brad (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The prose needs to be checked; I already fixed "19th century Britain", but I also notice "whom had been twice widowed", and you need to be consistent in using either spaced en or unspaced em dashes (WP:DASH). Ucucha (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support – I made a few edits, which the nominator might wish to check. There is what Fowler calls a "jingle" here: "Webster posed as Mrs. Thomas for two weeks but was exposed" but I can't find an easy fix. Overall this is a well written contribution. The prose reminds me of the writing style of Ludovic Kennedy. Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:33, 23 August 2011 [11].

---

Paxillus involutus

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs), Sasata (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Many moons ago as a child I read about this fungus (widely eaten in Eastern Europe) mysteriously killing people..now I am a doctor and we know why it does, and I find it even freakier. Anyway, Sasata and I have been buffing this and reckon it's ready to roll here. J Milburn's also had a look and offered some suggestions. Have at it. Will reply promptly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 5: publisher?
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
• Are refs 27 and 45 to the same source? If so, should be reversed; if no, missing bibliographic info for ref 27. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• These have been fixed, thanks Nikkimaria. Sasata (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments Media review coming later, but first:

• As I was reading it over, I saw the sentence "The Paxillus syndrome is better classed as an allergic reaction than a toxicological reaction as it is not caused by a genuinely poisonous substance but by the antigen in the mushroom." However the characteristics box lists the mushroom as "edibility: poisonous" rather than "edibility: allergenic". This seems like a discrepancy.
• I'm getting the comment "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "Kretzer1999" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page." in bright red.

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Poisonous in the mycomorphbox indicates that consumption of the mushroom may cause sickness, or even death. The "allergic reaction" refers to the mechanism of poisoning, in that it is mediated by the immune system; there is no discrepancy between the two. I fixed the leftover citation issue. Sasata (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• You're the expert. I just brought it up because I noticed it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Media Review Yeah, so right off the bat, I'll say that everything is good form a copyright standpoint. However, I'm honestly not seeing why all three of File:Čechratka podvinutá 1.jpg, File:Paxillus involutus 20061015w.jpg, and File:Paxillus involutus 112885.jpg are needed. Of those three, the first two are basically the same thing. The third one really dosen't add anything to the toxicity section. I tried rearranging everything in a sandbox and I really don't have any good answers. I considered the idea of a distribution map, but in all honesty, it seems like "Everywhere" would be a good description on the distribution. At this point unless one of you has a better idea or some other photo options, I'm tempted to just say leave it as is, or just say cut File:Paxillus involutus 20061015w.jpg. Really its your choice. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Many organisms can be variable in appearance - in an ideal world, we'd have some different ones (i.e. someone cutting one in half for a cross section etc.) but we don't. I think what we have does highlight some different shades of brown and punctuates the slabs of text nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• Why is Agaricus contiguus not used? Is it because Fries sanctioned involutus?

not sure exactly, but quite possibly - will look into it. yes, see how it is written here. Will clarify, but in am as I need to sleep now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Update - have added a bit on sanctioning. But still haven't re-found the reason why Fries chose Batsch and not Bulliard (I think I saw it before...will keep looking...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is still not clear to me: if sanctioning is not necessary, why is the earlier name not used? Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't you link Paxillus vernalis and P. filamentosus, and where is filamentosus from?

now linked at first instance x 2 - oversight on our part. Will clarify location The latter is from europe and north america and greenland - enough to have the info on its own page? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you mention the range of other species there, I'd prefer to have it for filamentosus too. Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Are obscurosporus and validus now considered synonyms of involutus?

The taxa were described in 1999 by Hahn, and it is unclear how widely the names have been taken up. They are still poorly known so my guess is that it is unclear what parts of other populations are actually other species Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This makes me a bit uneasy—if the taxonomy is such a mess, are you sure this article is describing the same species everywhere? Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree - this is probably an issue for many widespread fungal species. A lag time as study X reports what look like cryptospecies but doesn't have enough information to describe some officially, and research that has to be undertaken before there is general uptake elsewhere. What I've tried to do is clarify the current status of what is by consensus called Paxillus involutus (sensu lato). It might be several more years before more material is published to make a formal split. Do you think it is clear enough in the lead? (NB: fungal knowledge is alot more meagre than birds or flowering plants...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• All the species linked under "Similar species" are already mentioned under "Taxonomy".

delinked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• What is the southern range limit in North America?

This is proving elusive - have been searching to see if it occurs in Mexico but the status of fungal knowledge of Mexico is meagre at best! I have never seen any more exacting information than the adejctive "northern" ..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit odd. I see it's also mentioned as being in California, which is hardly northern North America. Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The gist is abundant across northern north america really. Will see if we can pinpoint southernmost. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments A couple of nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I made these edits; please check

yup. looks fine to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Genetic testing suggests there may be several species in the species complex that is currently classified as Paxillus involutus — perhaps Genetic testing suggests that Paxillus involutus may be a species complex rather than a single species.

Yeah. thought about it, and figured the original way doesn't make sense as it wasn't previously a complex when it was thought only one species, hence grammar changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• inrolled refers to the inrolled cap. — Do you need the second "inrolled"?

nope - changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No further queries, changed to support, even though I'm a bit concerned about the mushroom soup I had for lunch! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "while the fruit bodies of the other two groups tended to appear in groups, have thicker stipes and caps with more inrolled and sometimes undulating margins." Needs an "and" after the comma, I believe.

how about a comma after "stipes"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now there's nothing leading up to "and caps with more inrolled...". The part before the first comma doesn't match well with it. Try picturing it without the stuff in the middle and you get "tended to caps...". Still think the original solution I proposed is the best, but I'm sure there are other ways of doing it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, have done it the way you suggested - does feel a little lopsided somehow but can't think of a better way currently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Description: Extremely minor, but the first photo caption could use a full stop at the end.

fullstops x 2 in photo captions added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ecology, distribution and habitat: "the brown roll-rim is found across the North Hemisphere, across Europe and Asia, with records...". The second "across" is a bit redundant and interferes with the flow. It's safe to drop it.

duly dropped Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Toxicity: "the" should definitely be added to "and may be beneficial in improving outcome", toward the end of the sentence. I like to use the fewest words possible too, but this is one word too few for me.

definite article added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 58 is missing a publisher. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

added Casliber (talk · contribs)

• Support – All of the my comments have been dealt with, and I'm satisfied that this meets all the criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I gave the article a review shortly before this nomination here, and my concerns were dealt with. The article is still looking good, and nothing of concern that I missed has been raised in this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Support from Cryptic C62 · Talk:

• "Various shades of brown in colour, the fruit body grows 6 cm (2.4 in) high and has a funnel-shaped cap to 12 cm (5 in) wide" First, does 6 cm represent the maximum or the average height? Second, I think there is a missing "up" in "has a funnel-shaped cap [up] to 12 cm wide".

both are max measures, 2nd "up" added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "It had been recognised as causing gastric upsets when eaten raw, but was more recently implicated in a potentially fatal autoimmune hemolysis in those who had consumed the mushroom without ill-effects for years." I'm so confused by this sentence that I don't even know how to suggest improvements. Why does this refer to "a" hemolysis when there were multiple people who were eating the mushroom? Why does this sentence use the relative time word "recent"? How can it be possible for the mushroom to have caused a potentially fatal hemolysis "without causing ill-effects for years"? Was this sentence written by chimps or am I just retarded today?

Right - these are the facts - the mushroom was widely consumed for years and was known to require cooking before being eaten (due to gastric upsets when eaten raw). It was anecdotally associated with isolated cases of severe illness, even deatn in 1944, but oddly many people seemed to eat it for years with no problems. Then as time went on, from the 1980s it was established that it could cause a potentially fatal autoimmune hemolysis -which can happen out of the blue at any time (i.e. not exposure- or dose dependent). This knowledge was slow in uptake by guidebooks, some of which listed it as edible until the 1990s. The "a" here referred to a single type of haemolysis, not single episode. You're not retarded - I think we need to tweak it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's one idea: "It had been known to cause gastric upsets when eaten raw, but was more recently found to cause potentially fatal autoimmune hemolysis, even in those who had consumed the mushroom for years without any other ill effects." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll pay that - so you concede that "recently" though not ideal is maybe best fit for the gradual sinking in of the mushroom's dangerousness in mycophagous communities? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

IAR FTW! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in the lead about the ecology of this mushroom. This makes me sad.

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in the lead about how long we've known about this mushroom. This also makes me sad.

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• In the second infobox, is the edibility image a joke? I thought we were building an encyclopedia, not a collection of stickers that were drawn by epileptic boll weevils.

Aha, there is some discussion about overhauling the images here that are used on Template:Mycomorphbox. I agree the pink face is...erm...could be better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The genus was later placed in a new family, Paxillaceae, by French mycologist René Maire who placed it between the agarics and boletes." Two things. First, the sentence feels a bit repetitive due to the repetitive use of the repeated word "placed". Second, what does it mean to be placed "between the agarics and boletes"? Were these families laid out on Maire's desk? Or perhaps there is some sort of periodic table of mushrooms? Maybe the meaning is obvious to a mycophile, but I certainly don't understand it.

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The generic name is derived from the Latin for 'peg' or 'plug' and the specific epithet involutus meaning 'inrolled' refers to the cap margin." This sentence is long and it would be nice if it had commas so that it would be easier to read.

nice commas added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a mixture of "roll-rim" and "rollrim". Which is correct?

hyphens added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Study of ... Paxillus involutus has revealed that it appears to form a complex" Unnecessarily high number of consecutive verbs here. I'm also not a fan of "revealed", as this implies that the thing being revealed is necessarily the truth, rather than one particular theory which may be disproved later. How about "Studies of ... Paxillus involutus indicate that it may form a complex" instead?

ok. "Revealed" I didn't mind too much as the mushrooms all look very similar, hence the molecular work reveals hidden relationships within, but I get your point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "while the fruit bodies of the other two groups tended to appear in groups" Repeated use of "groups" is somewhat confusing. Perhaps the first could be replaced with "populations" or the second replaced with "clusters".

I took groups --> populations, wondered if clusters was too specific a meaning... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• "irregular and anastomosed (combined irregularly)" These smell somewhat redundant to me.

"anastomosed" means the gills join up. naughty adverb removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The brownish colour and funnel-like shape of P. involutus can lead to its confusion with several species of Lactarius, many of which have some degree of toxicity themselves, but the lack of a milky exudate distinguishes it from any milk cap, one of the more similar being L. turpis, which presents a darker olive colouration." I don't think ya'll realized that this is one single solitary supersized serpentine sentence! I suggest splitting it into two (or perhaps even three).

duly splitted Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "It can be distinguished from it" It is somewhat ambiguous.

I rejigged to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• "by the presence of crystals" What kind of crystals?

crystalline structures seen under the microscope. The reference is a very brief key and doesn't elaborate. I haven't used microscopes with mushrooms yet and can't access some of the earlier journals cited by the key. Using microscopes on the mycelium is really specialised....I'll take another look tonight when I get some time. Sasata (who added this bit) may be able to elaborate also.Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I like bagels. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please check all redirects: I expect to see at least brown roll rim, common roll-rim, common roll rim, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is correct? The article mentions Northern Hemisphere, we have Northern Hemisphere, but it mentions northern hemisphere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...that's a very good question actually, WRT caps or not..I will prusue that as I'm seeing both on google and WP on first look. Might have to nut this out on the geography pages. I'll ask Tony...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on this source, NH should be capitalized. Our article on the same is rather inconsistent. Sasata (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:33, 23 August 2011 [12].

---

Corn Crake

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Once common, and the cause of many sleepless nights, this rail has now declined over much of its range due to changes in haymaking techniques. There is a bucketful of information out there, but much is repetitive or concerned with local conservation projects. If I've omitted anything important, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The page title is Corn Crake, the main infobox uses Conrcrake. I advise you choose one or the other. I haven't actually read the nomination, I just noticed that when I clicked on. And now for the real reason I'm here:

• Oops, can't imagine how I missed that in dozens of read-throughs, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image Review
  • All the required information at the description page for File:Crexcrex.png seems to be there, but it really should be in a template. 07:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I started with the template, but it wouldn't display properly, so ditched. I don't think it's mandatory to use the template, I've used text in many other FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The template is not a "Requirement" however it is the closest thing to a gold standard that we have for the logical and orderly display of the information, so it's a "strongly recommended" in my book. I'll look into the display issues for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The information at the description page for File:Crex crex00.jpg needs to have an English translation. 07:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I assumed that the description in the copyright box was adequate, but translation added now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Both images in the section "Behaviour" need caption text.

• Done, the egg actually had a caption, but it didn't show because it wasn't a thumbnail Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I am personally not a fan of the White Stork image being in the article. If it stays, it needs to be clarified. What is mowing? It just says "The White Stork will kill chicks exposed by mowing", and the text in that section dosen't give any indication as to what you're referring to either. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I usually show a predator or parasite, it's appropriate in this section and hasn't been queried before. I assume that "mow" was a common enough word not to need a link, but maybe a different term is used for grass cutting in North America. Now linked in caption and first occurrence in text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for image review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Good luck. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for fix Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Koffijberg, Kees or Kees, Koffijberg?
• Be consistent in how editors are notated
• Ref 22: which volume is being consulted here? Also, is there meant to be a hyphen at the end of the ISBN, or is something missing?
• Series names should generally not be italicized
• What do CMS and AEWA stand for? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. All above fixed. I couldn't see any other editor inconsistencies apart from the Kees/Koffijberg slip, let me know if I've missed something. Ref 22 tweaked and isbn fixed. Series name removed, abbreviations spelt out. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - There were a few typos such as "...a loud nocturnal call that sometimes leadto disturbed sleep for rural dwellers, the Corn Crake..." under the In Culture section. Also, in the Status section, the phrase "In much of the west of its range," was at first a bit confusing. It might be beneficial to change it to something such as "In much of the western half of its range," A ctrl+F search showed that in the Distribution and Habitat section, "Corncrake" appeared twice. In the Status section, "Corncrake" appears three times, one of which is lacking capitalization. I am unsure if this is necessary, but you might consider adding a source stating that its name was derived from the krek krek call of the male. Hopefully my comments are of use, even if they are a bit "nitpicky". Micromann (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for comments. Typos fixed, also name — I'm afraid I still think of it as one word. "Status" tweaked as suggested. With regard to the call, if you mean in the Lead section, having references there is now discouraged. The derivation and the call are referenced under "Taxonomy" and "Voice" respectively. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ah. Sorry, I did not know that was discouraged. Thanks for the speedy response. Micromann (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lit review Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm not sure if the comprehensive criterion is yet met. There's a lot of published scientific literature... here's a small sampling of publications from 2009–2011 that, judging by their titles, look interesting and possibly suitable for inclusion. I can prepare a more comprehensive list if you like. Sasata (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• (moved to talk) Sasata (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for lit review. I said in the nom above that there is a huge amount of literature, and I've had to be selective. I get no clear sense from the list of what you think has been inadequately covered. I've deliberately avoided articles like the Yorkshire one — there are lots of similar regional items, mostly in the UK, and I thought it more important to paint the overall picture for Europe, rather than have an endless parochial list of local declines. Similarly, of those articles I've seen, I can't see what the Irish, Transyvanian or Egyptian articles add in terms of new content, as opposed to local detail. I've used several of Rhys Green's studies, but I couldn't see that the one you quote was adding a great deal that was new. I have used the Graham source now, which I overlooked despite having a hard copy. It's a captive study, but since it suggests only that only the male builds the nest, whereas the prestigious BWP, and all other sources which give an opinion (Taylor doesn't), say only the female, that's clearly worth mentioning. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, in retrospect most are local reports. I'll move this list to the archive talk page; I'm away for about a week, and will give a full review then. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Support – Consider all my comments below dealt with; I believe the article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've made several changes to the article text to save time; please review and revert if you don't agree

• Fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• link chestnut, downy

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "This secretive species builds a nest of grass leaves in a hollow in the ground and lays 6–14 rufous-blotched cream-coloured eggs." Would it be better to avoid the double hyphen complex with something like "This secretive species builds a nest of grass leaves in a hollow in the ground and lays 6–14 cream-coloured eggs that are covered with rufous blotches."?

• Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The Corn Crake is omnivorous, but mainly feeds on invertebrates, along with small frogs and mammals, and plant material including grass seed and cereal grain." Perhaps this could be tweaked slightly; one might read this as small frogs and mammals also eat invertebrates.

• "Occasional small frog or mammal" 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• link introduced, taxonomy, wetland, specific name

• DoneJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The English names refer to this species' nesting in dry hay or cereal fields, rather than the marshes used by most members of this family." The somewhat awkward noun+ing construction could be tweaked to "The English names refer to the habit of the species to nest in dry hay or cereal fields, rather than the marshes used by most members of this family."

• Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• link tawny

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The Corn Crake is silent in Africa."I'm surprised no-one has commented about this (so maybe it's just me), but this sentence, given without any explanation, and at the start of the subsection, seems to stick out.

• A previous reviewer asked me to put it there, moved back to end Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• indicate the crake call sound file is from a male?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "This crake winters mainly in Africa" Subject of "this" not completely unambiguous, as the sentence starts a new paragraph, and the last crake discussed was the African Rail

• Done, clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "This is mainly a lowland species, but breeds up to 1,400 m (4,600 ft) altitude" I still think new paragraphs shouldn't start with "This"

• Done, starts with the name now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In China, flax is also used as for nest sites." not sure if there's an extra word in there (as)

• removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "and, also in Scotland in 1999" was it in Scotland and in 1999, or just in Scotland?

• Removed Scotland, since linked from Barra Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The nest, well hidden in the grass, is built in a scrape or hollow in the ground, is made of woven coarse dry grass and other plants, and lined with finer grasses." run-on

• Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In the Netherlands, 33 territories in 1996 increased to at least 500 in 1998." Not sure what this means… there used to be 33 territories where the bird was found but there are now 500?

• Clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Mrs. Beaton's recipe is too small to read; could it be enlarged? Also, it seems to me like File:Corncrake2.jpg is the best image available (as it shows the whole animal); why not have this in the taxobox. The current lead image might be better in Behaviour ( "…usually being hidden by vegetation")

• Images fixed, Beeton forced to 300px Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• link "Loss of habitat"

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "where migrating birds are captured in nets set for the Quail with which they often migrate." Not sure if Quail should be decapitalized here?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "quarry species" any link for this? I suspect it's a Brit Eng term, perhaps with a legal definition?

• Rephrased as "where hunting is allowed" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I note that Marvell's poem fragment is not italicized, while Clare's fragment is.

• All in-text quotes in quotation marks now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Refs: Seebohm's book was edited after his death (see here), perhaps this should also be in the citation?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Theresa Clay is given as the co-author of the 1952 "Fleas Flukes …."; could you check if this is supposed to be Theresa Child?

• It says Clay on the title page

• could you check the page number for Mrs. Beaton's book? An online source I found here doesn't match up

• There's something seriously wrong with the version you have linked. Pages jump from 384 to 805, and recipes from 817 to 1778. The land rail recipe is 1033, as listed in the index, but of course doesn't appear at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• location for Holden and Cleeves 2010?

• DoneJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for detailed review, I think everything is fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• And thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• You pipe both "rail family" and "crake" to Rallidae in the lead; that's a bit confusing.

• Unlinked "crake" now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that the article text never links to the article on the genus Crex.

• Oops, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is there some reason for linking the Azores but not the Faroes?

• Since the Faroes are self-governing, I treated the archipelago as a country. Linked now to be on the safe side Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Specify that Barra and Tiree are in Scotland.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The annual adult survival rate is under 30%, although a typical lifespan for an adult may be 5–7 years."—that doesn't make statistical sense

Haven't finished reading yet. Ucucha 03:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• No it doesn't make sense. Although it's what the book source says, it's clearly inconsistent with the rock-solid data from the BTO and the Rhys Green paper. Rephrased as "some individuals may live for 5–7 years."

Thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Support as all comments have been addressed (long ago, in fact). The article still looks good. Ucucha (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Philcha:

• Should "Taxonomy" be the first section. I usually put it near the end, as it is more useful for ornithologists (or equivalents in other taxa) and may be a barrier for general readers - e.g. "Principle of Priority" and " tautonymous" (I never saw the latter term before). --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Most bird articles start with Taxonomy, so we can define what we are talking about. Since I want this to end up in a featured topic, I'm reluctant to change the order, although I agree with with making it more readable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Much of it is basic stuff - common names, who named it, relatives etc. But more importantly, many many bird and other FAs have taxonomy as section number 1 - this allows "description" to be section number 2 and have images in that section not abut the taxobox. Hence we'd then have inconsistent formatting across bird FAs. We can examine order of all articles in an RfC.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Re location of "Taxonomy", OK (sigh!). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd re-structure "Taxonomy" into 2 paras: all the content about the name, including "The binomial name, ... official version is now "Corn Crake""; the affiliations, "The taxonomy of the small crakes is complicated ... are near relatives of the Crex genus." --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done, please check that I've understood correctly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Taxonomy": What common features unite the genus and, if feasible and not too long, the family? --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• This was added by another editor. Now "The earlier use of crex gives it priority over Bechstein's specific name pratensis, and leads to the current name of Crex crex, which reads better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• See below ("Taxonomy" II). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Taxonomy": I'd reverse the sentences "The English names refer to this species nesting in dry hay or cereal fields, rather than the marshes used by most rails. The common name was formerly spelt as a single word, "Corncrake", but the official version is now "Corn Crake", so that "The common name was ..." explains ""The English names refer to ...". --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Description": In "Males weigh 165 g (5.8 oz) on ...", IMO "are generally smaller and lighter" is redundant. If you think the result would be a too short sentence, you could combine it with the previous one. --Philcha (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Description": IMO sentence "There are no subspecies; although birds become paler and greyer towards the east of the range, the change is clinal, and there is great individual variation in colour within all populations" is clumsy, including the "semi-comma splice", and "clinal" IMO should be in plain English ("gradually") with w-link to cline; and I'd w-link subspecies, which has significant payload. How about e.g. "While there are no subspecies, all populations show great individual variation in colouring, and the birds gradually become paler and greyer towards the east of the range"? --Philcha (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Description": Would the reference to Africa be better in "by late August or early September, before migrating to south eastern Africa"? --Philcha (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Voice": IMO "As might be expected with this skulking species" may look like editorialism. And IMO "localisation" is ugly. How about e.g. "The call has evolved to make a singing male's location clear, as this species hides in thick vegetation." I suggested linking to sexual selection, as males appear more at risk of predators. I considered the alternative, natural selection, but this seems not quite right. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll think again about "thick vegetation", after seeing section "Distribution and habitat" para 2. Would "moderate vegetation" do the job? --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Removed adjective altogether Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Voice": I'd move "Slight differences in vocalisations mean that individual males can be distinguished by their calls" to just after "... challenge intruding males and attract females", where it would emphasis the advertising function. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Voice": Could "Males can be attracted by mechanical imitations of their call. These can be produced by rubbing a piece of wood down a notched stick, or by flicking a credit card against a comb or zip-fastener" be combined? E.g. "To attract males, mechanical imitations of their call can be produced by ..."--Philcha (talk)

• Good, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Voice": I'd insert a para break after all the stuff about males' calls. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Voice": I'd moved "The Corn Crake is silent in Africa" to the top of the section, so that readers see the scope up-front. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for review so far, there was an edit conflict half way through editing here, please check that nothings been lost or altered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Jimfbleak. AFAIK None of my comments were lost. Might be good to check with Casliber. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'll check out your responses, and then work through the rest (?later). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Taxonomy": What's the meaning of "primitive" in "the most primitive forms are found in the Old World". The only potential w-link is Primitive (phylogenetics), but AFAIK Corn Crake doesn't go into phylogenetics. Sorry, I forgot this item at the time. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• changed to "least specialised" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": I find the structure of this section confusing. How about sub-sections covering: (a) the breeding areas, including areas where populations have vanished or become sparse; (b) the usual winter quarters, including "There are several nineteenth-century records, .. between December and February"; (c) migration routes and vagrants; (d) habitats, which seem to be similar in both hemispheres - assuming I understand all this. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• As suggested, although I've kept the habitat bits for breeding and wintering as separate paras; although similar, they're not identical. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The large-scale structure is better, thanks. I've comments about individual paras, see below. --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": IMO "vagrant" should be linked to vagrancy (biology), as we're not talking about tramps. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": I'll re-review this section when we've resolved the structure. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Distribution and habitat": Would "This is mainly a lowland species, but breeds up to 1,400 m ..." be best at the start of the section, before the longer and more complex parts about horizontal distribution? --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": I find the structure of "The Corn Crake breeds from Britain and Ireland ... misidentification of the eggs of the African Rail" confusing (unless I've losing it). --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• now "result from misidentification of eggs in a museum collection which are actually those of the African Rail" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Much clearer, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": What does "former" in "with a former natural range mainly between 41°N and 62°N" mean? Looks like you or the sources have crammed a quart into a pint pot. --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• now "Although it has been lost from much of its historic range, this bird was once found in suitable habitat in Eurasia everywhere between latitudes 41°N and 62°N.". Is that clearer? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ditto. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": Can "There is also a sizable population in western China.[21] It nests only rarely in northern Spain and in Turkey" be combined? --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": Should "old claims of breeding in South Africa are incorrect, and result from misidentification of the eggs of the African Rail" be a separate sentence? --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": In "Its status in Africa is not well known, but most of the South African population of about 2,000 birds occurs in KwaZulu-Natal and the former Transvaal Province", the word "status" is hard to interpret. How about e.g. "Most of the South African population of about 2,000 birds occurs in KwaZulu-Natal and the former Transvaal Province, and numbers elsewhere in Africa are uncertain." --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, done as you suggest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": In "When breeding in Eurasia, the Corn Crake is a bird of open habitats, which would originally have included river meadows", the word "open" may be ambiguous. How about e.g. "When breeding in Eurasia, the Corn Crake's habitats would originally have included river meadows ...". --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Distribution and habitat": How about "On migration, in addition to the expected habitats, the Corn Crake may also occur in wheatfields and at around golf courses". --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done, that's much better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• You still have "in golf courses" - is there a reason for "in". I suggested "around" as I couldn't imagine the birds feeding in putting greens or bunkers or even the fairway - but I could be wrong. PS I've w-linked golf courses. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think section "Distribution and habitat" is now fine. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Behaviour": "individuals may become very (confiding) trusting"? See Confiding - Definition from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary, I think "confiding" applies only to human communication. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Confiding" is actually often used in bird books, but I take the point, changed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Behaviour": I think that, in "would come for chicken feed once the intended recipients had finished", the cure ("intended recipients") is worse than the disease, and I'd use "chickens" again. See Victor Borge :-) --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done, but avoided repetition by saying "poultry feed"

• Nice one! --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Behaviour": "This rail The Corn Crake is most active early and late in the day, ...", as the African Crake (previous sentence) is also a rail? --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Behaviour": I'd move "If flushed by a dog, ... crouch on landing" and "If disturbed in the open, ... watch the intruder" to just before "When captured it may feign death, ..." so all avoidance of threats are one package. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a reason for not moving "If flushed by a dog, ... crouch on landing"? --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• No, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Breeding": I'm uncertain about the sequence of events in para 1: "A male will challenge an intruder ...pecking, and sometimes kicking" (controlling territory); courtship display; copulate; "The female may be offered food by the male during courtship" (i.e. before copulation?); "the male always built the nest" (when in sequence?) --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've tweaked the sequence a bit, but it's unclear when the male builds the nest since it's only just been discovered that he does so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The bleeding edge of zoology _{♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦} --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Breeding": "The nest is typically in grassland, ... the later-developing grasses further up a hill" looks OK, but then "The nest, built in a scrape or hollow in the ground ..." looks slightly contradictory. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tweaked to make it clear we are still hidden in the grass Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Would it better to re-structure these sentences, e.g.: first nest in a scrape among grassland, etc.; 2nd nest higher from the ground, as the grass is then longer. This is a quite tentative suggestion, as each of the sources seems to give only some pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. But if it is possible, it would avoid contradiction. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I tried in the original text to convey that the nest was still on the ground "higher altitude than the first... later-developing grasses further up a hill" I've obviously failed, but I can't see how to make it clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "further up a hill" makes all the difference! --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Breeding": "Incubation is by the female only" (2nd para) but "(male) moving on when laying is almost complete" (1st para). As "The eggs hatch together after 19–20 days", how does the female avoid starvation? --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Many birds, like pheasants and other game birds and rails, have little or no involvement in rearing the brood after copulation. Except in very cold or wet weather, the female comes off the eggs at intervals to feed herself. It's probably not possible to source this for individual species because it's normal behaviour Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I can only spell "ornithology" on good days :-( --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Breeding": Should "Nest success in undisturbed sites is high ... with lower survival in large broods" be separate para, as it's topic is mortality rates and causes? --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Breeding": Should "The annual adult survival rate is under 30%, although some individuals may live for 5–7 years" follow "The number of live chicks hatched ..."? --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Feeding": Would it be good to say that "The Corn Crake is omnivorous ... including grass seed and cereal grain" applies to the breeding season and / or in the northern hemisphere. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Added, but after first sentence, since the omnivority(?) and general nature of its invertebrate diet is the same everywhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Predators and parasites" looks OK. --Philcha (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fine, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Status": At "despite its huge breeding range", "huge" looks WP:PEACOCK unless you can give a comparison, with citation(s). --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would have thought an area covering most of Eurasia could reasonably be described as "huge". "Large" seems like understatement. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wouldn't "from Ireland all the way to central Siberia" just before "estimated at 12,400,000 km²" be concise and resolve the vagueness of "huge". --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've just removed "huge" — numbers in millions of square miles speak for themselves Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Status": I love the incisive inevitability of the 2nd para. You might like Gustav Holst - The Planets - Mars, the Bringer of War. --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Status": I've made a few minor copyedits, see what you think. --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• thanks for those, no problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll add this a little later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• OK, done now, what do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• A bit of fun for those who last the course - editors, reviewers and readers :-D --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Spot check in citations (apparently not done before):
  • "including a five-fold increase in Finland, and a doubling in the UK" supported by [http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=2878 Corncrake (Crex crex) - BirdLife species factsheet
  • "The call has evolved to make a singing male's location clear, ..." supported by Amplitude spectra of Corncrake calls: what do they signalise? (doi: 10.1163/1570756041445218)
  • "... this bird was once found in suitable habitats in Eurasia everywhere between latitudes 41°N and 62°N" supported by Populations, ecology and threats to the Corncrake Crex crex in Europe
  • "... The number of live chicks hatched is more important than the weather, with lower survival in large broods" supported by Effects of weather on the survival and growth of Corncrake Crex crex chicks
  • "The widespread fluke Prosthogonimus ovatus, which lives in the oviducts of birds, has been recorded in the Corn Crake" supported by Fleas, Flukes and Cuckoos. A study of bird parasites - apparently dead URL, possibly server out of business as the message came from my ISP! Code 0--Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "as have the parasitic worm Plagiorchis elegans" supported by Helminth parasites of the Balkan green lizard, Lacerta trilineata Bedriaga 1886, from Bursa, Turkey
  • I'll resume the spot check later, poss tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Someone else can do any further spot checking needed. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Check for other dead links
  • A few need accessdates, please also check for any other missing parameters. --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Third report of the Seychelles Bird Records Committee appears to have been pulled by the site. --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • ARKive - Corncrake videos, photos and facts - Crex crex looks odd, and few citation params
  • Got a go. Please check any that are not code 200. Sorry. --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Removed dead Rothschild and ABC urls, these are real publications, so a weblink is a bonus anyway. Removed non-essential Arkive EL. I can't see any web-only refs without an access date, and web versions of real publications don't need them. Have I missed something? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• All of "In culture" looks OK to me. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Lead: looks OK to me. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I have no further comments. --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks again for careful review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn Intended to get to reviewing this one, but forgot about it, sorry!

• "Crex pratensis" Do you have a citation for that name?

• I'm not sure what you are getting at, the Bechstein ref immediately follows that name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant the authority, the author- (Linnaeus, 1758) and all that. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose that I could put "(Bechstein, 1803)", but since I've just said that it was created by Bechstein in 1803, that seems a bit redundant. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was meaning specifically in the taxobox- it just looks a little lonely without it. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC

• The convention is that just the lowest rank gets the authority, so Linnaeus here, Bechstein on the Crex page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fair enough- as you can see on (for instance) Leotia lubrica, on fungal articles we typically list the authorities for the synonyms as well as for the accepted binomial. If that's not how it's done with bird articles, so be it. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think File:Crex crex00.jpg would be a great addition to the description section, but I see why you've chosen the current lead image (despite the fact it could be said to not be the most useful photo). If you want to have something in the culture section, you could use Bewick's picture (or, at least, the one used in his book)- I note he also includes a different Latin name, and has a long discussion, which may offer some interesting tidbits.

• I've added Bewick image, as you suggest. I can't fit the other image in description because of the map, but moved to habitat instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Some more refs would be helpful in "breeding"- first and third paras give the appearance of being unsourced.

• I normally put refs at the end of all the text to which they refer, I don't like repeating the same ref in continuous prose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Upon Appleton House" - Poem titles should be in speech marks, not italics.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• In the "names" section, some of the names are not capitalised (which I gather is usual for bird names) and some are in quote marks, some not.

• I think they are all fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not read every word, but it's looking great. It's great to have the poetry- that really adds something. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for review and kind comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Kaldari:

• The text should probably be cropped or removed from the image of the egg.

• Well, the image is tiny anyway, so I'm reluctant to make it even smaller. At least it confirms the ID Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• The images need alt tags.

• I don't think that's a requirement now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments on prose - was waiting for the dust to settle so Jim gets these reviews one by one rather than all-in. Reading through now. was reduced to minor quibbles I fixed myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for review, fixes and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead looks good according to Cryptic C62 · Talk:

• Do we have any pictures of this critter that don't have twenty scrillion blades of grass in the way of the shot? The infobox image hardly conveys any useful information about this bird.

• Unfortunately not. It's the nature of this species to hide in the grass., I've heard, but never seen one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, poop. If any decent images do pop up, I'm sure you'll make good use of them. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• "It is a medium-sized crake with ... chestnut on the wings" This phrasing just seems weird to me. I would prefer "It is a medium-sized crake with ... chestnut-colored wings".

• It's not the whole wing, changed to chestnut markings on the wings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• "There are no subspecies, although birds become slightly paler and greyer towards the east of the breeding range." Some minor problems with the wording here. "birds" implies that this statement is true of all bird species in the breeding range, not just corn crakes. "become" implies that the coloration of an individual bird will change as it flies east across the breeding range. Here's one possible alternative: "There are no subspecies, although individuals born towards the east of the breeding range tend to be slightly paler than their western counterparts."

• now although individuals from the east of the breeding range tend to be slightly paler than their western counterparts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• "rufous-blotched cream-coloured eggs" This is literally the funniest thing I have ever read on Wikipedia. Are you telling me that "rufous" is a real color?! (I've linked it.)

• It's actually very common usage in bird publications, because it perfectly describes the colour of many birds, thanks for link Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• "This crake is in steep decline across much of its former breeding range because modern farming practices mean that nests and birds are destroyed by mowing or harvesting before breeding is finished." This phrasing can be made much tighter: "This crake is in steep decline across much of its former breeding range because modern farming practices often destroy nests before breeding is finished."

• That's good, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Despite its skulking nature" What does this mean? I can't tell if "skulking" is a jargon word or just an unusually illustrative verb.

• "skulking" is often used for birds that hide in dense vegetation, but now changed to "elusive" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am happy to see that the lead contains information from each of the article's main sections.

That's all from me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, final point addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - I would have liked to have read more about the campylobacter problem, but that's because sadly I am more interested in bacteria than birds :-) Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for support, sorry no more about nasty diseases! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a double image in the "Status" section which is not ... ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, after manually loading the image, now it's there (in my cache), so I don't know what caused that problem ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [13].

---

Brazilian battleship São Paulo

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article for y'all. São Paulo's construction contributed to a rather expensive South American naval arms race, and the first year of her career was marked by a major mutiny. With rapid advances in naval technology (read: the introduction of super-dreadnoughts) and financial issues in Brazil, she quickly fell into disrepair and total obscurity. After repairs and a modernization in the United States, however, she participated in three more mutinies/revolutions. To top it off, the ship quite literally disappeared in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean while being towed to Europe for scrapping.

This article has taken a long time to get here. I originally got it to GA in April 2009 (link). It then sat around until March/April 2011, when I rewrote the whole thing with much better sources and got it through a Milhist A-class review (link). After adding a little more information from the Brazilian Navy's official histories – which only A through Gish were online in 2009 – I think it's just about ready for FA. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Barman Citizen Emperor
  • Added Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• FN 16: why reverse the order here?
  • The journal title is being used in place of the author. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether "Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios" is italicized or not, and also what type of dash is used
  • Fixed Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Scheina or Schenia?
  • Scheina, fixed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• No references to ONI, Preston, Scheina "Argentina", either of the articles titled "The Brazilian Battleship "Minas Geraes"."
  • Sorry, those were holdovers from other articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Foreign-language sources should be notated as such
  • Chicago doesn't require noting foreign-language sources if the title is in the original language, see "[14]". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[15], page 24. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how journal sources are punctuated - for example, compare Martins and Livermore
  • Filho is the Portuguese equivalent of "Jr.", and this is the way Chicago says to format a bibliographic name with a Jr. on the end. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Not what I'm looking at - "3, no. 27 (2007): 74–77." vs "16: no. 1 (1944), 31–44.". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, my bad, sorry! I've fixed this now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Check ordering of References
  • Well now, that was silly of me. Fixed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Check punctuation for Poggio
  • Changed comma to period. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• "U.S. Government Printing Office" or just "Government Printing Office"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The latter, see United States Government Printing Office. Our article has "United States" for disambiguation, I believe. Thanks very much for the review; I'm very appreciative! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - The caption of the image File:Joao Candido.jpg mentions João Cândido Felisberto by name. I'd have to assume that he's the guy in black, but that might stand to be made explicit in the caption. I've made a few other tweaks to file description pages, but everything else is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Interestingly enough, Morgan doesn't say which on Felisberto is, so I can't really be sure which one he is. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Yet another great article by Ed, I'm very happy to support it. - --Lecen (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I'm eager to give my full support to this article once a few issues are corrected, I hope you don't mind, Ed. Let's take a look at them:
• Note 2 says that the 1893-85 rebellion had seccessionist goals. Not at all. Both the 1893-95 Rio Grande do Sul rebellion as well as the 2nd Naval Revolt joined forces to restore the monarchy. I believe you should simply drop the "seccessionist". There is no reason to mention the monarchist character of the rebellion (or civil war?).
  • Scheina explicitly calls the rebels in the south "secessionists" (p. 71), and in his examination of the naval revolt concludes that Mello let his intentions unclear and Saldanha was originally unclear before supporting a republic... do you have a better source that contradicts him? He only calls them secessionists once as a side point, and that war is not what he's focusing on, so I'm open to seeing him proved wrong. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I can't, sorry. My books are in my home in Fortaleza and I'm right now living in Brasília (until January). The best I can do is give you an on-line source [16]. The page translates as: "In 1893, the monarchists of the Federalist Party took control of Rio Grande do Sul. Meanwhile, in Rio de Janeiro social-political situation worsened. Indeed, in the capital of the Republic, the President Floriano fell at odds with the commander of the Navy, of monarchist traditions. When, in September 1893, the Armada rebelled against the republican authorities, the monarchists, in the South took advantage of the confusion and advanced, taking Santa Catarina. With the support of rebel sailors they also planned to take the province of Paraná. In 1894, in a war of extreme violence, the republican gaúcho and florianist forces defeated the monarchists in Rio Grande do Sul. The Federalist Revolution had approximately 10,000 dead." Notice that the author regarded both the Federalist Revolution and the 2nd Naval Revolt as one rebellion. The source is page 569 of the book "História do Brasil: uma interpretação" written by Adriana Lopez and Carlos Guilherme Mota. It was published by SENAC São Paulo in the city of São Paulo in 2008. The ISBN is 978-85-7359-789-9
      • That's good enough for me. Either Scheina is wrong (worst case) or there's at least some scholarly debate on the issue, so I'll avoid it by removing anything about secession. No sense in getting something wrong, especially when it's a minor side point. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Soon after they arrived, the 5 October 1910 revolution began". It is not clear (until you read the remaining of the paragraph) that this happened in Portugal. Perhaps you should add something like "1910 revolution began, leading to the downfall of the Portuguese monarchy."
  • Yup, very true, nice catch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Many Afro-Brazilian sailors were sons of former slaves, or were former slaves" Are you sure about this one? Slaves were no more than 5% of the Brazilian population in 1887. And more: the 1871 Free Womb Law declared that all children born from slaves after that year were freedmen. That means that the mutinied sailors needed to be at least... 41 years old at the time of the Revolt of the Lash! What I do know about the subject is that most sailors were very poor caboclos (descendants of White and Indians), Mulattoes (descendants of whites and Blacks) and Blacks. To claim that they were former slaves (21 years after the end of slavery!) isn't too much? Perhaps should read "Most, if not all, sailors came from the poor strata of the Brazilian society who were often mistreated and seen with contempt by their fellow officers. Although slavery had been abolished since the ennactment of the Golden Law (Lei Áurea) more than 21 years previously, the Brazilian sailors were treated no better than slaves."
  • Actually yes, this is supported by Morgan p. 37 (in a 1904 quote from Rio Branco) and Smallman p. 28 (used as a reference in Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes). The navy's enlisted men were estimated at being 50/30% black or mulatto (the other 20% being made up of 10/10 white and indigenous). According to Morgan, a lot of these men were shanghaiied from the lower classes, orphans placed into naval schools, or criminals. As you can imagine, a lot of them were black or mixed-race, and as nearly all of the black population were slaves before being freed, you can see how the sailors were either former slaves or their sons. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed they were taken from the poor strata of the Brazilian society, but to call them ex-slaves is a little too much. Not all blacks were slaves in Brazil. In 1890, Blacks were 14.6% and Pardos (the White/Black/Indian descendants) were 32.4% of the population. That is, 47%. Three years earlier slaves were no more than 5%. See Empire of Brazil#Ethnic groups and Empire of Brazil#Slaves. Are you sure Rio Branco or the author called them ex-slaves?
      • Morgan translated the quote and gives it as "For the recruitment of marines and enlisted men, we bring aboard the dregs of our urban centers, the most worthless lumpen, without preparation of any sort. Ex-slaves and the sons of slaves make up our ships' crews, most of the dark-skinned or dark-skinned mulattos." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• "were embarked on 1 September to bring them to the centennial celebrations in Brazil". The 100-year celebration of Brazilian independence occurred in 1922, not 1920. They may have come to Brazil during the independence celebrations, but certainly not during the centennial.
  • This is... odd. I'm obviously wrong, as Ribeiro says it's in 1922 (and that makes more sense), but the New York Times article was published in September 1920? Right month, wrong year. I'm going to guess that there was a typo, but I can't be sure until I can check microfilm records of the NYT (so I'll be able confirm this in about a week and a half). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Never mind, I've done more source-searching, and the NGB and Whitley both say 1920. I'm thinking this was a mistake on Ribeiro's part and am fixing this now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't need that much. See this on-line article [17]. The King came in 1920. Pedro II's remains were brought in 1921. The Centennial occurred in 1922.
        • I thought Pedro II was returned in 1920? Your Legacy article says that too... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• The word "bôlo" is an archaic version of the modern Portuguese word "bolo" (cake).
  • Perhaps it had a different meaning in 1910? It's used in Morgan (p. 40) in a translation of a rebel message to the President of Brazil (quote: "... end the use of the whip, the bôlo [beating on the hand with a ferrule], and other similar punishments ...") Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The word "bolo" means and meant cake. But it also means and meant "beating on the hand with a ferrule". Try to imagine someone giving a piece of cake to someone and placing it in the hand of this very someone. Now try to picture someone hitting a person in the hand. This is where the expression "bolo" as a meaning of punishment came from. It's because it was similar to someone placing a piece of cake into a person's hand. Nothing more than a cruel expression. What I was trying to say is that there is no "^" in the word bolo. At least, not since the early 20th Century.
      • That's not an association I'd make (cake -> beating), but I think we can safely assume that the cultural and time differences are the culprit there. Thanks for showing me something new. :-) I don't see any problem with using the present-day form of the word seeing as it's not an exact quote, so I've changed it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• João Cândido, A.K.A. the "Black Admiral" is the tall smiling Afro-Brazilian to the right of a short man in black. See the photo at Commons. I marked João Cândido.
  • Thanks! I couldn't be sure without confirmation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Lecen, you already know how much I appreciate your reviews. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope that helps. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, nice read, I've made a couple of tweaks but it is pretty close to standard. Couple of fly by comments - I'm backpacking for another week so may not be returning to this for a while.

"The rebels, believing an attack was imminent, sailed their ships out of Guanabara Bay and spent the night of 23–24 November there, only returning during daylight." Should "there" be "at sea"?.

The hexagonal formation of turrets is compared to a German design that has no superfiring turrets, but there is a later reference to superfiring turrets. Was the arrangement two for and aft and two amidships? (a diagram showing their layout would be nice if possible).

Nice photo of a US battleship, but not sure of the relevance as the Sao Paulo is not in shot.

Info on numbers of mutineers who stayed in Montevideo would be cool if it can be sourced.

Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"At sea" -- definitely, nice catch. @turrets, that was for an earlier (non-dreadnought) design. Is this not clear enough in the text? If so, that's not good and I'll have to rewrite it a bit. :-) @US battleship, it's more there to break up the text, and I don't have any images that are more relevant. @number of mutineers, I'm pretty sure I have a total number in one of my sources. I'll hunt it down tomorrow. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes, but a little of the detail on the earlier designs might be worth keeping - if only to emphasise why the two dreadnoughts were so much more powerful than the three ships they cancelled. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent article, but:

• Nine red links in the article and one in the footnotes are a few too many for a Featured Article.
• I believe it would be more consistent with Wikipedia style standards if the page were moved to "São Paulo (Brazilian battleship)". The little arrow says I have the authority to do that, but I'm going to check first.
• The career sections ought to be combined in to a single section, not just "Early Career", "Late Career", etc.
• Expand the section on the ship's legacy. (Oh, wait - it doesn't exist. I suppose anything will be expansion!)

That's all that I have to say. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when having red links is considered bad to a featured article? --Lecen (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Red links - see WP:REDLINK. Style - see WP:NCSHIP. Career - that's not normal practice in ship articles, and I prefer top-level headings over many third-level headers. Alternatively combining it all into one isn't helpful for the reader; there's a reason we have sectioning. Legacy - this isn't normal practice either unless the ship(s) were unusually famous. A good example of this can be seen in the Yamato-class battleship article. São Paulo, however, does not have this status, and none of my sources have anything that could contribute to such a section. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Ed on all points, except that I don't take any position on general questions about linking. There are reviewers who have been irked at one time or another about lots of red links, because without any information, they didn't have a way to verify notability. OTOH, any featured article on a Brazilian ship is necessarily going to touch on a lot of articles that haven't been written in the English Wikipedia yet, since most of the sources are in Portuguese. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed redlinks are important, and we shouldn't discriminate against potential FAs that are in areas of the pedia that still have unwritten articles. If anything I prefer an article about a Brazilian subject rather than one of more familiar topics. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dank for all you and continue to do. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Any time, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment It's a lovely article. I need more clarity and detail about the design of the ship, as built. Was it not completed on the hexagonal turret plan? If not, what was the layout? On a lighter note, I saw some suggestions about the ship's eventual fate which were interesting. --John (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The ship was not completed with the hexagonal turret plan (see File:Minas Geraes-class battleships.jpg). Should I just remove the information from this article and include it only in the class article, where most of the design information traditionally goes?

Yeah, I've seen that webpage before. Something about 'aliens needed a WWI battleship for a museum, but couldn't be seen while taking it, so they took Sao Paulo in the middle of a storm'. It's absolutely ridiculous, but the webpage did have scans of a 50s magazine article by Alan Villiers on the disappearance... which reminds me that I've always meant to buy the book that article was taken from (Posted Missing). Hopefully Amazon's seller will have that to me in a few days. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I read that book once years ago as I realized with some delight when I started to edit this article. I suggest adding something brief to the article to clarify its final layout. Unfortunately the book I was hoping to use to reference this article, Peter Padfield's Battleship, can't be found so I am relying on the (perfectly adequate but unverifiable to me) existing sources. --John (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping it will allow me to flesh out the disappearance paragraph, as the only major sources right now are the newspapers emailed to me by User:Bellhalla way back during the 2009 GAN. Padfield is a pretty good author; I bought his Maritime Dominion a few months back and greatly enjoyed it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am pissed off because I don't recall lending it to anybody and I can't find it. So, either it is in storage or I lent it to somebody then forgot about it. The joys of growing old. Nice edits, I think I now support. --John (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've lost quite a few books through lending; the only one I remember is The Original Shannara Trilogy omnibus to my Dad. The problem is six years after I let him borrow the book, he still hasn't read it. Thanks for the support – and as an fyi, I'm planning on adding a bit back on the original design, but hopefully not so detailed that it becomes confusing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments

• This sentence appears twice in the background section: Newspapers and journals around the world speculated that Brazil was acting as a proxy for a naval power which would take possession of the two dreadnoughts soon after completion, as they did not believe that a previously insignificant geopolitical power would contract for such powerful armament.
• Fix this: name="OfficialPaulo"/>|group=N}}
• Can we get a few paragraphs of description? Nothing in the infobox is sourced in any way.
• No bullets in the infobox.
• Allow triple conversions for knots and nautical miles by using {{convert|12|nmi}}. Don't specify the output and it will automatically triple convert.
• Provide a conversion for 37 mm.
• Link ranks like 2nd lieutenant, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All of these should be fixed (the first one thanks to John). I sourced the infobox instead of providing a description, but I think we've had discussions before on that topic. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed we have, you evil man who doesn't love the technical side of these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I don't love that side. ;-) That's not the reason I don't include them in the individual ship articles, though. I just feel that it duplicates what's in the class article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

2nd source review - no offence Nikkimaria, but I felt you missed something.

• You probably already know this, but citations should for consistency reasons use templates in all or none cases. See EN 55.
• Be consistent in whether you include US states in publisher locations.
• Martins (2007) seems duplicated in the reference section.
• It's impossible to tell who authored "Brazil," Latin America: A Naval History 1810–1987 and Latin America's Wars as you give no author description, only authormasks.
• EN 32: the title of the newspaper piece is "Europe Stirred By Lisbon News," not "Europe Stunned By Lisbon News."
• Perhaps link The Times on the first occurrence?
• EN 25 and 51 ought to be merged as they seem to point to the same source in the reference section.
• Online sources (newspapers like NYT for example) behind paywalls should be notated as such.

I had a quick look at the few sources that I could access without paying (EN 31, 32, 42, 53, 54 and 56), and they all verified the text in the article. No issues with copyvio or close paraphrasing. --Eisfbnore • talk 19:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No templates are used, afaik.

The one state is fixed.

Martins was a copy/paste error, I think; thanks!

It's not impossible to tell. Authormasks tell you that the same person authored all the works.

The title is fixed – that was a good catch.

Now linked, as is The New York Times.

Fixed dup. refs.

There is no newspaper that is behind a paywall, as far as I know. All of the NYT sources are pre-1923 and are therefore free to view. You may have to register an account, though. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, Ed; please have a look at EN 55, which uses a {{cite news}} template. Also, I know that authormasks can be used to avoid repetion; however, you must write out the author's full name on the first occurrence before you start using the masks. At present, you use authormasks on every occurrence, which makes it impossible to tell who really authored the works. Eisfbnore • talk 22:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been bold and added Scheina, Robert L. to his first listed work in the biblio (I found his name through GBOOKS). Eisfbnore • talk 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [18].

---

John Treloar (museum administrator)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though John Treloar seems to have never fired a shot in anger, he was one of the most important figures in Australia's military history. He headed the military's record-keeping units during both world wars, was the director of the Australian War Memorial for most of the period between 1920 and his death in 1950 and moonlighted as the secretary of a government department during the first years of World War II. Throughout it all, he was a workaholic and literally lived next to his office in the years before his early death.

I've been working on this article for about two years, and think that it now meets the FA criteria. The article passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review in March and has since been improved. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Nick, please check the changes since the A-class review for typos. I got everything down to Establishing the War Memorial, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - thanks for your fixes, I've made a few more Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Excellent to see such a good article about a museum figure. One query that struck me; the Department of Information is redlinked in the lead, and while its role and government status is outlined in the World War II section, it might be worth a slight qualifier in the lead ('...the Australian government's Department of Information' for instance) just for clarity. IxK85 (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment - I've just made this change. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether "VX39804" is italicized or not
  • Fixed
• FN 33, 66: formatting
  • Done; both now use the automatically generated citations the National Library of Australia recommends
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers and locations for magazines/journals
  • Done (all now included)
• Bibliography for journal articles should include pages
  • Doing Done for all the paper-based journals (Condé 2007 is online only)
• Be consistent in whether or not Australian locations include states. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The only one which includes a state is Perth. As there's also a Perth in the UK, this is needed for clarity. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - a very readable article, but would like a bit more clarity about the renaming from Museum to Memorial; when did the change take place? Was it in December 1927 when the staff were made permanent? And which government department was responsible for the organisation after that change? IxK85 (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point - it assumed its current name in 1925. The Memorial has always been for all intents and purposes an independent organisation overseen by its own board, and doesn't directly come under any department. It's been responsible to various ministers over time, but I don't think that this is really relevant as they've almost never intervened in its management and don't seem to have affected Treloar at all. I've just added details on the date the Memorial changed name and its management structure in Treloar's time to the article. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Support -- I've gone through the changes to this article since I supported it at its MilHist A-Class Review, and after making a couple of very minor tweaks to prose I see no reason not to support it here; well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Grammar Nazi Review:

• Lead

• Paragraph 2, sentence 7: "He attempted to intervene in the management of the AWM during his absence, however, to the increasing frustration of its acting director." However should only begin or end a sentence; it should never be used in the middle of one.
  • Thanks for this review; I just saw it, after making my changes. On this point: see Chicago 5.207. - Dank (push to talk)
    • That's perfectly common Australian usage, and (from memory) is recommended by the Australian style manual. The Chicago Style Manual is not normally used by Australians; we use Australian and British style guides. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
      • True, but I've been copyediting per Chicago for a long time, and seldom get complaints from non-Americans ... and it's the only style guide, American or otherwise, that I've found to even approach universality ... mostly because that's what they've aimed for, they've been highly influential in Canada for over 100 years. So ... please do let me know (as you've done below) if anything I say doesn't sound right, so that over time, we can figure out which guidance works. - Dank (push to talk) 11:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh and ... right, most of the time, I don't specifically mention Chicago unless it's AmEng or CanEng ... but this copyeditor is Canadian and seems to be trying to follow Canadian usage rather than Australian, so the comments were more directed at him. - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm just going to chime in here to agree with Nick. Use of "however" mid-sentence is not uncommon in British English and so I presume it would have similar use among the descendants of British convicts. ;) That's not to say that it's correct, though—I copy-edit by my own comprehension of English rather than by guides, and I certainly don't know every rule. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• World War I

• Paragraph 4, sentence 2: "At this time the Section comprised himself and four enlisted soldiers, and was located in London." Reflexive pronouns should only be used when the object of a sentence is the same as its subject, or to emphasize the subject of the sentence. This does neither.

Comma removed Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not what I had meant. The reflexive pronoun is himself. For the sentence to be correct, you must change it to him or say "At this time the Section comprised Treloar himself...". Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've removed 'himself' as the previous sentence already says that Treloar was the commander of the unit. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Paragraph 6, sentence 4: "While Bean was impressed by Treloar's achievements, he believed that the young man pushed himself too hard and was at risk of a breakdown." First Treloar pushed himself too hard, and then Bean believed it. Hence, the past perfect tense of "pushed" should be used: "had pushed".
  • Or, "was pushing". - Dank (push to talk)
    • Changed. This sentence is about Bean's views of Treloar only. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Establishing the War Memorial

• Paragraph 5, sentence 1: "Treloar typically worked for six days each week, and normally stayed until late at night." The action is habitual and in the past; therefore, the verbs should be conditional: "Treloar would typically work..."
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sentence 3: "Treloar also placed an emphasis on safeguarding the collection, and in 1933 personally investigated the theft of the German cruiser Emden's bell from the Memorial in Sydney when the New South Wales Police gave up; with his assistance it was recovered later that year." This is a rather long sentence, and give up is rather informal. In addition, first the police abandoned the search, and then Treloar began his investigation. The past perfect tense should be used: "...when the New South Wales Police had given up..."
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• World War II

• Paragraph 1, sentence 1: "Shortly before the outbreak of World War II Treloar wrote to the members of the AWM's board to propose that if another major war occurred the Memorial should suspend most of its activities and reorient its focus to become a memorial to all the wars in which Australia had taken part, rather than just World War I." This is a clear run-on sentence. It should be split.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sentence 3: "He further suggested that the Memorial building be used as a store and for government offices during the war and that its staff could establish a war records section similar to the AWRS." A comma should be used after war, and could is not necessary.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Paragraph 2, sentence 2: "In September 1939 he was appointed the inaugural secretary of the Department of Information (DOI) by his close friend Henry Gullett, who at the time was the Minister for Information." Add as after appointed. Also, the active voice may sound more natural: "In September 1939 his close friend Henry Gullet, who at the time was the Minister for Information, appointed him as the inaugural secretary of the Department of Information."
  • Disagree with 'as' (this reads awkwardly and doesn't add anything, and runs against the common usage for how Australian departmental secretary positions are described), but I've tweaked the sentence to the active voice Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sentence 4: "Treloar ran the department in line with traditional Australian Public Service procedures, which included implementing tight internal controls over the department's procedures and information dissemination functions as well as taking steps to stop its work from being politicised." "Prevent its work's politicisation" avoids any unnecessary use of present participles or prepositions.
  • I disagree - 'Prevent its work's politicisation' reads awkwardly. I've tweaked the sentence a bit though. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will "prevent the politicisation of its work" be alright? Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The change to this sentence left it with similar wording to what you suggest. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sentence 5: "He remained the departmental secretary after Gullett was moved to a different ministry in March 1940, but lost status when Keith Murdoch was appointed to the new position of Director-General of Information in June that year." Again, as is needed after remained. The necessary possessive pronoun "his" is missing before status, and of is required after June.

• I disagree with those suggestions - they would add complexity to the sentence and make it read awkwardly. Adding 'his' as suggested also changes the meaning of the sentence (Treloar's status was reduced, not destroyed). Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sentence 7: "Treloar was troubled by the use of the DOI's photographers to manufacture publicity photographs instead of taking images with historical value." There is a tense agreement issue between manufacture and taking.

• Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sentence 8: "Treloar regained full control of the DOI in December 1940 when Murdoch resigned, though the Department's photographers continued to mainly be tasked with taking publicity photos." To mainly be is a split infinitive and should not be used.
  • Chicago has given up on recommending against short split infinitives, but I did rewrite this. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Paragraph 3, sentence 6: "General Thomas Blamey, the commander of the AIF, later redesignated the War Records Section the Military History and Information Section (MHIS) as he felt that the original name did not adequately describe the unit's role." Again, the past perfect tense of feel should be used, because General Blamey had felt that way before he renamed the War Records Section.
  • But the feeling continued through the time of the renaming. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Changed to 'on the grounds that' Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sentence 7: "In contrast to the DOI's propaganda activities, the MHIS was focused on collecting records, images and items that would be useful to historians." As one part of the sentence contains its own commas, the first comma must be a semicolon.
  • Pardon? - Dank (push to talk)
    • I also don't understand what you're suggesting here Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The second half of the sentence contains its own comma in the list. When independent parts of the sentence have their own commas, a semicolon must be used to create a second level of divider. The first comma creates a comma splice. It should be a semicolon. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that I agree with that - the sentence seems to read OK and I can't see how a semi-colon would help. What wording do you suggest? Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Paragraph 4, sentence 1 needs a comma or two.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sentence 2: "While en-route to the Middle East he visited Malaya." The dash is not needed in en route.
  • Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
• Sentence 3: "Conditions in North Africa proved more challenging than those in World War I, however, as the combat was fast-moving and the Australian troops felt less motivation to collect artefacts than those of the First AIF." Again, however should not be in the middle of a sentence.
  • See above. - Dank (push to talk)
    • As above, this is a perfectly normal use of 'however' Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sentence 6: "During Treloar's absence from the AWM its main building was opened in November 1941 without him having had any input into the design of its galleries." Him comes before a present participle, so the sentence should read his having had.
  • I rewrote this. - Dank (push to talk)
• Paragraph 6, sentence 4 uses however in the middle of a sentence.
  • See above. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Ditto Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sentence 5: "This concerned Bean, who wrote an unanswered letter to Treloar in July 1943 offering to help organise for more items to be collected." Organise should be replaced with arrange; otherwise the sentence must be rephrased "...offering to help organise the collection of more items." Offering should also be replaced with and offered.
  • I didn't like "organise" either. "offering" is fine; it modifies "letter". - Dank (push to talk)
    • changed to 'offering to help organise the collection of more items', 'and offered' is incorrect as this is what was in Bean's letter, and not subsequent communication. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Up is not needed in paragraph 7, sentence 5.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Post-war

• Paragraph 1, sentence 2: "At the time he believed he was suffering from bad health, but wanted to resume his work at the Memorial rather than enter hospital." Use the past perfect tense of believe.
  • See above; the believing continues through to the time of the next action, so don't use the past perfect. - Dank (push to talk)
    • The proposed change doesn't read well to me Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Paragraph 2, sentence 1: "The main challenges for the Memorial in the post-war years were integrate the World War II collections with those from World War I and secure funding to expand its building." To is needed before integrate.
  • I went with "integrating". - Dank (push to talk)
    • That works for me Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Paragraph 4, sentence 1: "Treloar's work patterns took a toll on his health, and the deterioration in his performance after 1946 may have been the result of exhaustion." May have been is not correct. The past tense of may is might.
  • I prefer "may" here. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Ditto - 'might' reads oddly. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly correct. The past tense of may is might. You would never say something like can have been, but always could have been. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm in DC this weekend and don't have my books with me ... I'll see if I can find something for you when I get home. Off the top of my head, the problem is that "might" is the subjunctive as well as the past tense of "may", and I think most readers will hear it as subjuctive, which is not what I want. Thanks for your review btw. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I shall change it myself. If anyone dislikes it he may revert it. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it back as I think that it was a bit awkward. I've also changed the statement that the police 'abandoned' their investigated back to 'broke off' as this wording as more dramatic than what the source says ('abandoned' makes it sound like the police considered the investigation a totally lost cause, when the reference says that they "gave up the hunt"). Thanks for your other changes though. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

However awkward it may sound to you, it is correct. The past tense of may is might. The action happened in the past; therefore, might must be used. I do not perceive it as the subjunctive. Will some other people please share their opinions about may have been? Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Back home now, and Garner's agrees with me, on p. 529. (Garner's is an American usage guide, the one most often mentioned by American copy editors, but it does its best to stay true to its origin: Fowler's.) Quoting an example of bad usage in a newspaper headline: "Plane Might ([better is] "May") Have Stalled Before Crashing" ... (Might erroneously suggests the stall didn't happen; the probability is that it did.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence so there's no need for may/might, and this whole discussion is now useless. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Legacy

• Paragraph 1, sentence 1: "Following his death Treloar was praised for the personal sacrifices he had made to establish the AWM as well as for the high quality of the Memorial." A comma is needed here.
  • Either way. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been the review of a Grammar Nazi. Once all of these things are fixed, my vote will be Support! Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 03:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Again, thanks, we need more grammar nazis, particularly Canadians. On the points I didn't respond to, I'm fine with your suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually ... after seeing Nick's replies, I went too far with saying "I'm fine", I should have said "On the ones I didn't reply to: no comment". - Dank (push to talk) 11:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments

• In the lede, briefly tell us who Brudenell White is.
• No other comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done; thanks for your comment Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Media Review - Everything looks good, however all but one of the images have watermarks from the museum, they ought to be removed. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Carcharoth (talk)

I have a book on the Australian Historical Mission (Gallipoli Revisited - In the Footsteps of Charles Bean and the Australian Historical Mission, Janda Gooding, 2009). The author is from the AWM, so I'm assuming it is a reliable source. Treloar wasn't on this mission, but there are some brief mentions of Treloar listed in the index and a biographical note. Though the biographical note says that Treloar enlisted 27 August 1914, rather than 16 August 1914. Not sure why those dates are different. Also in this note is the service dates in Gallipoli from 25 April 1915 to 4 September 1915, the latter being a more specific departure date (the Wikipedia article is silent on this). The other mentions in this book that might be of interest (i.e. not already covered in the current version of this article) are:

His Army file states that he enlisted in the AIF on 16 August 1914. What page number is the date he was evacuated Gallipoli on? Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That date is from the biographical note, note 24 to chapter 1, given in the chapter endnotes at the back of the book. This particular note is on page 224. The exact wording is "served on Gallipoli with 1st AIF Division Head Quarters 25 April to 4 September 1915". But Gooding doesn't say where she gets that information from (there are various biographical bits throughout the notes of people mentioned in the book, but no sources for these biographical bits). Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, added. His official army file states that he was hospitalised on 29 August and evacuated to Egypt on 4 September. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look at that official file - you mean that imposing 137 page scan? Which of those pages did you find the hospitalisation dates on? There is some nice additional stuff there, but it is too primary to really use without interpretation by secondary sources (the latter being what you've done for what has been included). It was interesting to see the official issue stamps relating to the Victory Medal and other standard-issue medals from WWI. Hopefully some of those additional details will be teased out in any future biography of Treloar. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Page 131. The page numbers seem to be dynamic though as more has been added to the online record over the period in which this article has been developed, so I've used the name of the relevant document within the file as the reference per the normal way primary sources are referenced by historians. As you note, the only use I'm made of the file have been to add extra detail on topics covered in secondary sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• (1) In the context of the work of the AWRS subsection in Cairo: "Henry Gullett [...] arrived in October 1917 to take charge of the subsection [...] Throughout the war the program of the subsection continued to be monitored by John Treloar, head of the AWRS in London" (p.128). Now, in the article, you say "The AWRS established field offices in France and Egypt, and reached a strength of about 600 soldiers and civilians in November 1918." That seems to cover the same material, but the Wikipedia article fails to explicitly say what role is played by John Treloar in various aspects of the AWRS, and fails to mention Gullett at this point. What you probably need to make explicit is that you are giving an indication here of the size of the operation that Treloar commanded, and you should probably also mention Gullett here for the first time, as Gullett was corresponding with Treloar from at least at this time.
  • Added, though Gullet only held this position until August 1918 according to his Australian Dictionary of Biography entry Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• (2) In the context of the Australian Historical Mission, an example is given of the co-ordinating work Treloar did, with the landing of a party on the Gallipoli peninsula "to collect relics and make a photographic survey [being] prompted by a cable Treloar sent from London to Cairo on 25 November 1918 advising Gullett of Bean's plans to visit Gallipoli" (p.133).
  • I'm not sure what the particular significance of this is; he presumably sent similar telegrams to his other subordinates to inform them of new activities as a routine part of his job. The article states that the AWRS continued to expand its collections after the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It made me wonder who the other people were that worked with Treloar - who headed the Paris subsection, for example? I'm sure if you dig around, you will find details of some of the other people working in the AWRS at the time (and whether or not they have articles here). And then you have the contributors (photographers and artists). I've mentioned Wilkins already, and George Washington Lambert (war artist) is another one. To justify including them here, you have to see if there is any connection with Treloar (the minimum connection is that Treloar would have been involved with arranging museum displays of the material they produced). What I'd also be looking for is some more context for this statement you make: "Bean, Gullet and Treloar were subsequently the key figures in the establishment of the AWM". What were the respective roles they played both in Europe at the time of the AWRS, and back in Australia when the AWM was being established? You also say that Bean and Treloar were "not close" (which is fair enough), but then later say that Gullet by 1939 was "Treloar's close friend" (which is why I wanted to be clearer roughly when they first met). Also, the names of those he reported to in his various roles, as well as his subordinates, would help give some context, though I realise this may not be possible. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I haven't seen anything on this topic (despite lots of searches for references about Treloar), and I think that if this is available somewhere other than in official files it would probably be best suited to the article on the AWRS. Adding it here would cause the article to be overly weighted to a relatively small part of Treloar's life, and the text would resemble an organisation chart. The article already identifies the roles Bean and Gullett had during and after World War I (official war correspondent and official historian, and war correspondent, head of the AWRS' Cairo section and the initial director of the AWM respectively). I've added some extra details on Gullett's post-war roles. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Possibly you are right, though I was referring to his whole career, not just the WWI and AWRS bit. As for Gullett, is it not worth mentioning that he died in the [[1940 Canberra air disaster]? You already mention that Treloar's son died in 1943 (actually, he was missing in action presumed dead and the death was not confirmed until after the war, this seems an important distinction and was made by one of the sources I looked at - Condé 2007b). It just seems strange to say that Gullett was a "close friend" and appointed him to a government position, and then to not say anything about Gullett's death. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Added (though he was no longer Trelaor's minister at this time which is why I didn't originally include it). I've tweaked the details on his son. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• (3) The next mention (remembering that the book is about the Australian Historical Mission) is when they arrive back in Cairo in March 1919. The photographic glass plates they had exposed were to be printed before being taken back to Australia. There is a note about the photographs by Hubert Wilkins, saying that "at least two complete sets of his Gallipoli photographs were made by AWRS dark room staff in Cairo". One of these sets was taken back to Australia by Bean, the other set was "taken by Wilkins to London and handed over to John Treloar at the AWRS headquarters in Horseferry Road. It is not known what happened to this group of images." (p.182) Might be worth mentioning this in some way, and also mentioning Wilkins, and maybe even that the AWRS London headquarters were in Horseferry Road, though some of this might be too much detail.
  • I've added the Horseferry Road bit (this was also where the AIF's main administrative headquarters was located), but the bit about the photographs seems fairly unimportant so I haven't included it. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The Horseferry Road bit is actually not quite correct as you've used it in the article. A more accurate picture of the location history of the AWRS in London is given in another source, one that you've already used in the article. I'll give details of this below. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• (4) Final mention is in the context of the opening of the AWM: "The extensive First World War displays that Bean and John Treloar put in place for the Memorial's opening have gradually been reduced to make room for new exhibitions that cover the Second World War and more recent conflicts." (p.215) The preceding paragraph makes clear this is the 1941 opening, so the wording in the article "During Treloar's absence from the AWM its main building was opened in November 1941 without his input into the design of its galleries" seems to contradict the bit I've just quoted. Can this be double-checked in other sources?
  • That wording was a bit stronger than what the source actually stated; I've tweaked this and removed the inconsistency between the sources. I've also added a reference to some of the displays Treloar oversaw still being on display in the modern AWM. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• (5) One other point: do you know the approximate date or year when Treloar and his wife returned to Australia after World War I? I presume 1919, but it is not stated explicitly.
  • That's a good point; he returned on 18 July 1919. I've added this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all the comments I have for now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your comments and providing those references - they're much appreciated Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem. I've given the additional page reference you asked for above, but I'd still double-check this elsewhere if possible. Also, would he have reported directly to the AWM board? If so, do you have the names of any of those on that board? I looked up who succeeded him as director of the AWM, a Major J. J. McGrath. Not sure if that is worth including or not. There are also some interesting quotes in another book I have, Sacred Places - War Memorials in the Australian Landscape (Ken Inglis, 1998). I have the 2008 paperback edition. If you have that, look at the index - if you don't, let me know and I can e-mail you typed extracts, as the quotes are quite long. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, he reported directly to the board, who generally didn't bother him much - I've added this to the article. I have checked that book for references, but the material on Treloar was limited and didn't seem to add anything significant that wasn't already in the article. Is there anything in it which you think is worth adding? I've added some material on Treloar's successor and the state in which he found the Memorial. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The bit I thought relevant was on page 321-322, where Inglis briefly covers the reaction in 1921 of Treloar (and others supporting the AWM funding) to the proposal for an Australian equivalent of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (Inglis quotes from an address given by Treloar). At the time, it seems, it was feared this idea would compete with the AWM funding and proposals. In the end, an Australian Unknown Soldier memorial was established, but the date was 1993 and the location was the now long-established AWM. The bit on page 324 is interesting as well, where Inglis remarks on Australian Chivalry (1933), the AWM reproduction of works by Australian war artists, and quotes Treloar's stated intent for the book to "counteract the debased outlook in many recent war books". Inglis explicitly names some of these war books, including All Quiet on the Western Front and A Farewell to Arms, which, amazingly, had both been banned by the Australian government (the Lyons administration). Both those episodes shed some light on both Treloar and attitudes at the time. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I'll see if I can access a copy of this, though the second point sounds rather vague. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments by Carcharoth (talk)

Some more comments, after taking a closer look at the sources used and looking around to see what else maybe should be included. I started from the war artist I mentioned above (Lambert) and looked around to see what had been said about him and Treloar, and came across an excellent article all about Trelaor and war art commissioning, with examples of several of the war artists he worked with. It is already used in the Wikipedia article, but not for much. I've given details below.

• (1) The article is Condé, Anne-Marie (2007). "John Treloar, Official War Art and the Australian War Memorial". Australian Journal of Politics & History 53 (3): pp. 451–464. Over 13 pages of details, much of it relating directly to Treloar. It has a doi identifier (not currently in the Wikipedia article), and is available both here (paywall) and can also be accessed freely here (findarticles.com). The three main examples mentioned there are George Washington Lambert (who I already mentioned in my earlier comments) and Donald Friend and Nora Heysen. I was rather dismayed to find that this source is already used (as Condé 2007b) in the Wikipedia article on Treloar, but only to cite two sentences, neither mentioning the artists I've mentioned here. In my view, the above source (one of the few focusing on Treloar rather than mentioning him in passing) should be used here far more than it is currently, and I'm puzzled as to why what Condé has to say in that paper has been largely ignored in the Wikipedia article so far.
  • While interesting, the bulk of that article is unfortunately not very useful for the purpose of this article (I was quite disappointed when I first came across it). It's focused on case studies of Treloar's relationship with three of the many artists who worked for him over the years in his various jobs, and I can't see how much use can be made of this material without violating WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY. What details in that journal article were you "dismayed" (which seems a rather strong word!) weren't included in this article? I've several extra references from it, and some material on his relaxed relationship with artists, but the rest of it seems too specialised. It's worth noting that several other references go into detail on minor aspects of Treloar's career (for instance, the details of how he helped fix up the AIF's war diaries, his relationship with official photographers and - in all seriousness - his attitude towards the records generated by the AIF's field bakery units), but I've also not included these details on grounds of balance and WP:SUMMARY. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• (2) An earlier work Australian archival history, a first foray: the Commonwealth situation, 1927-1977, has something on Treloar, though only a couple of pages. Might be worth a look, though probably doesn't have anything later works already have.
  • Unfortunately that's a self published book, and so not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• (3) There is a nice vignette here, with some more on Treloar. It also mentions Syd Gullett (who was Henry Gullet's cousin - care needs to be taken to ensure that those two Gullets aren't being mixed up in some sources). That vignette says: "the handful of members of the original Australian War Records Section, gathered around John Treloar, with Syd Gullett on his motorbike, wearing the faded khaki of the AIF". Syd Gullett is also mentioned here.
  • I've already drawn on that as a source (Stanley 2001). I was aware of the two Gulletts, and they haven't been mixed up (I actually looked into creating an article on Sid Gullett a few years ago, but he didn't seem to meet WP:BIO). Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• (4) There is a "John Treloar Grant" (also called 'grant-in-aid') for research that is awarded by the AWM, though annoyingly they don't seem to document it anywhere online. If you can pin that down, it would be a nice addition to the legacy section.
  • Added. This grant scheme is now defunct. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• (5) The AWRS location bit needs to be checked (as I mentioned above). I pointed out a mention in Gooding (2009) of Horseferry Road, but a better source for this is Condé (2007): Imagining a collection. Creating Australia's Records of War. That article includes the following: "the Australian War Records Section has been formed, and is located at the Public Record Office, Chancery Lane, London W.C.2. [...] As a result of Treloar’s efforts in mid-1917, records started pouring into his two rooms at the PRO and later he moved the section to larger premises in Westminster, opposite AIF Administrative Headquarters in Horseferry Road." So the article needs correcting here to include the Public Record Office (as this source is already used in the article, somewhat surprised this error didn't get picked up by those who had read that source already).
  • Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• (6) Finally, there are other articles published by Condé that are probably worth looking at, particularly since the 'Imagining a collection' source (linked above) includes this: "Anne-Marie Condé has worked as a historian at the Australian War Memorial since 1993. She is writing a biography of John Treloar, long-time Director of the Memorial."

If that biography is eventually completed and published, it should help immensely with the rewrite and extension of Wikipedia's article on Treloar that will almost certainly be needed at that point. I've said in the past that if new biographies are planned or pending, then going for FA status can be seem a bit pointless. I realise that FAs can only ever be as comprehensive as the sources available at the time, but if this article attains FA status I hope there will be a commitment to carry out a future rewrite when needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Work on the biography was broken off in 2008 or 2009 when Condé moved jobs (see page 38 of the AWM's 2008-09 Annual Report). It goes without saying that it it's ever completed and published I'll draw on it to improve the article, and the same applies to other new works (note the use of a book published in 2011 which mentions Treloar's role in July 1916 :) ). I've just read through Condé's 2007 article 'War history on scraps of paper' in the journal Public History Review, but it wasn't useful (it mentions various plans Treloar had to put documents on display and unsuccessful projects to print reproductions of significant documents, but this seems pretty obscure for the purpose of this article, and the journal article's focus was on the AWM's use of documents over the years rather than Treloar). Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Apologies for not replying earlier. Got sidetracked a bit. I'm sorry to hear that work on the biography was broken off. You are right that 'dismayed' was too strong a word to use, but I thought some parts of that paper did have bits that could be used. I may try and quote some bits, but maybe others commenting here might have time to read it and give their opinions? This, in my view, is the core of what FAC discussions should be about. Not tidying up and polishing articles, but ensuring that use of the sources and the balance of an article, and decisions such as concluding that a particular source is largely not useful, all receive proper scrutiny, rather than being waved through. My view is that at a minimum the "art" article should go in a further reading section, as it contains much that would interest a reader wanting to read more. I know a link already exists in the references, but references and further reading play a different role - the former allows verification, the latter is for further reading. It is also helpful to identify which sources are suitable for further reading, as otherwise you are leaving the reader to fend for themselves when trying to decide which of the sources would make suitable reading if they want to read more. This is particularly important when you are discarding some sources for being "too detailed", but still using them briefly to reference a few sentences here and there. A further reading entry also has the advantage that you can annotate it with a brief description and link to the three artists mentioned. One more point: given that Lambert was one of the key AWM artists (it says this in the article), I think not mentioning him risks unbalancing the article by omission, though I accept your point that including too much strays into WP:UNDUE territory (though not as much as you might think - if the sources say a lot about Treloar and art, then the article should too). I'm not so sure why you have invoked WP:SUMMARY - what is the reason for mentioning that above? You think that source is better used in another article? A section in the AWM article on their art commissioning? Possibly. Hopefully it will get used for that at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Including a reference in both the references section and a 'further reading' section would probably violate WP:FURTHER, especially as the list of references for this article isn't large. More generally, the inclusion of 'further reading' sections in FAs is generally frowned on as the article is meant to draw on all the key works on the topic. I do get your point though; I just don't think there's a way of addressing it without people complaining about MOS problems. This article is about Treloar, and not the AWM's art program so I don't want to include too strong an emphasis on this; as well as the AWM article, we also have the Australian official war artists article where this topic would best be covered (and hopefully will be, as it's a very interesting topic). In regards to Lambert, Condé writes that her selection of the three artists she selected as case studies in her article was on the basis of them being quite different to Treloar, and not that they had a close relationship with the man (page 452), so emphasising their relationship seems unjustified. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
        • As this is an article on a relatively limited topic, you have a point, but you are wrong to say "More generally, the inclusion of 'further reading' sections in FAs is generally frowned on as the article is meant to draw on all the key works on the topic." You may be confusing further reading with 'See also', which indeed should be folded into the article wherever possible. Have a look through FAs and see how many have further reading sections. Byzantine Empire#Further reading is just one example among what I suspect are many. See also Guy Fawkes Night#Further reading. I am going to look into this further and add more examples of what I consider to be good further reading sections at WT:FAC. One more point, the content of a further reading is most not certainly a MOS issue. The only thing MOS would have to say about a further reading section is where it should be located and how it should be formatted. The presence and content of a further reading section is an authorial/editorial decision, not a copyediting decision. Having said that, I agree that the article in question is probably best used in the AWM and/or Australian war artist article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
          • • I would say it is nonsense that "the inclusion of 'further reading' sections in FAs is generally frowned on as the article is meant to draw on all the key works on the topic". For some narrower subjects it is reasonable to expect all key works to be used, but for others it is not, not to mention works in other languages etc. And there are very often going to be tangential works, as appears to be the case here. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Well, that's the message I got when I last nominated an article for FA status which included a further reading section. The journal article in question here has now been referenced seven times in the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [19].

---

Thurisind

Nominator(s): Aldux (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This biographical article is related with an article I brought here some time ago, Alboin, as the latter was Thurisind's son in arms; the topic, I'm afraid, may be considered quite esoteric as 6th-century barbarian kings don't seem to be all that popular, except with me. The good news is that differently from the Alboin article I've obtained lots of useful input during the peer reviews; in particular, following advice I had during the Alboin FAC and again during the peer review of this article, I inserted this time a section on the analysis of the relevant primary sources. Another thanks for the good people at the Guild of Copy Editors and also for the MILHIST A-class reviewers, who helped me see a number of slips hidden in the article. Aldux (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• When a source has two dates, be consistent in whether you use the old or new date (you're usually using the new one, but on one or two occasions the old)
• Pritsak 1982 or 1983?
• Check for small inconsistencies in punctuation like doubled periods
• Be consistent in how editors and volumes are punctuated
• What is CISAM? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I've detected the inconsistencies you were speaking of. As for what is CISAM, it's an acronym that stands for Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo (roughly translated "Italian Centre for Early Mediaeval Studies"). It's an academic foundation.Aldux (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Thurisind#First war with the Lombards. I commented on this one at the A-class review. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk)

• I moved a few things around in the first section, and now I don't see a good place to put "Thurisind (called Thorisin in Procopius)". In most of our history articles, different spellings by early writers aren't mentioned, but it may be that this detail is important, I don't know.
• I don't understand what "a rank that made him close to his heir apparent" means. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer: hope the rewording makes clearer what I mean with "a rank that made him close to his heir apparent". Regarding Thorisin, I agree that it's not all that important, so you did fine by removing it.Aldux (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem ... what does "close to the king's heir apparent" mean? Physically close? - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It just means that Thurisind by appointing his son Turismod governor of Sirmium placed him in a position that made Turismod heir to his father's throne. In other words, first in line of succession. I'll try to rewrite it.Aldux (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that works. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I always enjoy these, although (or perhaps because) it's not my area of expertise. Following a few minor copyedits, happy with prose, structure, and detail, just need to come back to check refs and supporting materials when I get a chance.

• In the meantime, one thing: I don't think there's much value in linking Gepids in the infobox title, the blue shows up poorly against the burgundy background. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Re. supporting materials, I'll await responses/actions re. Nikki's comments below.
• Re. referencing, I've tried spot-checking using two online sources, Bona and O'Donnell. The latter came up fine, showing no sign of close paraphrasing or misreporting the source's information, however I didn't progress with Bona because there seems to be a contradiction in the page references, i.e. p. 19 is given for citation 13, but pp. 137–331 is given in the reference entry -- in any case the online version doesn't seem to use page numbers so unsure of where I'm supposed to be looking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, sorry for the late answer but I've only now reached my computer. As for Boná, I believe there is a misunderstanding here: I used two works of his, of which the most used in the article is Boná's A l'aube du Moyen Age: Gépides et Lombards dans le bassin des Carpates, printed in 1976, (in the footnotes this is "Boná 1976", used for citations 13, 21, 30, 35, 50, 58, 59, 60), and this one isn't available online; the second instead is the online book printed in 2001, that is "Boná 2001", used for citations 16, 32, 39, 55. The page numbers in the webpage are really really tiny so it's very easy to miss them; anyways, here are the relevant webpages: [20], [21], [22].Aldux (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long to respond to this, just busy. Heh, don't know how I missed the other Bona ref -- anyway, spotchecks fine based on what online refs there are, so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

• File:Hanoverae_MDCCCLXXVII_simply_Hangover_1878.PNG needs a non-Wikipedia source.
  • Done.
• File:Gepid_kingdom_6th_century.png: on what source and base map or data set was this image based?
  • I'm a bit confused here. I'm not author of the map but it's heavily sourced, including many historical atlases, all listed, and they are in line with my historical atlases, so could you explain to me more precisely the nature of the problem, please?
• File:Roman_Empire_Map.png: ditto. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the last map you asked about, it's base map, if I understand correctly what you mean, is [23]. But if further sourcing for the specific map is needed I've added a source which has the empire in exactly the borders shown there and those of pannonia also. Hope it's OK now.Aldux (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on the prose, which flows well and makes for an interesting read. ceranthor 03:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, with minor comments:

• "Thurisind's kingdom, also known as Gepidia". Given this is the first mention of Gepidia.
• "was succeeded by his only remaining son". Assuming there were just two.
• "Both of these works mention Thurisind and the third Lombard–Gepid war, which represents the only overlap between the Historia Langobardorum and the Historia Romana." represent, surely (although I could be wrong).
• "who cut short the former's expansion into the Danubian plains". Cleaner as "who cut short their expansion into the Danubian plains" (and without losing clarity).
• "who in their turn asked for help from the allied Crimean Tetraxites."
• Given "the Kurigurs were forced to leave the Balkans to defend their homes", it might be worth saying where they were from (the north-western shore of the Black Sea).
• With the quote box from Procopius, I believe you should begin the quote with ellipsis if it is begun mid-sentence.
• "with hopes of dealing with the Goths once and for all". Perhaps would work better as "with hopes of finally defeating the Goths".
• "in the end, only a force under Amalafrid reached the battlefield."
• "with no less than 60,000 warriors killed." fewer.
• "After the battle, the Gepids were never again able to play a formative role in the shaping of future events." Historical bias aside, it's hard to play a role in the shaping of past events.
• "under him Thurisind's people were once and for all annihilated in 567" (or use finally instead).
• Clarify that Rosamund was the daughter of Cunimund, not Thurisind.

Overall, solid history writing. The only thing which may be worth considering is diagrams to help explain those wars; all those different armies can be quite hard to follow in text! Apterygial ^talk 11:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful reading of the article; I think I've now answered to the issues you've rised. Thanks again, Aldux (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaning support, still without spotchecks and with further comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Mention something about Early sources section in the lead?
• "the other 6th century source" - as it's an adjective here, should be "6th-century". Check hyphen/dash use throughout (in general, more are needed)
• Gepid-Lombard or Lombard-Gepid, war or War? Check for internal consistency
• "an event which is absent in Procopius' writing and is thought to have originated through oral tradition" - the event didn't originate through oral tradition, though the story of it may have
• Wikilink unfamiliar terms on first occurrence in article body - for instance, Lombards should be linked in Early sources, not Rise to power
• "Thurisind's rise to power is a typical example of..." - would suggest broad statements like this have in-text attribution, as in "According to x, Thurisind's rise to power..."
• "To contain these obstacles Thurisind made Turismod, his oldest son, commander of the Gepid forces in Sirmium, an important position that made Turismod the king's heir apparent." - we might need a bit more explanation here, as to many non-specialist readers it would make perfect sense for the oldest son to be the heir apparent even if he wasn't the commander of anything.
• What is considered the Pannonian Basin?
• "the only one providing independent evidence of the king, accounts of Justinian's wars, and a detailed account of the relations between Gepids and Lombards and their kings is De Bellis", but later "According to the contemporary Procopius in the De Bello Gothico" - this seems contradictory, am I missing something?
• "An obstacle that Thurisind had to overcome to reach a complete peace was represented by Ildigis, who had found hospitality at Thurisind's court." - phrasing is somewhat awkward
• Odd tense shift in Peace: Alboin went to Thurisind, but Thurisind receives him. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have answered the issues, even if I must admit I was a bit hard pressed on how to explain that in the early middle ages the successor even in the family was not necesarily the eldest king, as I was bit afraid to derail. I'm reluctant, I must admit, to speak of the early sources in the lead, as observing Mike Christie's Anglo-Saxon FAs (who are built with a similar early sources section) the sources are generally not discussed in the lead and I would personally prefer to leave it (the lead that is) to the historical narrative.Aldux (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Has a spotcheck of the sources been done? Ucucha (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ian spotchecked the refs available online, above. There were no spotchecks during the A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, I missed Ian's check. Thanks for the quick reply. Ucucha (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [24].

---

Thomas the Slav

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas the Slav's revolt is one of the most complex, controversial and fascinating stories of 9th-century Byzantium. After passing a thorough WPMILHIST ACR and a copyedit at the hands of Diannaa, I am confident that the article is ready to be considered for FA status. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how "cf." is notated
• Are OCLCs available for the sources that don't currently have them? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Both issues fixed. Constantine ✍ 15:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Have reread through it and it has greatly improved. The outstanding issues I had below have been rectified. (Sorry about the delay, Real Life has been kicking my butt lately...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not quite ready to support. Besides the issues I've raised below, I found the text somewhat chunky and full of redundant phrasing. Frankly, it read a lot like a late Victorian history to me (especially Bury's work on the later Roman Emprire or his other works) and would definitely benefit from some more copyediting to improve the flow of the text and to find places where the non-specialist (heck, the non-historian) would be confused. I'm a bit too familiar with the time frame to be able to comment on what would be confusing to someone who knows nothing about Byzantine history.

• General - you need to explain the "historian" abbreviations. Most folks aren't going to understand what "ca." or "r." is an abbreviation for. Double check the whole article for things like that.
• Lead:
  • "...Thomas rose in prominence under the protection..." generally it's "rose TO prominence"...
  • "Byzantine accounts also claim that he pretended to be Emperor Constantine VI (r. 780–797), but the validity of this report is questionable..." are these the same accounts as the ones in the previous sentence?
  • "Thomas's rebellion was one of the largest throughout the Empire's history,.." Wouldn't "Thomas's rebellion was one of the largest in the Empire's history,.." read better?
• Early life:
  • Who is Theophanes Continuatus and why do we care what he thinks? Same for Genesios? I know you have linked the things, but you really don't want folks to click through for simple context.
  • Patrician's are basically noblemen, right? Suggest adding a quickie explanation.
  • "In the second account, he came to .." wouldn't this be better to explicitly state that it's Theophanes' account?
  • "The second version is explicitly preferred by Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus..." how can the second be preffered by Genesios when his account is the first account????
  • "Others think that he remained in the Empire—and perhaps even remained in active service—but his association with Bardanes certainly hampered his career." First, who are these others? Second, the last phrase - does that mean that these "others" feel that it hampered his career or that all historians think it hampered his career?
  • Quickie explanation for Excubitors??? (I know what they are, but your readers likely won't.) Same for Feoderati? Links aren't enough - because you run the risk of losing your reader to the linked article if you don't at least give some context. Also for "themes"...
• Background:
  • Explain who Louis the Pious is?
  • Likewise .. you say "the hagiographic vitae" but you haven't referred to the hagiography as a "vitae" before. I know what is meant but most readers won't.
  • "Byzantine accounts of Thomas's rebellion also state that he did not in fact claim the throne as himself..." awkward. Suggest "Byzantine accounts of Thomas's rebellion also state that he did not in fact claim the throne for himself..."
  • "It is also possible that Thomas chose to be crowned under the name of Constantine." what does this have to do with the surrounding text? It's dropped in and not connected to the rest of the paragraph, so the reader is left confused.
  • Need an explanation of "iconoclasm" and "iconophiles"
• Outbreak:
  • "Although junior to the theme's strategos, his proclamation does not appear to have been opposed by anyone..." We've had a long explanation of causes/supporters, and other verbiage since the "proclaimation" ... suggest that you explicitly state that the proclamation is of Thomas assuming the throne here also.
  • Need a link and an explanation for "strategos"... you linked monostrategos earlier, but not "strategos".
• Seige:
  • Link for Theodosian land walls?
• Legacy:
  • "...by consideration of policy and the sheer number of people involved, Michael was compelled..." this sentence is confusing to me... consideration of WHAT policy?
  • "....citing other reasons." What other reasons? Who holds the traditional view? Who holds this newer view?
• Overall:
  • I think the article would benefit from a copyedit by someone who is motivated to remove some of the "flourishes" and other extraneous words in the text. Also with an eye to making sure that all opinion is attributed in the text. As an example "Michael blockaded these cities, but did not actively assault them, instead aiming to capture them peacefully by wearing their defenders out. In this, he was motivated by the political expedient of not needlessly "shedding Christian blood", but also, according to the chroniclers, for fear of demonstrating to the Bulgarians that the Byzantine cities' fortifications could fall to attack." Who says that Michael's aim was to avoid the shedding of blood? Is this a modern interpretation or one of the medieval writers? Another "In this way the great rebellion of Thomas the Slav ended,..." The "in this way the great rebellion" is unneccessary for the first part and an opinion on the second...

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough - as usual - review! I am beginning to address your issues one by one. I generally agree with your points, except perhaps for a couple. I'll enumerate the major issues as I go along:

1. I've made some alterations in the background story section. I realized from your comments that it seemed as if Genesios and Th. Cont. presented a different story each, when in reality they both reported the same two versions. Both of them explicitly prefer the second, which is dismissed post Lemerle as imperial propaganda, against the first, which is nowadays considered closer to the actual events. I hope this issue has been clarified.
2. I don't think an explanation on the Excubitors or the Foederati is required or even useful. It is stated that the first was an elite regiment and the latter an army division. An explanation of their names would take us back to late antiquity, and derail the article. In this case, if a reader is interested, he'll click the link. Otherwise he'll understand that it's about two military units, which is sufficient for this article. Constantine ✍ 09:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
3. The link for the city walls in general covers the Theodosian land walls. Constantine ✍ 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
4. I've expanded on the "other reasons" for the Arab successes in the 820s. Treadgold is about the only one who treats the question in some detail, but his general thrust is reflected by others as well (Whittow for instance), although not in as many words. Constantine ✍ 12:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
5. I think the individual points you've raised have been dealt with, please check them and let me know if further clarification is needed. On the general copyedit, I'd be happy to accept the services of anyone willing to do so. Personally, I have nothing against "late Victorian" prose as long as its facts are accurate and there is no moralizing. I find Bury's style rather engaging, but these are matters of personal preference. I understand that clarity for the non-expert must be the focus, and I have re-submitted the article to GOCE. If you have time to go over it and make any changes or proposals that you see fit, that would also be great, for I am indeed too familiar with the subject to easily detect such flaws. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Review All checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Note to delegate: I can't speak to comprehensiveness, so this support is on the non-content-related criteria. I did some minor spot checks and found no problems but I have little access to the sources so there wasn't much I could check. Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

• The second paragraph of "Early life and career" was confusing to me. I first thought that Genesios and the Theophanes Continuatus differed in their accounts of Thomas's early life; but then you list a "first account" and a "second version", and then say the second version is preferred by both Genesios and the Theophanes Continuatus. After puzzling over this I decided you meant that each source gives both versions and prefers the second, but I think this needs to be clearer. What you have ("Both X and Y record two accounts") is quite accurate but since it's not what the reader expects I think you need to be painfully clear.

  You now have "Two different accounts of Thomas's life are recounted in both Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus." This is suffiicient, and I'm OK if you want to leave it at that, but it confused me so much that I think it wouldn't hurt to be even clearer. How about: "Two conflicting accounts of Thomas's life have survived. Both of the main sources, Genesios and 'Theophanes Continuatus', give both versions of his life ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I made a change in the lead from "province (theme)" to "theme (province)", on the basis that the word to be used later in the article should be the word outside the parentheses. I see now that you've adopted the same style with other words such as tagma and spatharios, so I've reverted my change. I'd suggest reversing the order you have; it might be just a stylistic preference, but I think the order I'm suggesting is more natural for a reader new to the material.
• "Bardanes Tourkos, then the overall commander": how about cutting "then"? As it stands I first read this to mean that Thomas subsequently becames the overall commander; I don't think the specificity of time given by "then" is necessary here.
• "the hagiographic Lives": this is apparently a primary source but just what it is doesn't appear to be clarified anywhere.
• "purport that Thomas had risen up": I don't think you mean "purport", which as a verb carries implications of a specious claim to objectivity.
• "who had been and murdered by his mother": some editing debris here?
• Why does "Michael II's conciliatory approach during his early reign ... speak against any open commitment to icon worship"?
• "Thomas's claim to be Constantine VI, if true": I think this needs to be rephrased. I know what you intend it to mean, but as it stands "if true" means "if the claim is true", not "if he made that claim".
• The map of Anatolian themes is very helpful; I did notice that the spelling of Arkadiopolis is given differently in the map than in the article. Which is right?
• Second paragraph of "Outbreak and spread of war in Asia Minor" has two "however"s in fairly quick succession.
• You say Michael began by attacking Thomas, but then Thomas responds by defeating the Armeniac army -- presumably this was independent of Michael's attack, so what became of Michael's attack?
• The caption to the Asia Minor map refers to "Thrace" as opposed to Asia Minor; I think Asia Minor is a common enough term that it needs no further explanation, but Thrace needs at least a link. Better would be an explanatory note or an alternative description.
• "Constantius was soon replaced by another obscure individual": did Anastasius become co-emperor as well? If so I'd make this "soon replaced as co-emperor".

  I see you've done this, but I now see that Anastasius is later referred to as Thomas's adopted son -- perhaps that should be mentioned to, so that the later reference is not surprising?

• The start of the Siege of Constantinople section refers to the European themes by name, and then as "European themes". It's not obvious to a reader unfamiliar with the subject matter that these are the same; particularly as these themes have not been named before. The map helps a good deal but I'd rather the reader wasn't required to search it to understand the text.

• The change you've made is sufficient, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Could a scale in miles/km be added to the Asia Minor map? When you say Thomas camped 40 miles west of Constantinople I realized I couldn't confidently say where that would be on the map.
• "to arrange a relief attempt with Anastasius": do you mean "to arrange a relief attempt by Anastasius"; that is, that Anastasius would bring men to lift the siege? If so I think "by" would be clearer.
• " the most defeating obstacles": "defeating" makes an ugly adjective. How about "important" or perhaps "conclusive", or rephrase to say that the walls determined the outcome more than any other factor?

  OK, but shouldn't that now be "was", not "were"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

-- I checked a couple of citations to Bury online, and found no problems with close paraphrasing, but I don't have access to the other sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is in great shape. I expect to support when the remaining minor points above are cleared up; the scale on the map isn't a prerequisite for support, though I do think it would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! On your specific points:

• I've rewritten this, hopefully it is clearer now.
• I initially felt it would be better if the technical term was introduced in a parenthesis, but I see your point. I've changed them all.
• Removed "then".
• Removed the "Lives" bit. From comments by others it seems this is confusing, so I've changed it simply to "hagiographic sources".
• Fixed, I think.
• Indeed, fixed. Nice catch!
• Well, this simply means that the iconoclast/iconophile divide was not very pronounced during Michael's early reign. He had well-known iconoclast sympathies, but did not yet make iconoclasm official policy like his son Theophilos or predecessors like Leo III and Constantine V. Modern scholars by and large discount the icon issue as a factor in Thomas's revolt precisely because it was not such a divisive issue at the time. I've expanded upon this, using the PmbZ resume as a guide.
• Removed "if true". It reads better and is less confusing.
• "Arkadiopolis" reflects the transliterated Greek name, "Arcadiopolis" is the Latin name. Both are equally valid. To avoid confusion, I've converted to the Latin form in the article
• Rephrased and eliminated both howevers.
• Clarified it, Michael ordered the Armeniacs to attack Thomas.
• Added links to both, and clarified Asia Minor (which, in my experience, is no longer quite as familiar).
• Done.
• Hmmm, this refers to the European themes in general, not only Macedonia and Thrace. That means Hellas, the Peloponnese and Nicopolis as well. I've added a clarification, but I am not sure if it is enough. I remain open to suggestions.
• Working on it.
• Hmmm, alright.
• I didn't like it either. Changed to "decisive".

Any other suggestions? Constantine ✍ 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've struck some points and will strike more or respond, as necessary, but I wonder if you'd mind placing any further responses in line after my points above? I'm going a bit cross-eyed going back and forth between your list and mine trying to figure out which reply is to what. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the way I replied, but usually when I respond after each individual point the process becomes a total mess thereafter and oversight is completely lost. Anyhow, I've added the adoption for Anastasius. On the obstacle, since the object (the walls of Constantinople) is a plural, isn't "were" correct? I'll probably finish the map over the weekend, but I probably won't have time to post it or anything else over the next two to three days. Make any changes you see fit, I'll check them on Monday or Tuesday. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re was/were: if you make it "obstacles" it would be "were", but if you have "obstacle" it should be "was". "Obstacles" seems slightly more natural because then the number agrees with "walls", as you say, but I think you could get away with it as a singular "obstacle" with "walls" if you want -- the array of possible obstacles you are conjuring in the reader's mind is "poor fleet performance", "Bulgarian offensive", "walls of Constantinople" -- making "obstacles" plural in the sentence you have implies the list is more like "fleet performance", "Bulgarian offensive", "wall 1 of Constantinople", "wall 2 of Constantinople", "wall 3 of Constantinople", etc. Or you could recast the sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed "obstacle were the walls" to "obstacles were the walls". - Dank (push to talk) 22:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was close enough anyway, but your edit reminded me to switch to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think I'm ready to start insisting on in-text attribution for all quotes and for text that feels like opinion (which of course allows for wiggle room), since Chicago Chap. 13 requires it, and usually, some reviewer at FAC (Ealdgyth in this case) will ask for it. I've only found a handful of writers of history articles that prefer the non-attributed style. The argument that "all you have to do is click" often falls apart ... for instance, for the quote that isn't attributed in the last paragraph of the lead, how can we tell who said it when it's cited to an encyclopedia? - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that I'm dealing with all the things other reviewers see as "flourishes", but one thing I suggest is that you keep "spatharios (staff officer)" at first mention and use "staff officer" rather than the Greek word after that, and similarly for the other titles. "Staff officer" won't be unclear to people who know Greek military terms after you've put it next to spatharios, but the Greek term is going to be unfamiliar to almost all your readers, and they're going to have to keep hunting through the article for definitions.
• "made themselves into a brotherhood": I don't know what that means; they started a crime syndicate?
• You have a bunch of AmEng "-ize" endings in what is probably a BritEng article. If you're more comfortable with "-ize" endings and "-our" endings, then you've been reading Canadian English, which is fine ... Canadian English is consistent with Chicago and has a lot to recommend it, but if you're going that way, it would help to specify that at the top of the talk page. And ... of course, whatever English variant you use, be consistent.
• "conversion to an iconophile champion": Who was the champion?
• "the Armenians might have in part been motivated by revenge ...": the Armenians might have been motivated in part by revenge.
• I made it down to Outbreak and spread of the revolt in Asia Minor. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the copyedits! I'll answer your points one by one:

• I had explicitly written that this was a description taken from the ODB, with the authors listed in the reference. A copyeditor then removed it. I'll reinstate it.
• Here I disagree. The definitions provided are an approximation, while the actual titles and technical terms are IMO always preferable. I don't think that dumbing down or eliminating all non-English elements (which boils down to the same) from an article is a correct approach. I am sure the average reader doesn't even need to know what a spatharios is to read and understand the article.
• Again, a result of copyediting, I rewrote it
• AFAIK, "-ize" is perfectly acceptable in BritEng too, per Oxford spelling
• Rewrote the relevant sentence to clarify it

Looking forward to the complete review. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's as much as I had time for, and there was a recent conversation at WT:FAC where reviewers suggested I shouldn't say "support for half" any more at FAC (although I sometimes do at A-class review). Hopefully the work I've done will make it easier for someone else to finish up. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article quite thoroughly during the MILHIST ACR so there isn't much I can add, but first of all I must disclose that I currently have myself an article up to FAC and that I'm here also because solicited by Constantine, that rightly feared this article may fail for insufficient input. As further disclaimer, I must add that I'm not solid enough in the English language to jude of the "brilliant prose", criterion, even if I can say that it seems to go down fine with me. What I can best judge is the adherence to the sources and the balance, and I must say that those few issues I previously had have already been put in order. I'll just add that I tend to agree concerning his second point in answer to Ealdgyth: dealing with these sort of articles I have to agree that it's problematic to well explain the nature of specific administrative of military entities without losing sight of the article.Aldux (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:05, 23 August 2011 [25].

---

Ferugliotheriidae

Nominator(s): Ucucha 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

When the dinosaurs were around, mammals weren't just little insect-eating critters in the shadow of the big guys. Sudamericids already evolved the high-crowned teeth characteristic of herbivores, and the subject of this article is a poorly known group that has been key to figuring out the affinities of the sudamericids. I have written GAs about all the members of this group and about several of the sudamericids as part of an effort to document this early and interesting group of mammals. Thanks to Visionholder for conducting the GA review on this article and thanks in advance to anyone reviewing at FAC. Ucucha 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why are there two Literature entries for Gurovich 2008 and Rougier et al 2009?
  • Removed the duplicates. Ucucha 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Don't include number of pages in Literature cited entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Why not? Ucucha 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No particular reason, it just seems unnecessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I think common practice in biology is to include them. Ucucha 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image Review - ha ha ha, just kidding. In all seriousness though, are there any artist conceptions around, something to allow for readers to wrap their heads around this thing? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No, for two reasons: there just isn't enough interest in these guys to make artists' conceptions likely to appear; and twenty teeth and a tiny piece of jaw just aren't enough to get a good idea of what the animals actually looked like. Most likely, ferugliotheriids were just little mouselike animals, but for all we know they could have been gliders. Ucucha 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Support, with nitpicks and the caveat that I know nothing about the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "or as a group of uncertain affinities" - does this refer to Gondwanatheres or Multituberculata?
  • The former; clarified. Ucucha 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Some overlinking - for example, Late Cretaceous twice in lead
  • Removed that one and a couple of others. Ucucha 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Most are referred to Ferugliotherium" - as written "most" seems to refer to "ferugliotheriids", but I think you mean the teeth?
  • Yes, clarified. Ucucha 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• What is "procument"? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That should have been procumbent, i.e., pointing forward. Not sure whether that's an uncommon enough word to need explanation. Thanks for the review and support. Ucucha 14:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - One minor niggle. What are "transverse crests" and "transverse furrows"? Also, why is cusp linked in the article, but not in the lead? The article does a great job of making technical terms more accessible, in addition to being well-written and as far as I can discern, comprehensive. ceranthor 22:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I've linked cusp. Transverse means from side to side; the cusps on the sides of the tooth are linked by these crests, and furrows separate the cusps and crests from the cusps and crests before and behind them. What do you think is needed as explanation? I could perhaps add a link to wikt:transverse. Ucucha 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I meant the crests and furrows, not transverse. Perhaps it could be useful to include an explanation or link in the article, but it's certainly not a deal breaker. ceranthor 22:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - you know the drill. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

They coexisted with mammals such as dryolestoid and a variety of other animals. - dryolestoid looks weird here in adjectival form. Did you mean "dryolestoids"? Also links to redirect to Dryolestoidea rather than directly there

Fixed the plural issue; there's nothing wrong with linking to a redirect. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

".. a variety of other animals - well, er, yeah. I think that can be said of just about any ecosystem anywhere. I understand removing it makes the sentence really stubby but it is nebulous as is. Is there any material to further define it?

Dinosaurs... I've added a few words to that effect. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking good otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and apologies for the long delay in responding; I must have totally forgotten about them. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Typical high standard; minor quibbles below. Sasata (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• The link to multituberculate redirects to Multituberculata, already linked (not sure if this is intentional)
  • Link removed. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• link authority in taxobox?
  • Yes. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• link/gloss for procumbent?
  • Linked. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• "… contain a restricted band of enamel" without the context that comes later in the article, the adjective "restricted" is somewhat puzzling to me
  • Reworded. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• I notice that "million years ago" is consistently spelled out rather than used an abbreviation (mya), any reason for this?
  • Abbreviated. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• there are some who claim that the construct "and/or" should be avoided
  • I can't think of a suitable rewording here. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• I spot-checked citations from Goin et al. 2004, Vucetich et al. 2010, and several in Krause et al. 1992; no issues with close paraphrasing or other were evident.
  • Thanks for the check, and for the review in general. Ucucha (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [26].

---

Final Fantasy XIII

Nominator(s): Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC), PresN 20:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently a good article. This article has failed an FA nomination once, but I am doing this again with PresN because we feel that this article is in top condition for FA status. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Co-nom here! In the last FAC a few months ago, we got some good supports and kind words, but the thing was scuppered as we weren't using the Ultimania books for the game as sources, which contained Japanese interviews relating to the development. Since then, I've spent dozens and dozens of hours semi-manually ocr-ing and translating the text, and they're now extensively used as sources, expanding the development section in size. Everything else should be in roughly the same shape as the previous FAC (I did a manual check on that), and we should be good to go for take 2! --PresN 20:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Oh right, I'm also in the Wikicup, if you care. --PresN 21:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 1: pages? Also, English-language sources don't need their language specified

Ref has been removed; all Final Fantasy articles just got reverted to just list Square Enix in the infobox, rather than the specific team. --PresN 20:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• All foreign-language sources should be identified as such

Done. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 106: pages?

Done. --PresN 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 116: missing info?

• Famitsu doesn't list authors for reader polls, and I can't get the page number as the links to the scans of that issue have died. --PresN 20:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Videogamer.com - Owned by Pro-G Media. Provides content for Virgin Media.[27] Full-time staff includes industry veterans.[28][29] Wesley Yin-Poole, the author of that piece, is a full-time writer for the site and has previously written for the RS Eurogamer.
• Square Enix Music Online - Provides dozens and dozens of interviews with game composers, as well has hundreds of album reviews. Their news reports have been picked up by various reliable sources (Kotaku 1, Kotaku 2, Joystiq, Edge).
• OnlineWelten and Mundogamers- replaced with VG247 - Listed as the 3rd best gaming blog by CNET, who praised them saying "the writing is excellent, and it covers all the important news with a twist of humour."[30] The site won the Game Media Awards 2009's Best Blog Award [31] and was nominated once again in the category in 2010.[32] The site was co-founded by Patrick Garett and Eurogamer (which is a reliable source). Patrick Garett won at the Games Media Awards 2009, Best Specialist Writer, Online and Games Media Legend.[33] In addition he had previously worked with Eurogamer, GamesIndustry.biz, CVG, Xbox World and others as a journalist, editor and publisher. [34] Other site staff include Stephany Nunneley who was a former Gaming Today (on FileFront) writer and 1UP.com contributor,[35] As well as Nathan Grayson who has written articles for Maximum PC and The Escapist. [36]
• Siliconera - used as a source by 1UP.com1 1UP.com2 1UP.com3, Kotaku, Shack News1 Shack News2, Eurogamer, Arstechnica. I had something else written down about them, but I can't find it right now.
• --PresN 21:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - File:Final Fantasy XIII battle.png isn't a good illustration of what it's trying to illustrate. I played this game, so I know what to be looking for in that screenshot, and it's not there. The segmented bars are not displayed in this shot, and they really should be. That or the paradigm shift drop down should be open. For the sake of discussion, despite the size issues, I find both of the previous versions of the image under this name show off the combat featured better, although both are visually cluttered, and therefore I'd look elsewhere for a new version. Additionally, the images are not actually loading on the site listed as the source, which is mildly problematic. Everything else checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I found an image on the official site that has the battle UI better displayed. I also upgraded the rationale while I was at it. --PresN 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Good choice, that image is much better than the one that we started with. I resized the new image and slapped a furd template on it (which will call an admin to clean out the old versions in 7 days). Go team. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• What ho, I'm an administrator! Consider the old versions deleted. --PresN 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Still don't know why "easy" mode for the international release you don't find out about in gameplay section where one would expect gameplay info like that to be. Gameplay isn't about 1 specific release and its not like the International version is a remake getting its own section. It's just a different version of the same game (like a US version vs. Japanese). When that happens for other games, all the info is listed in gameplay and explained that it may only appear in certain versions.

• Done. --PresN 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• It comes with a bonus booklet...an epilogue chapter titled Final Fantasy XIII Episode I" - is the epilogue part of the booklet or part of the game. The sentence doesn't make it clear.

• Changed "epilogue chapter" to "short story epilogue". --PresN 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think the story's reception should be split apart as it takes up huge chunk of the reception. The reception on the story alone constitutes almost half of it.陣内_Jinnai 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• By story I assume you don't mean the plot, but mean the linearity? While the reception section is long, that was the main criticism, so in effect I'd be spliting the reception section into two subsection- praise and criticism. Everything else is a paragraph or less. That's fine, but I've never seen any other VG articles do it, so I want to make sure that's what you meant- add a subsection split for the last three paragraphs before "Legacy". --PresN 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yea, but the criticism is so concentrated and got a detailed response from the developers. Also most other VG reception tends to be either decidedly pro, anti or unclear enough that one single aspect doesn't get so much detailed criticism or praise or its too short to split out. I know VG articles tend not to have subsections for reviews, but given the length and the way its handled already it would be beneficial; after all its not like there are any FA VG articles that had such specific criticisms and responses (defense) by the developers.陣内_Jinnai 00:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, done. --PresN 18:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I'm impressed with the quality of work in this article. Great job guys; my only suggestion is too bunch up some awkward paragraphing in reception areas, so its not so spread out. Aside from that, it reads pretty well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Use the "deadurl = no" parameter of the various citation templates if you have archive the ref but the original is still active. –Drilnoth (T/C) 00:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done. --PresN 23:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not played the game (in fact, any of FF games), so this review will be your "general reader". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The game introduced a few innovations to the series" -- this assumes the reader is familiar with what are the features of the previous games. Surely, mentioning the game is 3rd person, uses ATB, and such is more important than new features.
• "As of May 2010, the game sold 5.5 million copies worldwide." -- may be better "has sold" verb tense.
• "Each action requires a specific number of slots on the ATB bar" -- action? Is the referring to "Under this system, the player selects a command from the menus, such as Attack, Magic, and Item."? It should be consistent, especially since it says "Actions cannot be performed outside of battle".
• "When enemies are struck by attacks or spells their chain counter increases." - first mention of "chain counter" without explaining what it is. I can sort of infer this from the next 3 sentences, but the paragraph should start by introducing it properly, for example. "Each enemy has a [what?] called chain counter, which increases as the player characters attack them." I cannot really give a good example, as I'm not sure what it is, except that it is some specialized "combo bar".
• "These summoned creatures include" -- "summoned creatures" was linked in lead, but is not here.
• "Square moved the game to the PlayStation 3" -- Square? Is it OK to refer to a company by half-name? Also, as the first mention since lead, it should be wikilinked.
• "were more Asian inspired" -- inspired by Asians? Like big manga/anime swords and such? Asian culture/appearance/film/terrain? Or is this so broad, it's just easier to omit that?
• " the theme song for the Japanese version of the game, "Kimi ga Iru Kara" (君がいるから?, "Because You're Here"), in 2009." -- italics on "Kimi ga Iru Kara" unnecessary?
• "Square Enix published three Ultimania books" -- should mention this is a guide book, at least that's what the link says.
• "sold in excess of one million" -- "over one million"? Simple English.
• " and had sold 1.7 million copies in Japan at the end of 2009." -- "by the end" is probably better.
• "As of May 18, 2010, Final Fantasy XIII had shipped 5.5 million copies worldwide." - is this the most current sales info available?
• "Reviewers felt that the characters worked well together,[102][98]" - ref order
• "an issue which many felt was compounded by the large reduction of towns and interaction with non-player characters." -- NPC is linked here but not before at "Nomura did not take an involved role in the creation of the non-playable characters."
• Not sure if above comments are pre or post fixes, but to me reception paragraphs seem fine.
• References seem fine and well-formatted, I may check in detail some time.
• Note that I skipped Plot section, since I can't judge the accuracy and undue weight anyway, and prose seems fine. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! As a courtesy to the delegates, not responding inline. Assume everything is "done", except for: the Ultimania's weren't guide books, these were art and development information books, that article is wrong; May 2010 is the latest sales figures we have; I had not added Jinnai's section break when you wrote this. --PresN 18:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Support / Comments.

• From the lede: "The third-person game includes a fast-paced combat mechanic," - Not sure where you were going with this, but this sounds really bizarre. It doesn't seem natural to mention third-person here as a random extra adjective, and a fast-paced mechanic? Would tentatively prefer to omit third-person from the lede (or else include it in a sentence on graphics, not gameplay) and say either "The game includes fast-paced combat" or "The game includes combat mechanics such as X, Y, and Z." Saying it includes a mechanic is like a car saying it has a feature; you want to know what exactly it is.
• Not sure I agree with Hellknowz above on "Kimi ga Iru Kara". My understanding is that while song titles receive quotes, foreign words receive italics (MOS:Ety), so this should get both. Wikipedia is tremendously inconsistent on this so it's probably fine either way - a quick check of, say, Category:Songs of the French Revolution shows a 2:2 split ("La Marseillaise" just has quotes, La Carmagnole has italics... though it should probably have quotes too, etc.).

• Well, we italicize albums but not singles/songs, which I figure should take precedent over italicizing foreign words (which I also find strange, anyways). --PresN 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nit: "The Eidolons play a major role in the game's storyline.[13]" While I won't deny they play a role, I don't think I would call it a "major" role. And this statement is referenced to a preview article of FF13 anyway. I'm sure you can probably find a review post-release that said the same thing, but there are also reviews that say the Eidolons only play a minor role, too. It'd probably be better just to take this sentence out.
• Maybe a nit: "Final Fantasy XIII is set within the world of Gran Pulse. Central to the story is Cocoon..." I don't deny that this is probably true according to Ultimania and other outside-game sources, but in-game, Pulse and Cocoon are treated as basically separate worlds until the ending. Certainly Cocoon's citizens don't consider themselves part of Pulse, and from what little we know about Pulse, they didn't like Cocoonites and probably didn't consider Cocoon part of Pulse either. The reason I say "maybe a nit" is that I have no idea how to rephrase this so as to express "the truth is that Cocoon is part of Pulse, sort of, but none of the characters acknowledge this and would react with horror to such a claim" without getting bogged down in too much detail.

• I'm going to leave it; given that it's the term for both the world/game universe and for the surface of the world, trying to explain that Cocoon ignores one of the definitions of the word in-game is way too technical, I think. --PresN 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this was more a "nice to have" if someone could see a better phrasing, but it's acceptable as is. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The two worlds are controlled by fal'Cie (pronounced /fælˈsiː/), mechanical beings with godlike power, each based around a crystal and created by a god-like figure called the Maker.[7]" The linked IGN ref doesn't seem to talk about this at all. Notably, where's this "mechanical" thing coming from? I don't recall that from the game at all. As for the Maker... can this be referenced to an Ultimania or something, if the IGN ref isn't there? There's only one character in-game who says anything about the Maker (Barthandelus), and he's crazy and may qualify as an unreliable source. (Again, it's probably true, but it's not something that can just be referenced to the game itself easily.) In fact, I'd be tempted to tone down the information about the Maker some, as the Maker never actually does anything in FF13 and nobody aside from Barthendalus talks about them - it's not like there's a religion out there worshiping the Maker in the setting. (This may change in FF13-2? Like I said, if there's Ultimania stuff on this, then keep it there, I guess.)

• Dropped the stuff about the Maker, it's not that important- it's in the Ultimania, but (one of my annoyances with the game) it's never explicitly mentioned in the game itself- there's this obliquely referenced backstory about a god or gods who got fed up with the fal'Cie/humans and left after one of them created Cocoon, but it's all reading between the lines of made up myths/poems. The Ultimania just covers the mechanical/crystal thing in that sentence, which isn't important. If FF13-2 actually explicitly states anything, I guess it can be readded. --PresN 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Story section: I made a few minor changes - assassinate -> kill, for example, assassinate is usually reserved for killing political leaders and the like. Feel free to adjust further or ask if something I changed doesn't make sense. My main frustration - which I don't think can be fixed - is that in-game, there's a big difference between Cocoon l'Cie / fal'Cie and Pulse l'Cie / fal'Cie, and there really isn't time to go into that in four paragraphs, so the Sazh / Dajh / Vanille subplot reads incoherently to a casual reader. But fixing that would bloat the section too much, so meh. (And the last third of the game is going to read a bit incoherently no matter what, but the article does a solid attempt, so nicely done.)
• 'The game's villains were intended by Kitase to have "their own motivations and beliefs of what their actions are" and having their own way of thinking.' I think something get lost in translation here. As written, this sentence doesn't really add anything, so I'd probably be in favor of removing it, as I have no idea what Kitase was trying to say here.

• A mucky translation, yes, but he was trying to say that they were written as having goals and beliefs about the world rather than just as "evil". --PresN 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It reads better now. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, very nicely done, so support as noted above. SnowFire (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done, replied inline to a few of them to clarify. --PresN 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [37].

---

Richard Nixon

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Happyme22 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because... We believe it meets the criteria. Richard Nixon. What else do we have to say?Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

*"Nixon is the only President to resign the office." That sentence reads strangely to me. —Designate (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Better? Thank you for your comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's more natural. —Designate (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you're going to use cite templates for books in Bibliography, you should also do so in article text to avoid inconsistencies in formatting
  • Let me say this about that (am I the only one old enough to remember Nixonisms?): articles with lots of templates take a long time to load. I almost gave up trying to copyedit Manhattan Project. Are we talking about replacing every ref with a template here? - Dank (push to talk) 10:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. That would be the practical result, as I would have no excuse for not inserting another 150 cite templates. Alternatively, I can remove the cite book template from the twenty-odd books I've used as sources, but I'm not certain that will be an improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could amend the hand-formatted citations to exactly match the templated ones, but then whenever the template is updated you'd have to do it again. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue are the papers from The Richard Nixon Companion. These were presented as papers last week, but the book has been out for months, so I didn't want to do a cite conference. Do you have an idea on what cite template I should use if I wanted to put them into a cite template? I think we can manage five or six more templates.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• FN 86: is this the retrieval or the publication date?
• FN 87: check formatting

The only problem I see in this is that I don't add a period after the title of the article, given that it ends with a question mark. Is that the concern?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there seems to be a stray "|" where the period would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how Year in Review refs are formatted
• FN 134: is something missing, or is that a punctuation typo?
• FN 140: should this title be italicized?
• Be consistent in whether newspaper article names include quote marks

Are you referring to 172, 173, and 175? Those are not newspaper articles, they are pages about Watergate put up by the Post, which is the publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If the Post is the publisher, it shouldn't be italicized and the full company name should be given. What about FN 240? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Working on these.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how multiple authors are notated
• FN 137: check date. If that's 1978, no citations to Nixon 1985
• Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods

I see no doubled periods other than ellipses. Any small inconsistencies I see, I shall assuredly deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Aitken biblio entry, Nixon 1985. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, artifacts of the cite templates. That explains why it did not show up on the search I did.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Location for Schulzinger? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I've caught everything except as questioned above. However, it is a long article and I'm human.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• The caption for the bottom-most image, "Nixon friend Bebe Rebozo, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and President Nixon relax before dinner", sounds off to me. I think it's trying to say that Nixon is relaxing with his two friends, Rebozo and Hoover, before dinner, but I'm not 100% sure. Jenks24 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've rephrased it. Does that help?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. To be honest, that was the only problem I saw on a quick skim read. I'll try and have a more detailed read in the next few days. Jenks24 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. Unavoidably it is a long article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't should not
• Be consistent in whether his house's name is enclosed in quotation marks
• Source links for File:Eisenhower_meets_the_Nixons.gif, File:Nixon_Ford_Carter.gif and File:Nixon_press_October_1973.gif lead to lead image - am I missing something here?

There seems to be a problem on how to specifically identify images you find through a Digital Copies ARC search at the Archives. If necessary, I'll change it to the search instructions.

• File:Nixon_Opening_Day_1969_Two.jpg: author is listed as "White House photographer, probably Ollie Atkins, am awaiting confirmation on this" - has confirmation been received?

No, and that is actually my fault. I have sent a new request out to Yorba Linda.

• File:Four_Presidents.gif: is a more specific source, or an ID number, available?

It was in the author field, but I've made it more explicit.

• Source link for File:Dwight_D._Eisenhower,_White_House_photo_portrait,_February_1959.jpg is dead
• First source link for File:US_Vice_President_Flag.svg is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to guess these are in the navboxes or something. It's a bit outside my field, but I'll see what I can do.

With the exception of the actual photographer for the baseball picture (it's still early out West) all these things are fixed. Thank you for going through 35 images in such detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The name of the photographer has been added per the advice of the A/V people at the Nixon Library. All done, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - subject to the resolution of any source or images issues. I have a history with this article; three years ago I failed its first GA nomination. It has failed other GAs since then, but has recently been transformed by the work primarily of Wehwalt. I made my detailed comments during the recent, very detailed peer review, which is linked here.

I am still uneasy about one issue, which I raised at peer review, namely the depiction of Nixon as one of the chief builders of the "modern Republican Party". It is not apparent that the character and orientation of the present-day Republican Party owes much to Nixon, particularly as we read that Nixon' role was to "steer the Republican party along a middle course, somewhere between the competitive impulses of the Rockefellers, the Goldwaters, and the Reagans". I am not a expert on American politics, but as an avid reader it seems to me that the attempts to steer the party along a middle course ended with Nixon and Ford, and that Reagan subsequently began an ideological transformation which was carried much further in the mid-1990s in the Gingrich era, and further still by today's "Tea Party" movement. Would Nixon even recognise today's Republican Party as his own? As I have said, I am not a political analyst, but I offer these as thoughts on which to ponder, and wonder if the current wording is the most appropriate? Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken it out. This is obviously something about which reasonable people could differ. And I agree, if Nixon were around today, he would be clobbered by the Tea Party for daring to compromise with Democrats.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I spent a lot of time going over this in the peer review. I'm confident that any issues raised in the course of the FAC will be minor and easily addressed. This is phenomenal piece of work on a very difficult topic and it is well deserving of its star. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am no judge of my own writing and can't tell when it has turned out badly, so it is good to hear from competent authorities--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. As the primary author of the text that was in place for the better part of three years, I know the subject very well and am impressed with the overall neutrality of the article. Wehwalt has been working very hard to achieve this, and I commend him for his determined efforts thus far! I do have one concern, which I would prefer to share on the article's talk page as it relates more to the subject of the article/content rather than the FA process. Wonderful! And it makes me proud. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and the comments. While I agree with Clinton's comment in his eulogy of Nixon that we cannot judge one aspect of Nixon't life in isolation, I think we do have to explain, albeit in a summary fashion, what Watergate is in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Support in principle, with some minor issues listed below. What a creative use of images to headline major sections. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• A number of complete sentences in the image captions do not have an ending period.
• "Richard and Pat Nixon introduce his running mate, General Dwight D. Eisenhower to their daughters". The antecedents do not match the pronouns.

I don't see the problem here. Both of them are the girls' parents; only one of them is Eisenhower's running mate. Yes, I could change it to Richard alone, but I think that dilutes the point Pat Nixon may have taken second place politically, but as a parent that isn't true.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand; I don't have an issue with Pat Nixon's presence in the caption. My concern is that Richard and Pat are introduced as a collective "they", making the pronoun "his" seem out of place. Another thing I just noticed is that you'll either need another comma at the end of Eisenhower or use no comma at all. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the caption so it was (more) grammatically correct, though it's a little awkward now, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I took a shot at it myself. It's a bit awkward, but both parents look like they are showing Eisenhower the daughters and I don't want to leave Pat out.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Nixon supported the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947". Hyphen should be an en dash.
• "Kennedy called for new blood and claimed the Eisenhower-Nixon administration". Hyphen should be an en dash.
• "Vice President Nixon and Vice President-elect Lyndon Johnson leave the White House on the morning of January 20, 1961 for the Kennedy-Johnson inaugural ceremonies". Again, should be Kennedy–Johnson.
• "and the Washington Post, disbelieving his illness". It should be The Washington Post.
• "President Nixon greets Chinese Party Chairman Mao Zedong". Should it be Chinese Communist Party Chairman?

I'll work through these later on today. Thank you for the support and the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I am getting conflicting advice on image captions. I just took out a lot of periods in captions like "Nixon shows his taping equipment to Ehrlichman, Haldeman and Dean". Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's conflicting. Nikkimaria said the same thing I did. The example you just mentioned is a complete sentence, so it should have an ending period. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 14:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've played with that caption again, and I have added periods as I felt was appropriate, if you see anything you feel I screwed up on, by all means change it. Thanks again for taking the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the full-width images are absolutely brilliant. For the rest, though, would there be any way to have a few more left-aligned images? The best look is usually to alternate the images left-to-right but I know that's not always possible with the text. —Designate (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. Tony1 put the first two in full width, but I can claim credit for making it a theme. I've changed several to left aligned. Not a pure alternations, but pretty close.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point, we have four supports (one is from my conom) and all checks seem to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS photo and comments

• A photo gallery posing as an article. Text sandwiching, crowding and stacking. Photos spilling over into sections below. Don't tell me the picture window size photos are the wave of future FA's. Brad (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you don't like the use of images. I thought I had done it well, and some of the reviewers seemed to like them. I'm open, as always to suggestions but am reluctant to cut too many unless a number of reviewers agree with your views. And given the article length is the second longest I've brought here, I think there is text enough to constitute an article. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the full-width images, which I like, the side images are a little heavy (although many recent politicians have a similar amount). There are 28 left/right-aligned images, not counting the infobox. I'm sure you could cut out 4-5 of them and maybe reduce the overall impression of crowding. The last section particularly is chewed up on my monitor. —Designate (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I did that. Is that good for you, Brad101?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• No mention of the Hughes Loan that plagued one of his campaigns. Howard Hughes loaned Donald Nixon 200k via his mother so that Donald could shore up his business dealings. Brad (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "He was the running mate of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Party presidential nominee in the 1952 election, the first of five national nominations he received from his party, a record he shares with Franklin Roosevelt.": "the first ..." is an appositive phrase of the whole "was" clause, following an appositive of something else. It's not awful, but it's usually possible to get an appositive phrase closer to what it's modifying, and it's slightly better if it doesn't modify a whole clause, especially when it's not right next to the clause. Also, wouldn't someone who knows nothing about the American political process (in or outside the US) get the sense from the word "nominated" that the vice-presidential candidate was selected in a nominating process of voters or the party, rather than being picked by the presidential candidate? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically, of course, the VP candidate is voted upon by the convention, and there were contested ballots as late as 1968. In fact, Eisenhower, when asked for his choice for VP, said words to the effect, "Isn't that up to the convention?". Thank you for the work. Do you have a suggestion for that phrase? I don't want to delete it; Happyme22 wanted it in the lede and I tried to do it in a way that sounded nontrivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know Agnew was contested ... in that case, it really is a nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Agnew got about 91 percent of the vote, most of the remainder went to Romney ... sour grapes by someone I expect.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• So, I got reverted on this one: "... had allowed the Soviet Union to overtake the US in ballistic missiles (the "missile gap")". "the missile gap" is an appositive there; what phrase or clause is it modifying? And how is "overtaking" someone, meaning you've reached parity, a "gap", meaning there's no parity? - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no missile gap, your version implies it was real. Longer answer later am on iPhone.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No rush. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Apart from the one reversion ... and anyone can make a call on that one, I only got halfway down, to Vietnam War ... so far so good on prose, per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. Let me take a shot at the missile gap matter and I saw something a little funny further down. Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Any time. Best of luck! Some day, we'll have enough copyeditors to cover all of everything, I'm working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Read missile gap and see what you think is needed. The only other thing I changed was some phrasing about the RFK assassination.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review, was wholly satisfied then, and the article has been made even stronger since. An impressive tightrope walk by the nominators. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. After two peer reviews and an FAC I don't expect any major changes. Any further tweaks can be discussed later. It meets all the criteria easily and it's main-page-ready. Props to the nominator for jumping through so many hoops for an important article. —Designate (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, and for the helpful comments through the course of this FAC. Main page for this I hope will be January 9, 2013, Nixon Centennial Day. He's tanned, rested, and ready, Nixon in FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [38].

---

Maple syrup

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Introducing the syrup of Sunday mornings, the sweet topping on everything from waffles to ice cream, and the best thing to combine with snow in spring! The article has had a successful GAN and a PR, and I hope to make this one of the very few Food and Drink FAs. Looking forward to any and all comments. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources review

• ISBN formats should be consistent - some hyphenated, others not
• In view of the numerous citations to The Maple Syrup Book I believe it would be more efficient to use the short citation format for these references
• In "Chelsea Green Pub." the meaning of the abbreviated word is not clear (Publishers? Publications), and would be better spelt out.

Minimal spotchecks reveal no problems. All sources look good quality, reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

These things are done, thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image review no problems, all have appropriate licences. I tried to move File:Making Maple Syrup.JPG to Commons, but seemed to have failed, so restored now. I'll do a proper review if I get the chance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - I'll jot queries below, and make straightforward copyedits as I go. Please revert if I guff the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC) ultimately I would like a tiny bit more on history, local vagaries of use or brands, but there is sufficient here already that I feel they are not deal-breakers and I confirm this article (to me) is over the line Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

of sugar maple, red maple or black maple trees - I wonder if writing " of sugar-, red- or black maple trees" would be better. flows better for me.

although it can also be made from other maple species such as the Bigleaf Maple. - does this mean there are still other maples it can be made from? If not, may be better to tack this onto previous sentence - of sugar-, red-, black- or (less commonly) bigleaf maple trees" or somesuch

There are others. Theoretically it can be made from any species of maple, but later on we mention silver and Manitoba maple specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

NB: Capitalisation of species inconsistent here. Choose one and go with it - vogue is lower case for all non-avian organisms.

... used by First Nations and Native Americans - why not just "indigenous people of North America?"

The practice of maple syrup production was adopted by European settlers, who gradually improved production methods- "production" repeated. I think we can lose "of maple syrup production" as no meaning is lost.

Sinzibuckwud - language?

home-made wooden spouts - given this is pre-industrial revolution, the "home-made" descriptor possibly redundant?

the sugarbush to the evaporator - what's a sugarbush?

link propane

Maples are usually tapped beginning between 30 and 40 years of age - ungainly, why not "Maple trees are usually tapped from between 30 and 40 years of age"

I've tweaked this, but am not quite sold on that wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's not fantastic I admit. Might need a bit of a play with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Any well known brands? Ok, that's better, although I think I'd be happier with a little more embellishing. If there is any notability to any (such as a high-profile brand that had been around 200 years, or one which is consistently seen as the market leader or most highly rated taste-wise etc. then I think this is worth adding. If there are no stand-out points like this, I think we can let it slide and is good as is.

Also, something more on how it's used (any historical information on the change of its usage over the years?) We'd not use it on savoury things like bacon like I've seen in the US. One slim para on Uses seems a bit small...

Interesting article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mostly done, will check on the last two points. Thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments I love Canadian maple syrup even more than this article. But some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I made these edits. Please check. You may want to change the second and third "Acer" (sic) to "A."
• I agree with Cas re formatting the list of maples in the lead
• any syrup not made almost entirely from maple sap cannot be labelled as "maple". — yuk, a syrup must be made almost entirely from maple sap to be labelled as "maple"
• alters the taste of the sap, making it unpalatable — Do we know why?
• The trouble with using conversion templates is that you get nonsense like 4.1 °C (7.38 °F) where the conversion is ten times more accurate than the original data.
• more than 9,418,680 litres (2,488,150 US g — so that's between 9,418,680 litres and 9,418,690 litres. Unless that is what you mean, better as more than 9,400,000 litres (or 9.4 million litres) — similarly with conversion
• a source of manganese, with 13.33 grams (0.470 oz) — why on earth 13.33 g rather than 10 or 100?
• in the section starting Maple syrup is similar to sugar with respect to calorie content, but is containing about 0.44 milligrams (1.6×10−5 oz)... I'd omit the US conversions. In my own FACs, I routinely do this for small quantities, since the point of the conversion is to help the poor benighted yanks, and figures like 10^-5 oz don't help anyone.

Good luck

All done, thanks for your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No further queries, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - A neat and concise article. Though maple syrup's not the most interesting topic, I found this highly readable. Well done. ceranthor 22:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not that interesting, but definitely delicious :-). Thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Comment This is a really sweet article (couldn't help myself), and I am going to support it now that I have tweaked some wording a little, and you have addressed my comment. but I do have one question/comment. This source, which is cited by this article in several places, says that the early European settlers switched from the grove cutting method of tapping used by the Native Americans to using augurs to bore holes, because that method did less damage to the tree. This seems like it might be worth mentioning unless some other source I am not aware of disagrees. Otherwise the change from cutting grooves to boring holes is not expained. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Added a sentence, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. There are a couple of inconsistencies with the sourses that need some quick fixing: the newspaper sources lack publishing and location. While the latter is often omitted, I think the publisher is important. Also, ref 44 is missing the date (dates are listed on the page), as is ref 26. Ref 30 gives the date on the first page. Please check the page title and date for ref 33. Some refs, like ref 58 don't give a date, but list a "last modified" date, which may be used. I'm not sure that the ref set up for a couple of sources are accessible (i.e. easy to find). For example, for ref #2, you have eleven specific points that are all referenced to 2 very broad page ranges (a range of 17 pages: 37–43 and 103–113 from the same book) without saying where a particular point comes from (does the "a" point come from page 37-43 and 103-113, or just 105) etc. Why isn't it set up like the Ellison or Eagleson et al references? A quick google of some of your sources like ref 22, produced a date (missing in your ref), and more complete bibliographic info (fact sheet #). Love the article, though. Concise and well-organized, and with clean prose. Orane (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mostly fixed. The problem with ref 33 was that a new document had been uploaded at the same URL, but it offered updated stats, so I used that instead of trying to find an archive. I'm going to opt not to include publisher or location in newspaper refs - just a personal preference. Thanks for reviewing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Nice article Nikki. Its reads well etc. The only major thing that caught my eye was the lead. It just seems and bit small, stretched out and disorganized. What do you think?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Looks much better Nikki. Again, not so exciting topic, but great writing and sourcing. Happy to support its promotion :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've had a go at reorganizing it, see what you think. Is there anything in particular you feel should be expanded or added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think the short choppy paragraphs just made things worse. I think you need to bring more material up from the body of the article. Particularly from the commerce section. I think I will take a stab at it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I took my shot. Feel free to rework it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments - I agree with earlier comments stating that maple syrup is not the most interesting topic to read about; the article is well written and well sourced, however.

• Inconsistencies with uses of "flavor" and "flavour". Uses of the American spelling:

• Third paragraph of lead
• First paragraph of Production
• Third paragraph of Grades (two instances)
• First paragraph of Food and nutrition (two instances)
• Fifth paragraph of Food and nutrition
• First paragraph of Imitation syrups

• "Vermont is the biggest US producer, with 1,140,000 US gallons (4,300,000 l) in 2011..." Is this an estimate? Has all of the maple syrup for 2011 been produced? Consider clarifying
• Is Vermont Fancy (mentioned in the Grades section's image's caption) a grade, another term for Fancy/Light Amber, a brand, or something else? It is not mentioned in the article elsewhere.
• Some dead links under Imitation syrups

Regretably, I do not have the time to do a more thorough review just now. I intend to in the near future. Micromann (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank for your comments! In order:

• All corrected to Canadian spelling
• 2011 season (spring), now clarified
• Another term for Fancy, amended
• By dead links I assume you mean redlinks? Those are actually allowed - they're meant to indicate topics about which articles have not been written, but where articles are conceivable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [39].

---

Iranian Embassy siege

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For my third FAC nomination, I've departed from my comfort zone to write something that isn't a biography! The Iranian Embassy siege took place over six days in April/May 1980 and was ended when the SAS—now one of the most famous military units in the world, but then largely unknown to those outside of military circles—stormed the building. The assembled press captured and the images of men dressed entirely in black and armed to the teeth abseiling down the front of the building and broadcast them on live television during prime time on a bank holiday Monday, making the end of the siege a defining moment in British history and for Margaret Thatcher's government. Just 17 minutes later, five of the six terrorists were dead and all but one of their hostages freed and the SAS became a household name and the regiment for any ambitious British Army officer to serve with.

At a little over 5,000 words, this is the longest article I've written so far and, after six weeks of work and a MilHist A-class review, I think it meets the FA criteria. However, all comments—pro or con—are most welcome. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - Siege or Siege!? Otherwise, sources check out, though I didn't do spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, as ever! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just a few picky things:

Lede

• re-occupied. I would avoid this term and variations on it, as it might be deemed political.

• I don't see the harm, but I don't see the harm in changing it either so I have. --HJ

Background

• after a trade. Perhaps "land exchange"? You trade baseball players. "Swap" would work and is often used under similar circumstances.

• Middle ground? --HJ

• Perhaps a map showing the province?

• Will see what I can do. Open Street Maps was suggested in the ACR, but I lack the software (and the skill) to annotate it. I'll see if I can find someone who can. --HJ

• suppressed its people and ended its independence. Surely POV? Simply say "ended its autonomy" or synonym. Autonomy is not independence.

• I don't think it's POV. There's no doubt that the Iranian government of the day were pretty brutal in the way they dealt with internal unrest, and the people would certainly have considered themselves "suppressed" given that they had gone from autonomy to being subject to Tehran's laws pretty much on a whim. If "suppressed" is too loaded, though, I'm open to suggestions for less-loaded alternatives. --HJ

• "crushed " Perhaps the rebellion was crushed, but it's too strong a term to use on the people. And I don't think you should say that the people rebelled. Perhaps say "Khūzestānis rebelled after World War II, but the revolt was crushed ..." Honestly, I think defeated is better.

• Defeated could mean that they were asked nicely to surrender and did so. "Crushed" is the word used in the source. --HJ

• the group's leader. What group?

• Fixed. --HJ

• a plan inspired . I think it has to be "also inspired".

• I think it was inspired by the events in Tehran, but motivated by those in Al Muhammara. --HJ

• Using Iraqi passports. It would be interesting to know what sort of visa they had or were given (tourist, etc.)

• I've no idea. It's not in any of the sources, but a lot of details like that are unknown, beyond the fact that they had a lot of help from Saddam. --HJ

• " were allegedly" If the sources will support it, suggest "he said". Allegedly is a bit of a red flag. That way, if the sources will support it, "they said" later on.

• Hmm, not sure I agree 100% on the rationale, but done. --HJ

• "in Africa". Perhaps use these words as a pipe to a suitable portion of the North African campaign?

• I can't find an appropriate article or section that has anything to say about the SAS, and I think it would be a bit of an Easter egg, anyway. --HJ

• "could prove". "could sometimes prove".

• Agreed, and done. --HJ

• The sentence about the Munich massacre tries to do too much in my view, and has an awfully long wait between its noun and its verb. Suggest recasting it.

• Ditto. --HJ

• "in a counter-revolutionary role" Isn't this more an "anti-terrorist" or "anti-hijacking" role? Also, the word counter-revolutionary carries a lot of baggage on it thanks to Lenin.

• Re-phrased to avoid that term (quite why they named the unit "Counter Revolutionary" I don't know. I guess political correctness wasn't such a big deal in the '70s). --HJ

Siege

• "journalists established " I would insert "soon".

• Re-worded. --HJ

• "Ali Aghar Tabatabal, who was collecting a map for use in a presentation he had been asked to give" Business? School?

• Facepalm Added. --HJ

• Why were the BBCers trying to go to Iran?

• Ditto. --HJ

• Perhaps list the journalists together.

• Good point done. --HJ

• "The first police officers were at the scene very quickly " Perhaps "Police arrived at the scene quickly after the attack". That way you reestablish what was going on after digressing for the hostages..

• Ditto. --HJ

• You need to more clearly establish days of the week.

• Could you clarify? --HJ

Yes, you make a major point that the siege ended on Bank Holiday Monday, but that is the only time I see that you mention days of the week. When you mentioned the nursery school, the first thing I thought of was "was it a weekday? were kids present?" but I had to dig to find out the first one. The second one is not mentioned in the article. I would mention, possibly twice, that the takeover took place on a Wednesday

I've added that it began on a Wednesday, and that COBR deliberations carried on into Thursday. Does that make it clearer? I only mention that it was a bank holiday, because if they'd done it in the dead of night on a normal weekday, I very much doubt it would have become such a milestone in British history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

• " if it was not done" I would change "done" to "met".

• Re-worded. --HJ

• "therefore determined that British law " "Therefore" implies reasons why British law should apply, I don't see any.

• According to the Vienna Convention, the embassy building is Iranian sovereign territory, so sending British soldiers into it is not exactly the done thing! --HJ

I do understand that. My point was perhaps unclear, the article does not state why Thatcher acted as she did.

Ah, I see. I've clarified why Thatcher made the decision, and the implications of the Vienna Convention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

• " The ensuing negotiations " between ...

• Fixed. --HJ

• You should probably mention the cutting of the phone lines after talking about the Day 2 phone conversation.

• Done. --HJ

• " that was easily met," Well, it wouldn't actually be hard to reconnect the telex, it just wasn't a good idea per the police or army. Suggest rephrase.

• I imagine the severing of the telex was ordered from 'higher up', so not easily reversed, but do you have a suggestion? --HJ

Perhaps "that they could agree to meet" or similar.

I went with something similar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

• Presumably the Iranian government had a few things to say and do while all this was going on. I would give them some mention. Were they cooperative?

• Not really. They more-or-less washed their hands of it after they dismissed it as an American conspiracy. There was one bit of nuisance-making from the foreign minister, I'll dig that up. --HJ

I imagine that is why they had to get the carekeeper rather than getting info from the Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry.

Possibly, though they might have just wanted someone with first-hand knowledge. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

• "potential assault" I would say "possible assault" or perhaps just "assault"

Why is "possible" better than "potential"? --HJ

Neither is very good. I would just say "assault". The reader knows that it was still up in the air.

• "Willie Whitelaw". I think that's too informal.

• It is informal, but it's how he was almost universally referred to—by Thatcher, the sources, and various other things I've read that aren't connected to the siege. Even his article says so. --HJ

I don't remember that during the Falklands war, but I was young and perhaps US papers were more formal.

• "The police negotiators recruited the imam from a local mosque at 18:20," To do what?

• I don't think even they knew at that point, beyond putting him on the phone with Oan. --HJ

• "A forensic pathologist estimated " I would stress that this was then and there, not a later autopsy.

• Indeed. Done. --HJ

• " Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" I don't think you need either the link or the first name.

• Trimmed. --HJ

SAS assault

• "The police signed over control of the operation to the Army at 19:07 " Why repeat the time when it is given so recently? Perhaps, "After the police signed over control of the operation to the Army, the two SAS ..."

• It wasn't adding anything, so I just took it out. --HJ

• " to the skylight." I would think it was "through" the skylight. If they simply "threw" it, I would not use the word lowered.

• Done. --HJ

• Are you saying they never found Lock's concealed sidearm? If so, I think you need more exposition and explanation earlier.

• Added in earlier. I would surmise they weren't looking for it, since the British bobby is famous for being unarmed, but still, not much of a pat down... --HJ

Utterly amazing. You may want to add even more, say about what Lock did with the bloody thing during the siege. And as for the famous British bobby, my first trip to England, in 1986, I was shocked to see armed police with automatic weapons patrolling the terminals of Heathrow. You never would have seen that in the US. Then.

I'll see what I can add—I know he kept his full uniform (which in those days was not as practical as it is today) on throughout. Funnily enough, I was surprised that I didn't see police with automatic weapons on my first trip to the US last year. But outside of central London and LHR, you could go your whole life without seeing an armed policeman in the UK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

• " after taking part in the raid" delete, we know this.

• Agreed. Re-worded. --HJ

• "hostages killed " "killed hostages".

• I'm not sure how that's an improvement. --HJ

It may be a Britishism, but "hostages killed" will puzzle your American readers, of which there will be some.

With the greatest respect to them, "killed hostages" doesn't sound sound like very good grammar to a Brit, or at least not to this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

• " both claimed " "both stated". Claimed is a red flag word.

• Done. --HJ

• " It later emerged that the footage from the back of the embassy, which had been cordoned off by the police since the beginning of the siege, was coming from a wireless camera which had been placed in the window of a flat which overlooked the embassy." This sentence is a problem. Was the back of the embassy feed going out semi-live? And was placed by whom? The police? The BBC?

• By ITN. Added. --HJ

By today's standards, I think the police and SAS were very tolerant of the media.

Oh definitely. There'd be no sneaking round the back these days, but then, somebody would inevitably film it on their mobile phone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

• "released and" strike as unnecessary.

• Re-worded. --HJ

• "Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" At least delete the first name. Maybe just "Thatcher".

• Agreed. Done. --HJ

Long term impact

• "enjoyed" perhaps "preferred"?

• I think enjoyed is the right word—they enjoyed being able to fly out to some remote part of the world, do whatever it is that they do, and fly home again without anybody being any the wiser. --HJ

• "Margaret Thatcher's personal credibility." "Thatcher" should be sufficient.

• Agreed and done. --HJ

• "It was " Two consecutive sentence in the penultimate paragraph start this way.

• Fixed. --HJ

• If the SAS had an outstanding role in the Falklands War, perhaps a sentence could be added about that.

• Not sure that's relevant really. The Falklands was much more "conventional" warfare rather than something that would involve the SAS in its CRW role. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. I saw it as a way to beef up the aftermath section, however it will be fine wihtout it.

Very nice job, looking forward to positively assessing after changes made.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a few, you say? ;) Thanks a lot for the review. Apart from a handful, I think I've addressed everything you've mentioned. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Iranian_Embassy_siege#Day two: 1 May. These are my edits.

• Check your dictionary on re-ignite/reignite and sidearm/side arm. - Dank (push to talk) 08:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Seems to meet the criteria. Well done on a topic perhaps obscure today.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose it is a little obscure, probably because it was overshadowed by other things—Iran and Iraq went to war with each other and Britain sent nearly the entire Royal Navy to an obscure group of rocks in the South Atlantic! Still, it deserves a decent article, and I appreciate your help . HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I very much like this article and I think it well meets the FA criteria. I remember watching the SAS storming the embassy on TV; it made every red-blooded male under the age of sixteen want to sign up for some of that straight away. Nice work. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus, you've been a great help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Sorry, I'm still here. :-) Curious how you managed to submit this for both A and FAC review concurrently...

• Butting in, I think the FAC rules only state that you can't simultaneously have an article at FAC and PR or GAR -- presumably because ACR is a WikiProject-related assessment and hence doesn't count... ;-) Seriously, its ACR was just waiting for closure/promotion when HJ submitted this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• WP:ALT - unlike the A-class review, this is not optional anymore.
  • Hasn't been part of the FAC criteria for over 2 years; is there some new development I haven't heard of? - Dank (push to talk)
    • Last point under MOS:IMAGES - I've been grilled about this before, so just passing on the love. OK, so it says "should" not "must".
      • Right, feel free to ask for it or make the case for it. Personally, I suck at just about everything involving images, so I have no recommendation. Sandy and Karanacs have been pretty clear about treating opposes based on lack of alt text as non-actionable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
        • If there's a possibility that it may help someone with a disability, and it's simple to do, then why not just do it? Making the edit would involve fewer words than discussing it here; ultimately, I would make the edit myself rather than hold back my support.
          • I don't see much value to alt text that would effectively be "a big white building like thousands of others in London" or "a rectangle with blue and red stripes"—most of the images are decorative, to break up the wall of text, so alt text wouldn't really be helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
            • You'd only know they were decorative if you could see them.
              • You'd only care if they were decorative if you'd seen what "decorative" meant". Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
              • ... and on that subject one of our God-like masters needs to add an "alt" parameter to Template:Infobox military conflict. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
                • From my basic knowledge of templates, since we have to use the full [[File:Foobar.jpg|000px]] format, we can just append "|alt=" before the ]]. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • True in this case. It would be nice if there was some consistency in the way that alt text was dealt with across infobox templates, but I guess that's asking for too much. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The Iranian Embassy siege took place between 30 April and 5 May 1980" - so it lasted from 1-4 May?
  • Let me know what your dictionary says for the meaning of "between". - Dank (push to talk)
    • "Between" does not include the endpoints under any definition - so "from....to" would be more correct.
      • Wow, Garner's lists the usage under "frequently shunned"! I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• The non-free image you're using appears to be a screen grab from tv. It's referred to as "The famous image" but an internet search of images brings up many other images of the event. So I suspect that it's possibly not the image, but the event that is famous. Also, some of the other images in that search jogged my memory of the event more than this one does.
  • What's your point? There are quite a few iconic scenes from the 17 minutes of footage (the abseilers, the front windows being blown in), but I couldn't justify using multiple non-free images, and many of them are owned by Getty and the like, which is almost always an instant fail on the NFCC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
    • "The famous image" gives the impression that this is an unique historic photograph; but it's not, as there were many photos and taken from different angles by different (tv) cameras. So it's not the single, iconic image that everyone associates with the event.
      • It would, but that phrase doesn't appear in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
        • No, not anymore thanks to Malleus
• Were they "hostage takers" or "terrorists"?
  • Good point. My personal style is never to use words that even might be loaded; you never know how people are going to interpret your words. But if HJ wants to keep the word, there's some support both in and outside WP. HJ? - Dank (push to talk)
    • I used "hostage-takers" up until the point they shot Lavasani, and "terrorists" thereafter—the same approach the police and COBR took at the time, and that the Insight Team book uses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
• The "General" and "specific" references - why have you used such an unusual format when the path is so well trodden?
  • I used it because, in my personal opinion, it's the clearest format I've come across. What's "unusual" about it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
    • Well, it's not a standard format that people are familiar with; there's a reason that conventions are established. I also can't see what the full citation for "Siege!" is.
      • not a standard format that people are familiar with. To what conventions do you refer? As far as I'm aware, the format is not against any part of the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not citing Wikipedia policy :-) I'm asking why you've created a new referencing style, when there are a number of well-used and well-recognised formats in use. I've been around here a while now, but have never seen this style used before. I also checked 50 random FA articles, but couldn't find this style in use in any of them either. So I'm interested to hear why you have invented a new style rather than follow convention?
          • It was used in Lindsay Lohan when I first started work to bring that article up to GA. I hated it at first, but after a few months of working with it, I quite liked it. I just think it's tidier than having the bibliography under a separate header, as seems to be the most common format. I've no idea who added it to Lohan's article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a free image of the surviving hostage taker?
  • Not that I've found, but I confess I haven't actively looked. I'll see if I can dig anything up, but I'd be surprised. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
• Sounds like coverage of this event was Kate Adie's big career break.
  • That's what her article says, but it's unsourced, and I haven't seen her name mentioned in any of the materials I've read through in researching the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
    • Here's a ref if you wish to add this.
      • Thanks. I'll think about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Consider adding a "Further reading" section listing the various books written by members of the SAS team. e.g. Rusty Firmin
  • No opinion. Sometimes reviewers at FAC frown on Further reading sections, not just because their selection of books would have been different, but because those sections are more likely than others to attract POV edits. - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That must be new, I didn't see it in Google Books when I was buying the books for this. I'll see if I can acquire a copy, and I'll cite something to it to avoid the problems Dan mention with "further reading" sections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Hmm, not new, but it's only a fiver on Amazon, so I just ordered it. Expect the citations to appear sometime next week (hopefully!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Per this discussion, I think we can find a better image than that of the revolver that has recently been inserted.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

HJ, standard drill, please let us know if someone has done sourcing spotchecks on a previous FAC of yours, otherwise, has anyone spotchecked here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, just got to the bottom of the page and found your latest :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Clear prose, well laid out, logical article. All the main fronts covered, I haven't checked sources though. Good supporting materials. Well done. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - I watched these events unfolding and this is an excellent synopsis. The prose is as engaging as superglue and recaptures the drama. I have a few – minor – stylistic criticisms:

• I prefer, "before" instead of "prior to".
  • It's only used in the table, and in that context I think "before" suggests they were released immediately (rather than days, in some cases) before the assault. --HJ
• "very" is a weak word; it is used twice. How about dumping it on the first occurrence and using "critically" or "seriously" on the second?
  • I've replaced both, though I went with "almost immediately" rather than "critically quickly" (which, to me at least, sounds odd). --HJ
    • It sounds odd because I was referring to "very ill". :-) Graham Colm (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Is "many" better than "(a) large number(s) of"? (There are two uses).
  • Normally, yes, but I don't think it works in either context—"many Metropolitan Police officers" in the infobox, and "Many journalist were at the scene very quickly". I just think "large numbers" flows better. --HJ
• I see both "charge d'affairs" and "chargé d'affaires". Is there a subtle difference that I am missing?
  • Yes, the difficulty of inserting a "é" rather than "e"! ;) Fixed. --HJ
    • I still see "affairs" and "affaires". Graham Colm (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, fixed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• This might be confusing, " At some point during the day, the police disabled the embassy's telephone lines, leaving them just the field telephone for outside communication". Is it clear who "them" are?
  • Clarified. --HJ

Thank you for, imho, an important and well-prepared contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions and for supporting. Glad you enjoyed it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Support and one query An excellent article, but I query the macrons in Khūzestān and Rezā Shāh. There are no macrons in BE, and foreign words lose their diacritical marks when written in English, eg "Galápagos" in Spanish, "Galapagos" in English Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Most do, but diacritics tend to be retained for proper nouns. I also think it's poor form to pipe a link to display Khuzestan when the article is at Khūzestān. Thanks for the support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - Excellent article and to my eye meets all of the featured criteria. I have nothing to add at all. Coolug (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Nothing of significance noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [40].

---

Far Eastern Party

Nominator(s): Apterygial ^talk 04:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Most Australians (and many others) will know at least the vague outline of this story: how Douglas Mawson was forced to eat his dogs to survive almost two months in the Antarctic, how the livers of those dogs poisoned his companion, Xavier Mertz. It's an incredible story, an epic of survival, and I hope I’ve done it justice. I’m grateful to Malleus for his copyedit and Brian for his peer review. Dog lovers beware. Apterygial ^talk 04:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done.

• FN 86: what is this from?

Otherwise, sources check out, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed that cite, as it wasn't needed anyway. Apterygial ^talk 00:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: My "nitpick" was in fact a complete peer review, found here. I have one suggestion to make, which relates to a point I raised at that review. I feel that the wider scope of the AAE needs to be indicated in the lead, and I think you should extend the opening sentence thus: "...which investigated the previously unexplored coastal regions of Antarctica west of Cape Adare". Use your own phrasing by all means, but the information needs to be there. Otherwise, this is in all respects a welcome addition to Wikipedia's Antarctic canon, and I look forward to seeing it promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your help is much appreciated. I've added your suggestion to the lead. Apterygial ^talk 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I was invited to look this article over before its peer review, and all the changes I suggested were made. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Apterygial ^talk 14:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I think it's important to emphasize the one single primary source of the entire article/journey, Mawson's famous account The Home of the Blizzard (1915). Everything we know is from Mawson's account, 80% of the article is simply a re-telling of what Mawson said in his book. When citing, if the information is equally available in both a primary and secondary source, you should cite the primary source (that's what I was taught years ago with my BA History degree). Another way to emphasize is create two sources sections, one for primary source and the other for secondary sources, in place of the current "Sources" section header. It would also be useful to link to the collection at Internet Archive so readers can browse the book online, including any illustrations. (Recommend the linked link since IA adds new editions all the time). Finally, given how central Mawson's book is to this article, it probably needs a Wikipedia article of its own before this article goes FA, including critical reception which is a big part of the post-journey perspective that is missing from the article. For example the book is included in National Geographic's list of 100 all time most important exploration literature, which is an important list in the field of exploration literature, but there is almost no mention of the book in the article - it should be mentioned in the lead section and probably a paragraph devoted to it in the aftermath section. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as possible, I've avoided citing Blizzard; there are just three cites to it in the entire article, and none of them are controversial. When using Blizzard, it's important to remember its background; when it was written, Mawson was heavily in debt, and the publishing of a book about the expedition was seen as an important was to recoup funds. Hence, he had to make it appealing to readers, and the book as a result glorifies the journey. For this reason, I don't think it stands terribly well as a reliable source. I agree that it should be mentioned in detail somewhere on Wikipedia, but I don't think this article is the place; since the book concerns the expedition as a whole it is better suited to the AAE's article. Where his word is the only perspective, instead of using Blizzard I've quoted extensively from Mawson's diary; it offers a more unvarnished story than Blizzard does (this section is nowhere near 80% of the article. Only Death of Mertz and Alone really rely on Mawson's story; for the rest Ninnis and Mertz's diaries share the telling, and for Background and Aftermath there are innumerable other primary sources). I agree that Blizzard should be linked from the article, so I've added your link from the External links section. I don't agree the book needs a comprehensive article for Far Eastern Party to become an FA; it does not require an understanding of the book to understand the article. Apterygial ^talk 08:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why can't this be discussed in the article? Your downplaying Mawson's book but it's still the main reason the journey is so well known, the book is famous, it's a central and notable part of the history. It would be like writing an article on Scott and neglecting discussion of his Diaries because they were written to glorify the journey (which they do). What you just wrote here is important, a discussion about the sources. As you can tell I think Mawson's book is very important because it is so well known as exploration literature, and without a Wikipedia presence in some form or another, this FA would be incomplete. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the book is important in itself, and that it deserves a place on Wikipedia, but I don't think this is the place. Rest assured that when I get around to working on Australasian Antarctic Expedition it will be included there; as it stands the Aftermath section section is big enough. You are welcome to create the article on the book, however, and I'll happily link to it from this article. Apterygial ^talk 11:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I may actually do that. But in terms of this FA candidate, can we at least add one or two sentences about the book? The book isn't mentioned at all in the article (outside as a reference), yet the book is the most famous work of literature about the expedition! Remember that Wikipedia articles are stand-alone, they are meant to be read as individual pieces and not rely on other articles to be complete. This is because we have no idea how end-users will use content, for example someone may create a CD with only FA's and nothing else and distribute it to poor villages with no Internet connection. Or they may be printed and bound in books. We don't assume that content is being read via the Media Wiki interface. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've discussed with Green Cardamom separately on some wording to incorporate a mention of The Home of the Blizzard into the text, and have added it in. Apterygial ^talk 12:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Images are fine, licensing checks out. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Read through the whole article, and it is an excellent piece of work on a compelling event. Well done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Apterygial ^talk 01:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [41].

---

Manhattan Project

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Top level article on the Manhattan Project. Attempts to cover the project as a single coherent article, while at the same time acting as a gateway to the hundreds of sub articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Note: The nominator has another article at FAC at this time. A delegate granted special permission for this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• restarted Jul 27 previous I am copying over the reiterated supports from the last 24 hours, after notice was given by another reviewer that much had changed. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye, can you please identify the new sources that have been added so that they can be checked quickly? also, have there been any new images added since the check was done? Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Detailed review was going on here. My support still holds, of course. Nageh (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Still support. I've been engaged with the thing for quite a while and kept up with the changes. My support remains. Carcaroth, you came in late and some of the changes have been related to your suggestions. Would think you could pretty easily see what's been added. If you want to hold out over parks and a FL, fine. But on just assessing the article, this should not be that hard for you given how insightful your initial review was and how you've assessed the changes.

I would have no problem with this if it were a client report in the work world or an academic review. And I'm easily capable of watching and endorsing evolution, and pretty used to it happening. I'm actually very cheered that there has been major wrangling and work on the content, rather than some of the MOS-prose only reviews I see on other articles. (I also like that we pushed the Canoe River thing on substance as well.) Manhattan Project is an outstanding piece of work, full of juicy goodness, and Wiki should be proud and star it.TCO (reviews needed) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Support (I guess I didn't say that explicitly before). Hawkeye has done a nice job with an inherently difficult article, both before the nomination and during this FAC process.
However, my support doesn't prevent me from continuing to seek improvement. I'm glad to see the additions to the map of sites in the U.S. and Canada, but I'm still a bit puzzled by the "Sylacauga" entry in Alabama, since most sources I've seen (including the linked Wikipedia article) say that the heavy water plant was at Childersburg. Some sources and the MP article text say the plant was "near Sylacauga" which I suppose is an indication that no one is expected to have heard of Childersburg. However, Sylacauga has about 13,000 people versus about 5,000 in Childersburg, so it's not obvious that Sylacauga is much less obscure than Childersburg. IMHO, the map should label "Childersburg" rather than "Sylacauga", the text should give both place names (for example, say it was "near Sylacauga at Childersburg"). --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that all contemporary sources refer to Sylacauga, and any book on the subject will refer to Sylacauga. So as far as this goes, yes it more obscure. It seems that the city limits and the zip code were moved some time in the 1950s. Mentioned both in the text, but want to retain "Sylacauga" on the map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Probably one of the best articles I've seen on Wikipedia. JefffBeck (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New sources

• Gilbert, Keith V. (1969). History of the Dayton Project (PDF). Miamisburg, Ohio: Mound Laboratory, Atomic Energy Commission. OCLC 650540359. Retrieved 21 July 2011. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Hewlett, Richard G.; Duncan, Francis (1969). Atomic Shield, 1947–1952. A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-520-07187-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Home, R. W.; Low, Morris F. (September 1993). "Postwar Scientic Intelligence Missions to Japan". Isis. 84 (3). The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society: 527–537. JSTOR 235645. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Weinberg, Alvin M. (21 July 1961). "Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States". Science, New Series. 134 (3473). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 161–164. JSTOR 1708292. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

New Images

• File:Manhattan Project emblem.png
• File:Manhattan Project US Canada Map 2.svg
• File:Hanford workers.jpg
• File:Ames Process pressure vessel lower.jpg
• File:Ames Process pressure vessel remnant slag after reaction.jpg
• File:Ames Process uranium biscuit.jpg
• File:Clinton Engineer Works.png
• File:K-25 aerial view.jpg
• File:Hanford Engineer Works.png
• File:Remote handling of a kilocurie source of radiolanthanum.jpg

Media Review - captions not checked

• Alert: File:Trinity device readied.jpg - the source is a deadlink.
• The images in the main infobox, all three of them, are too large in my opinion.
  • No helping the top one, but I did shrink the other two down a bit.
• A small number of images have information that should be stuck into infoboxes. I'll do it for you. Done.
• Made a few tweaks to the captions, nothing major. Everything else is fine with them.
• Everything else is fine. Check back later in case I come up with caption issues.

Sven Manguard Wha? 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: On first, partial appraisal, the writing looks very good. In copyediting the lede, I made one substantive alteration, which merits discussion.

While the lede stated that the Trinity Test took place at Alamogordo, N.M., I noticed that the lede to our topical article Trinity (nuclear test) states that it took place near Socorro, N.M., and does not mention Alamogordo. In Working on the Bomb, S. L. Sanger summarizes the issue:

Usually, the test is linked with Alamogordo, New Mexico, probably because the Manhattan Project borrowed the site from the Army's Alamogordo Gunnery and Bombing Range, now the Army's White Sands Missile Range. The town itself is 60 miles south. The closest towns of any size are Socorro and Carrizozo, 30–35 miles away.

Convention seems to call for Alamogordo to be used in a context such as our summary lede, while an interest in accuracy suggests that it is preferable to name the bombing range, rather than the town. I have made that change. (I will also add the name of the range to the lede of the Trinity Test article.)

• Just bringing myself up to speed. By the time Trinity was conducted, the site was no longer officially designated the Alamogordo Gunnery and Bombing Range, but was the White Sands Proving Ground, which incorporated the Alamogordo Range along with ORDCIT (the name of another, smaller range) and portions of the Fort Bliss Artillery Range. It is White Sands that needs to be named in the lede, which I have done; I will leave it to the primary contributors to determine if and how "Alamogordo" should also be included in the lede. (The most obvious way would be "...conducted at the White Sands Proving Ground near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." If that change is desired, then we will want to modify the lede to the Trinity article in complementary fashion.) In any event, White Sands definitely needs to be named in the main text in the Trinity subsection.

In the lede, I find two other issues, related to each other, that need to be dealt with:

(1) It is fine to title the infobox with a name that is different from that used for the article title, if the name used in the infobox is more official or complete, so long as the relationship to the featured name is clear. It is not currently clear in this case. In part, that is because the infobox title—"Manhattan Engineer District (MED)"—does not appear in the lede, whereas the implicitly official "Manhattan District" does. Given point 2, below, the infobox title should probably be changed to either "Manhattan Project" or "Manhattan District". If the primary contributors strongly favor "Manhattan Engineer District (MED)" for the infobox, then that term must appear in the text of the lede.

(2) The following statement in the lede is not supported by the main text:

The Army component of the project was designated the Manhattan District, but "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename, "Development of Substitute Materials", for the entire project.

When we turn to the main text, we do not find this supposed distinction--that "Development of Substitute Materials" officially defined the entire project, while "Manhattan District" officially defined only its Army component.

The main text tells us, "Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project 'Development of Substitute Materials.'" I note that all three men were Army officers.

The main text then tells us, "Since [Army] engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to instead name it the Manhattan District." Nowhere between the first statement I have quoted and the second is there the slightest suggestion that one name was designating the entire project while the other was designating merely a portion of it.

We then learn that "Manhattan District" was made the official name and "Informally, it was known as the Manhattan Engineer District, or MED."

If the main text is correct and, for relevant purposes, complete, then the lede is currently incorrect and must be edited to agree with the main text. Of course, it is possible that the lede is correct, in which case the main text here must be corrected and/or expanded.

Assuming the main text is correct, here is the status of each name in summary fashion:

• Development of Substitute Materials: official codename
• Manhattan District: official name
• Manhattan Engineer District (MED): original informal name
• Manhattan Project: later informal, and now conventional, name

Again, I believe this suggests that either "Manhattan District" or "Manhattan Project" is a better title for the infobox than "Manhattan Engineer District (MED)". It also raises a third issue:

(3) It would be helpful to readers—though it is not absolutely necessary—if the article stated when and where the phrase "Manhattan Project" was first verifiably used.

I look forward to reading the rest of the article.—DCGeist (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

1. the term "White Sands Missile Range" is anachronistic. It was the Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range in 1941, and became the White Sands Proving Ground in 1945. I prefer "Alamagordo" in the lead, but linked to White Sands.
2. Both the lead and main text are correct. The lead simply summarizes the main text. I have changed the infobox title to "Manhattan District". "Manhattan Project" and "Manhattan District" are not the same thing. The infobox refers to the Manhattan District.
3. I am uncertain as to when "Manhattan Project" was first used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, while you state "the term 'White Sands Missile Range' is anachronistic", neither I nor the source I adduced advocated using that term for events in 1945. I explicitly favored the version of the name pertinent at the time, the White Sands Proving Ground.

(1) At any rate, while a reasonable case can be made for either "Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range" or "White Sands Proving Ground" on the grounds of accuracy, your preference here for the former is problematic in two ways:

• It is a violation of WP:EGG. If White Sands Missile Range is the proper link, then our Manual of Style strongly favors White Sands Proving Ground for the text.
• It addresses a "problem" (the potential absence of "Alamogordo" from the lede) for which there is a superior solution. I suggested it in my previous comment: "...conducted at the White Sands Proving Ground near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." This gets both crucial terms into the lede, at no expense to accuracy or clarity, without violating WP:EGG, and for a net addition of just two words.

I've now looked at multiple high-quality sources, and I can see that the case on accuracy for "White Sands Proving Ground" may be even weaker than that for "Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range". Most particularly, in White Sands Missile Range (2009), credited to Darren Court and the White Sands Missile Range Museum, the Trinity test site is explicitly placed "80 miles north of the White Sands Proving Ground" in a location "that had also been part of the Alamogordo Bombing Range". (The location is now apparently part of the White Sands Missile Range.) I'm ready to say that the current solution is acceptable, though others may well fell that the exclusion of "White Sands" from the lede and/or the EGG-ishness of the solution and/or the questionable accuracy of the phrasing are objectionable. However, I will say this: Given the irresolvable diversity of authoritative descriptions of the official designation of the military range encompassing the site, I would go with this: "...conducted in the Jornada del Muerto desert basin near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." No, not conventional, but irrefutable.—DCGeist (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(2) In your response, you emphasize that "'Manhattan Project' and 'Manhattan District' are not the same thing." Indeed. But that should have drawn your attention to another problem in the lede paragraph. According to our Manual of Style, it is alternative names for the article title name that are conventionally bolded in the lede. As the Manhattan District represents only a portion of the Manhattan Project, per your emphatic reminder, it is not a true alternative name—though its bolding in the lede is certainly defensible and I agree with it. Development of Substitute Materials, on the other hand, is a true alternative name for the Manhattan Project. It thus should probably be bolded in any event; as the less synonymous Manhattan District is bolded, Development of Substitute Materials really must be as well here. I have made that edit.

(3) Attention is now brought to another issue. Development of Substitute Materials is referred to as a "codename" in the lede, but simply as a "name" in the main text. Well, a codename is a special, unusual sort of name. If "codename" is correct (i.e., WP:Verifiable), then that lede characterization needs to be supported and should also appear in the main text. Also, if "codename" is correct, that arguably justifies the ubiquitous use of quote marks around DSM. But if it's just a name like Manhattan District, then in most grammatical constructions under your prevailing style it should have no quotes around it, just like Manhattan District. (And that would be OK, because just as with Manhattan District those proper noun capitals already mark it out and render quote marks unnecessary much of the time.)

(4) You declare that "both the lead and main text are correct," but fail to acknowledge the problem that I clearly identified and detailed—that the lede's claim that the Army part of the project was designated the "Manhattan District" while the official designation for the entire project was "Development of Substitute Materials" was not well supported. I see you did edit the relevant main text passage to make it more clear and supportive of the lede, though you, oddly, did not see fit to mention that in this thread. The edit was helpful, but insufficient. Let me try to draw your attention to the crux of the problem. It has been in this passage:

Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project "Development of Substitute Materials", but Groves felt that this would draw attention. Since engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to instead name it the Manhattan District.

Given the phrase "instead name it", any sensible reading must conclude that "it" is "the project" given a different name in the preceding sentence—implicitly, the project as a whole.

I have changed the passage to the following, which is clearer and conforms with your (I believe proper) assertion that the lede is correct:

Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project "Development of Substitute Materials", but Groves felt that this would draw attention. Since engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to name the Army's component of the project the Manhattan District.

If that can be improved on, great, but what we can't do is have it as it was.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's call this...

(5) In the process of making a simple style-related copyedit to the Cost section, I checked a source and discovered a significant problem in the text. The text claimed:

By comparison, the total price [of the Manhattan Project] by the end of 1945 was about 60% of the total cost spent on all other bombs, mines, and grenades produced [by the US]

According to the source cited, the total cost of the Manhattan Project by the end of 1945 in constant 1996 dollars was $21.57 billion. And according to the source cited, the total cost of "All bombs, mines and grenades" for that period in like currency was $31.5 billion.

So, if source's "All bombs, mines and grenades" does not include the four Manhattan Project bombs, then the cost of the latter was 68% of the cost of all other bombs, mines, and grenades. On the other hand, if source's "All bombs, mines and grenades" does include the four Manhattan Project bombs, then the cost of the latter was 217% of the cost of all other bombs, mines, and grenades. The source cited does not make clear whether "All bombs, mines and grenades" does or does not include the Manhattan bombs. In either case, the percentage given was significantly off. For the moment, I have deleted the unverified and inaccurate claim. Another source must be adduced if some version of it is to be restored.—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's call this...

(6) There were issues with both insignia images in the infobox. I was able to correct one: The source for the unofficial Manhattan Project emblem was a Google Books link that led to a page that neither illustrated nor discussed the emblem. I have substituted a link that, it is to be hoped, will lead everyone to the proper page. The nominator might want to add the hardcopy cite as well to the image page, as Google Books links are fairly fickle (which is why I never use them myself). The other is entirely up to the nominator to correct: The Commons image page for the Manhattan District shoulder patch provides no support whatsoever for the claim that the image content originally came from a United States Armed Forces badge or logo. Personally, I have no doubt that it did, but the image page, of course, must give us some means, however cursory, to verify that.—DCGeist (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Would [:http://shop.amse.org/browse.cfm/manhattan-project-patch/4,40.html this] be good enough? or this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That patch has been described to me, by proud veterans of the project (the few survivors of whom are now very elderly), as the patch of the Army Corps' Special Engineer Detachment (article is Special Engineering Detachment, lame as that article is). Thus, it is not a patch for the entire project, but only for some of the military personnel assigned to it. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The third page of the online document at [42] (a copy of a published memoir) has a black and white photo of the patch with a caption that indicates that the patch was issued after the Hiroshima bombing. Thus, not only was it specific to the SEDs, but it was essentially a souvenir. (I think I've heard that before.) --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nichols, The Road to Trinity, pp. 226-227 tells the story of the patch. It was actually designed by the WAC detachment. Nichols tells how he went through all the hoops to have it officially approved by General Somervell, Secretary Patterson, the Quartermater General and the Adjutant General. See this photograph Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also: have a close look at this photograph, which is in the article itself. General Groves is wearing the patch. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added three citations to the file page; in sum, they should address any questions.—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Have DCGeist's other comments been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• They have. I was waiting to find time to read the whole thing top to bottom to make my support explicit, but I have no outstanding concerns.—DCGeist (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

• "cost nearly US$2 billion ($24.4 billion in current dollars).": You and I know there's a template lurking there that will update the inflation figure every year, but without looking at the edit screen, the reader has no way to know that, and will likely assume that the figure will become dated. I tweaked it to: "This is roughly equivalent to ${{Formatnum:{{Inflation|US|(price)|(year)|r=2}}}} as of 20{{CURRENTYEARYY}}.{{Inflation-fn|US}}", which will update the year as it updates the inflation price. The inflation template page asks for a citation, which is provided by the inflation-fn template. There's some disagreement over when the inflation template is the relevant measure. (Not my area, so I won't get into it.)
• postwar vs. post-war; the former has more support in AmEng dictionaries, the latter in other dictionaries. There were lots of both; I went with "postwar".
• "He also agreed to coordinate the effort with that of the British, and on 11 October he sent a message to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, suggesting that they correspond on atomic matters.": If this is accurate, it might be better: "On 11 October he sent a message to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, suggesting that they correspond on atomic matters and coordinate their efforts."
• I added an "s" after Beams', and Nageh reverted. There's an argument from MOS:POSS that I shouldn't have added the s, since MOS lists 3 acceptable styles, so I changed it from one acceptable style to another. However, American guidance has (finally!) started to coalesce around recommending the "s"; I can give you a long list, but it's simplest and usually best to track Chicago, in this case 7.16: "including names ending in s, x or z". If I can ask a favor, let me at least copyedit this so that we'll have a link to point to that conforms to Chicago, then if people want to fiddle around with it, that's their business. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ad apostrophe s: I reverted in the sense of WP:BRD but I'm open to any outcome, i.e., feel free to put it back in. Nageh (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

All these changes are fine.

1. A lot of editors wanted a cost figure in the lead. I am very aware of the drawbacks of CPI, having been involved with MEIs for some years. I was most concerned that it would not seem very much to a modern reader in comparison with, say the International Space Station or the Joint Strike Fighter Program.
2. AmEng seems to be moving away from hyphens.
3. The text is accurate. To me, there is a subtle different between the two: Roosevelt's initial reluctance.
4. My AusEng style guide requires the additional s where the subject is singular.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, we lose hyphens every year, I don't know if that's a worldwide trend. Good to know about the 's.
• "Nor were they impressed with estimates ...": Is "they" Marshall and Groves? Whose estimates?
• I'm going to leave "codename" alone, even though Webster's New World apparently thinks it's two words, and Merriam-Webster likes "code name" for the noun and "code-name" for the verb.
• "1,200 tons", "1,720 tons": short tons? What is that in tonnes? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Long tons. 1,200 long tons (1,200 t); 1,720 long tons (1,750 t). Note the effect of scientific rounding, of which I heartily approve. Basically, I did not feel that the difference was great enough. What you always have to be on the lookout for is the measurement tons. I have added conversion templates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Quick note: I think I can finish up in two hours, and I may leave cranky edit summaries and revert people while I'm doing it, because Wikipedia is horribly slow right now for long articles like this. I'll do more explaining of my edits when I'm done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Note that someone just inserted a fact-tag on a footnote; I'm guessing it's sourced in the following citation. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Continuing. "Instead, it was placed atop a steel tower 800 yards (730 m) from the weapon, nicknamed "the Gadget", as a rough measure of how powerful the explosion would be.": Put modifying phrases next to the words they modify when possible, and it's possible here. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Taking a guess on this and the next two so I can finish up and support. I moved things around, although I'm not confident that I got the cites in the right places. - Dank (push to talk)
• "An Alsos team went to Stassfurt in the Soviet Occupation Zone and retrieved 11 tons of ore from WIFO. In April 1945, ..." If this happened before April 1945, maybe "in what became the Soviet Occupation Zone"? (I can't tell from our article what period that phrase applies to.) If after, then the narrative isn't chronological. - Dank (push to talk)
  • I went with "in what became ..." - Dank (push to talk)
• "... Silverplate, the codename modification of B-29s to carry the bombs." Our article says: "Silverplate was the code reference for the United States Army Air Forces participation in the Manhattan Project during World War II." So, was Silverplate the codename for just the modification of the B-29s, or for everything the USAAF did in support of Manhattan? - Dank (push to talk)
  • Okay, it looks like the name "Silverplate" was used that way at that time. - Dank (push to talk)
• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Support—This is an excellent article on an important topic and I think it satisfies the FAC criteria. My primary concerns were addressed. There are a couple of unaddressed concerns, but I can live with those. Thanks for your revisions. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments—Overall excellent, but there are a few areas that I think need to be refined:

• In the first paragraph of 'Origins', it looks like the authors are using some creative arrangement of the details. But to me the flow doesn't work very well. The writing implies that the reader should already know about the Einstein–Szilárd letter, then launches into an explanation. It should begin with the writing of the letter, then lead into the formation of the advisory committee.
  • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, in Britain, Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls...": needs a date to put 'meanwhile' in context.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk)
• "Oliphant goaded the Americans into action" requires clarification. The Americans were already "in action", as indicated by the earlier paragraphs.
  • Not sure about this. It says a proposal was made and an executive order was signed; that doesn't mean anything was happening. In the next paragraph, the project was approved, not long after Oliphant's goading, so I don't see anything in the writing that makes it implausible that he had an effect. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Yes, but what effect is it talking about? Approval, planning and coordination are certainly activities. I think the article should better define "in action". RJH (talk)
      • Hawkeye fiddled with these sentences; looks good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Still not clear how Oliphant persuaded the Americans. Was it because he met with the Uranium Committee and spoke with Lawrence? Who did eventually get the effort going? Nageh (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
          • This is hard to explain. Oliphant could be a very persuasive person, and once Lawrence got going his enthusiasm was enormous. All American accounts credit Oliphant with sparking the American effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks, much clearer now. I did read it up eventually in a copy of the History of the US AEC book before incidentally discovering that it was the same source you were using. :) Nageh (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• What is "the centrifuge project"? The three methods have already been listed.
  • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Compton recommended Oppenheimer, who had two drawbacks." This reads as peculiar because it is normal to state the positive benefits of the choice before the liabilities. I.e. "X recommended Y, who was brilliant, a capable leader, and well-respected by the scientists. However, he had two drawbacks."
  • Tweaked. From memory, Hawkeye has previously pointed to his excellent reputation as a project manager. Hawkeye, is that covered in the sources cited? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No, he had no such experience. You have to remember that the scope of the bomb design was not foreseen to be as great as it later became. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Oops. I was trying to remember: "... Oppenheimer was not known ... to be an efficient leader of large projects." I had it right except for the "not" :) What you've got now looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• What is a "total exclusion zone"?
  • Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• "...concerns that even Oak Ridge was too close to Knoxville...": this should clarify that it was "too close to a population center", rather than just to Knoxville in particular.
  • Done, and good call; your way requires just a little less effort for the readers to parse it. I left it alone when I saw it because I'm "over my limit" (and over Hawkeye's limit too, I suspect :) on minor tweaks designed to make the article just a little easier to read. This is one reason multiple copyeditors are a big plus. Btw, you're doing great. - Dank (push to talk)
• "...about the poor access road and the water supply...": was the concern of the lack of a water supply?
  • Stet; I don't know what else "water supply" could mean here. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Bacterial or chemical contamination, for one. RJH (talk)
      • Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• "...from the exchange process from...": doesn't make sense.
  • I tweaked it to "the exchange process water"; better? - Dank (push to talk)
    • Hawkeye went with "the water". - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• What is "chromia"?
  • Linked. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• "...later replaced by Bennett Lewis." When?
  • "When" only matters if the changeover was significant in some way ... if there was some drama, or it made a difference. I don't think it would harm the text to include a date, but Wikipedia sometimes gets a little boring mentioning dates of no real significance, I think. - Dank (push to talk)
    • If it doesn't matter, why mention it? The sentence already says Cockroft was the first director, implying a future change. RJH (talk)
      • What would you like to see here? Would you prefer we not mention Lewis? - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
        • From what I can determine, Bennett Lewis took over in 1946. The lab was apparently closed the same year. If so, is it worth even mentioning him? RJH (talk)
          • That does seem to be after the meat of this story; I removed "first" (which raised the question of who was second), and the mention of Lewis; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
            • The source says "The first director of the new laboratory was to be John Cockroft, although he was replaced before the first pile went critical by W. B. Lewis, who went on to dominate the Canadian nuclear scene for decades." Given the nature of the article, I thought that he should be mentioned. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems incorrect. According to Lewis' biography, he took over in September, 1946—a year after ZEEP went critical. I'm also curious to know why the article is covering the Canadian nuclear reactors. Did they make some contribution to the Manhattan Project? RJH (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• They were part of the Manhattan Project. It included the Canadian effort. This had important ramifications for the US-Canada-UK relationship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• "...preferred design for the nuclear reactors were helium cooled...": Should 'design' be plural or 'were' singular?
  • Oops! I at least try to catch subject/verb agreement. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
• "3 tons": was the unit in use? Normally an article on a scientific topic will use SI, per WP:UNITS. In the next section the text switches to using long tons, with metric tonnes in parentheses. Consistency would be good.
  • Yep, Hawkeye was working on these today. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Edgar Sengier, the director of Union Minière du Haut Katanga, the mine owner." Should it not say "the owner and director of..."?
  • Nope. Tweaked to "the company that owned the mine". - Dank (push to talk)
• I'm not clear that the image gallery in the 'Ore' satisfies WP:IG. However, the {{Multiple image}} template could be used to move the images inline.
• "...hybrid of the familiar laboratory mass spectrometer and cyclotron." Most readers will not be "familiar" with these devices. Please use a more appropriate word.
  • Oh, excellent point. Tweaked to "standard". - Dank (push to talk)
• "It was reckoned that..." seems too folksy and may be WP:WEASEL.
  • I paused there too, for those two reasons. What made me go on was that "reckoned" is also used in non-folksy contexts ("he reckoned on the first bullet but not on the second"), and we've got a running battle in history articles over what constitutes excessive weaseliness, and I don't want to use my copyeditor role to get the last word in. But you're quite right to point out the possibility that reviewers may want attribution here (apart from the obvious advice: click on the cite for the attribution). - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Hawkeye removed "it was reckoned that", and on reflection, you're both right and I'm wrong, as judged by the usual reactions from reviewers. I'll remove phrases like this in the future if the sentence can stand without them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Y-12 shipped its first few hundred grams of uranium enriched to between 13% and 15% uranium-235 to Los Alamos in March 1944": is an awkward sentence. Please re-write it.
  • Tweaked. - Dank (push to talk)
• "...uranium-235 feed in by January 1945." An unnecessary 'in' here? Or perhaps 'fed in'?
  • I went with "feed", but maybe it should have been "fed in". - Dank (push to talk)
• "Electro-deposited nickel mesh..." seems a little ambiguous. Is the mesh being electro-plated with nickel, or is the mesh being created by that process?
  • Hawkeye rewrote this; seems clear now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• "...which now only had to work with uranium-235...": this statement is puzzling to me. What did it "work" with before? Is this a reference to the idea of a plutonium gun device that was briefly mentioned in the lead? If so, the text should clarify this because plutonium is not covered until the next section.
  • Yes, that is right. I will re-word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• "The Metallurgical Laboratory eventually developed an improved welding technique...": When?
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Modifications over time... in July 1944": is that 'by' July 1944?
  • No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• "It seemed that the reactor had a half-life..." seems to be WP:WEASEL.
  • Not really; obviously reactors do not have half-lives. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, no. You can't expect all readers to understand that, nor to recognize what appears to be a physics joke. RJH (talk)
      • I removed the "half-life" sentence ... feel free to revert, Hawkeye, but I think the readers got specific enough information in the previous two sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't know that it needs to be removed; just attributed to somebody. Thanks. RJH (talk)
          • The point is that the periodic nature of the problem provided the clue as to what was wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
            • The point you added about the xenon isotope's half-life made it clearer I think, Hawkeye. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• "lanthanum fluoride" should be linked.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• "...before settling on ... the fast explosive and ... slow explosive": I think this needs a little more clarification. Why are there two types of explosives?
  • Because. Read through the article on explosive lens. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry but I don't think that will suffice. A reader shouldn't have to hunt in other articles for an explanation. It should be easy enough to include a brief explanation as a sentence clause. RJH (talk)
      • I went with an extra clause, feel free to tweak: "fast and slow explosives were needed to focus the compression wave on the spherical core."
        • That's fine. It really took a von Neumann to think of this. My approach would have been like Neddermeyer, who used explosives to crush a cylinder into something resembling a rock. This is not good enough though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Between January 1943 and June 1945, there were 62 fatalities and 3,879 disabling injuries, which was about 62 percent below that of private industry." Wait, what? Is this a comparison by rate, or by total? is it compared to a specific industry? It's difficult to believe that private industry killed more 62 people out of 129,000 every two years. But perhaps I'm mistaken.
  • Comparison rate. (added) Yes, you're mistaken. In 2009, the fatality rate in the United States was 3.3 per 100,000 workers per year. So a similar project today would expect 3.3 x 1.29 x 2.5 = 11 fatalities. But things were more dangerous in the 1940s. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. RJH (talk)
• In the Legacy section, the association between the "Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory" and the Manhattan Project is unclear. It is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and it does not appear on the Project sites map.
  • The radLab? It appears in the electromagnetism section. Decided to link it down the bottom too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Great work RJ. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Please check ISBN formatting consistency. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, they are inconsistent of course. Ran a script that makes them all the same. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I pinged the Physics WikiProject on this FAC well before the restart; can anyone confirm whether anyone from WP Physics has been by? If not, they had their notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've checked user pages of folks who have weighed in after the restart; no one is obviously a member of PHYSICS, though Orlady has personal knowledge of Oak Ridge, and RJHall is a member of the Astronomy project. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment In References, Hewlett and Hansen are wikilinked twice. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Have all concerns been addressed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest adding a link to the annotated bibliography for the Manhattan Project from the ALSOS Digital Library for Nuclear Issues (http://alsos.wlu.edu/qsearch.aspx?browse=warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summaryfare/Manhattan_Project)- Frank Settle fsettle@wlu.edu

Added. You guys do a great job. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [43].

---

Rova of Antananarivo

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Rova of Antananarivo is the palace complex of the kings and queens of Madagascar. It was established in 1610 on a traditional model dating back to the 1400s or earlier. Just prior to the site's anticipated inscription on the World Heritage list it was destroyed by a fire in 1995. It is currently being rebuilt. I'm nominating this article for FAC because it is thoroughly researched and has gone through peer reviews, copy edits and lots of hard work. If awarded, it will become the second FA on Wikipedia related to the culture/history of Madagascar. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment. You need to spend some time revisiting and tidying up the prose. A few examples from the lead:

• "The number of structures rose to approximately twenty during the late 18th-century reign of King Andrianampoinimerina. By the late twentieth century ...". Which is it to be? Numbers or words for the names of centuries?

• Fixed the one instance of this issue. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Successive Merina kings continued to utilize the site as their capital until the fall of the monarchy in 1896 ...". A site isn't a capital.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Within the Rova grounds there were also a cross-shaped wooden house ...".

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "... rumors persist that politically-motivated arson may have been the actual cause of the fire." No hyphen after adverbs.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've also gone through the text again and given it a copy-edit myself. Let me know if you still see problems. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose 02:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) - I appreciate the work you've put into this article on an under-represented topic, but unfortunately I feel that it doesn't currently meet the FA criteria. Some specific concerns:

• Issues with prose, as outlined by Malleus above. Copy-editing is needed for clarity, grammar and flow

• The issues above are minor and fixable (already done) and it has already been copy-edited once. I believe what it needs now is review at your high level, and renominating it later is only going to clog up the FA pipeline even worse. Let's identify issues of concern and I will address them promptly. If something major comes up I will be happy to withdraw it to work on the article further. If you could give me a better sense of the issues related to prose I can address them. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I know this came up in a previous review, but remind me: does Madagascar have freedom of panorama?

• Yes it does. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Citation formatting needs to be more consistent

• Can you please provide an example? Citations are all in templates. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Actually I think I understand what you were seeing. I've now moved all books to the Reference section (everything else is still in the Notes section) and cleaned up details like double periods etc. Let me know if this doesn't fix the issue. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?

• That site archives Malagasy newspaper articles. I am quoting from an archived article in L'Express, a major national paper. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• You use some very very long paragraphs, which can make reading difficult

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• No need to include two links to Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm going to strike my oppose for now, and will do a complete source review probably tomorrow or the next day. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've just completed a review of all sources and everything should be in order for spot check. Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is Fage & Oliver 1975 or 1989?

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is Nativel 2005 or 2006?

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Compare formatting of FNs 10 and 64

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Web citations need publishers

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books) don't need retrieval dates

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Government of France (1900) References entry shouldn't include page numbers

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how you notate authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In..."). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think this is the same source that was a little confusing last time. The formatting for the two examples of edited books is actually the same, as far as I can tell, except that one author has four words in his name (Jacob Festus Ade Ajayi) which makes it look like two editors with names formatted First Last rather than Last, First.Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Image comments - i'll leave a detailed image review to the experts, however some comments:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rova_of_Antananarivo_1828.jpg - could use a more detailed source statement, similar to the other 2 maps - what is the shown information "based on ..."?

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• when common English terms for the map legends exist, those should be included. Please check, if the legends can be made easier to understand for the English reader.

• This is already the case. The Malagasy words are almost all names of buildings. The main exceptions are kianja and vatomasina, and a good English-language equivalent doesn't come to mind. If a good equivalent term occurs to you, please share it here so we can decide whether it can be used as a substitute. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstructed_Rova_Antananarivo_Madagascar.jpg - typo "croppe[g]"

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• all images appear to be sufficiently PD (as far as i can see)

• Cheers! Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• see WP:Galleries for information regarding galleries. Especially the captions for image 1, 4 and 7 need more encyclopedic detail. Please check for all gallery images, why their information is important for the article. GermanJoe (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Removed gallery and incorporated select photos into body of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to contribute your thoughts, GermanJoe. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments I was a bit thrown by historically the highest of Antananarivo's many hills, but it eventually became clear. Now the nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• What variety of English? — "favourite", but "metres"

• I believe these are both British English. The person who started the original stub article used British English and dates so I tried to preserve that. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• one dozen — 12?

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• it would have been inscribed — was due to be inscribed

• Fixed. Good word choice. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• most well constructed — Best?

• I think probably not in this case... This is really about the construction, particularly in terms of material used. "Best" is a bit less descriptive and not necessarily accurate depending on the evaluative criteria considered. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• (Tambourissa parrifolia), (Weinmannia rutenbergii). — I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by linking to stubs that don't even contain the species. Either red link the full species name or don't link at all

• Personally, I found it helpful to be able to click the link and see something about what the plants might look like. Maybe we should ask for a second opinion on this point. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• An article was created for one of the two plants and it has now been linked. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• You assume that all readers have as good a vocabulary as you. The following are word used without links or explanation parquet, ossification, Creole, deforestation, desecration, archaeological. Cosmology — this isn't an exhaustive list, just examples. You could go through and see how you could help your readers.

• Added wikilinks. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Similarly, we are being presented with Malagasy terms which are explained once and then used exclusively thereafter. It makes it difficult to keep track of what words mean. I appreciate that some may have no exact equivalent, but I can see instantly what "tomb house" means, rather than track back to the definition of Trano masina

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Naïve art frescoes — why cap?

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• The French Development Agency also pledged tens of thousands of dollars — isn't "francs" more appropriate

• The source stated dollars... I don't think I can go out on a limb and estimate the amount in francs (maybe hundreds of thousands depending on the exchange rate and exact dollar amount, which wasn't provided in the source). Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've changed three AE to BE, happy with rest, now supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch - I am leaning towards support and was involved in a very extensive peer review of this article. I agree with Jimfbleak's comments and have a few more I'd like to see addressed before moving to full support.

• In the lead, this is a complex sentence and I think the "in rosewood" part could be cut, or perhaps moved to the second sentence of the second paragraph, which talks about the buildings themeselves. Merina king Andrianjaka, who ruled Imerina from around 1610 until 1630, is believed to have captured Analamanga from a Vazimba king around 1610 or 1625 and erected the first fortified royal structure there in rosewood. I also note that rosewood is not mentioned in the 1610–1792 section, so the lead (as a summary) should not be the only place for this information.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• The lead also says by the late 20th century the Rova had only a dozen structures, but File:Map of Rova of Antananarivo Madagascar 1990.jpg shows 11 labeled (not 12)

• I've replaced the old map with a more detailed one. "Structures" is a vague word... Here I'm referring to the gate and buildings, not the foundations of something never built, but if the term is too imprecise let me know and I'll reword it. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tighten According to oral history, Manatsara was treasured by Andrianampoinimerina and the house was quite old but still well preserved at the time when Queen Ranavalona I decided to recover its interior walls with wood taken from Sihanaka country in the mid-19th century.[25] to something like According to oral history, Manatsara was treasured by Andrianampoinimerina and the house was quite old but still well preserved in the mid-19th century when Queen Ranavalona I decided to recover its interior walls with wood taken from Sihanaka country.[25]

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Missing word? According to one source, partial electrification of the Rova may have been successfully tested on Christmas [Day?] 1892.

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the Malagasy word italicized in "Thousands of the queen's subjects were forced to labor on the building's construction in lieu of paying cash taxes pursuant to a tradition called fanampoana." Almost all other such words are not italicized (though most were in the earlier version I peer reviewed)

• I believe I've italicized all Malagasy words on the first instance (but did not italicize proper names, such as the names of buildings). Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• It looks more consistent now, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• In the two images of the Manjakamiadana, I would mention that the Tranovola is also visible.

• Done. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Missing word? The building's fine silk brocaded curtains, chandeliers, cabinets in ebony and gold, and sculptures in alabaster and bronze were remarked [on?] by a European visitor in 1823, as were the colorful fabric wall coverings imported from England.[52]

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also note that the Reconstruction section gives three different currencies, which make it very difficult to compare costs / amounts. So 20 million US dollars, 700 billion Malagasy Francs, and 6.5 million Euros.

• Yes, unfortunately that's because the sources provided the amounts in different currencies. There doesn't seem to be an approved way to convert. I had previously provided converted amounts using a website that provides historic exchange rates, but citing the website was considered a form of advertisement. Is there a way around this? Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I know some newspapers publish exchange rates, so could the exchange rate be cited to something like that? I have access to the New York Times archives if needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Subject-verb agreement The reconstruction of the larger wooden palaces, such as Tranovola and Manampisoa, have not been planned.[38] Reconstruction...has?

• Good catch. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is over all very well done, but would like to see these issues addressed before supporting. Thanks for an interesting article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to review, Ruhrfisch. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed to support - would still like to see the 11 in map vs 12 structures resolved, and let me know about looking up exchange rates. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed - now states 11 structures instead of 12. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I looked carefully at the map File:Map of Rova of Antananarivo Madagascar 1990.jpg and one structure, No. 9 "Soamiadanana", is not mentioned by that name anywhere in the article that I can find. Please clarify. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments (points adressed, support see below) by GermanJoe - some more points to work on, though i haven't checked the whole text.

• Lead - "...historically the highest of Antananarivo's many hills" ==> Replace "historically" with some approx. date to avoid confusion, i understood the context only after reading half of the article.

How about "formerly"? Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• "rosewood" - agree, too detailed for lead

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Lois Gros" - as there is no sub-article, please add a brief description in lead (f.e. "Creole merchant ") similar to other architects.

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• "and transformed architecture in the area" ==> vague statement, which aspect(s) of architecture exactly? Maybe provide at least one important example here. The reader shouldn't need to go to the sub-article.

• Clarified. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• "and a number of named wooden houses[,] built in the traditional style reserved for the andriana (noble class) in Imerina" ==> comma? The style is reserved for nobles, i assume.

• Only the houses are built in the strictly traditional style. Placing a comma there implies all the structures are built in the traditional style. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Background - The second paragraph describes rovas with "needed" features. By whose definition - historians or the population itself? Is the distinction between rova and non-rova really so strict and clear-cut? If there are exceptions or controversial cases, it would probably be safer to say "usually include ..." or something similar.

• Reworded. If this is still unclear, let me know. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• 1792-1810 - "... for the hand-shaped silver piastre sculptures" ==> "piastre" links to a currency article, so i have no idea what the article wants to say here. What's a piastre sculpture? Is a building with silver sculptures really "modest" (maybe for kings)?

• Reworded. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• 1810-1896 - "The design of Radama's tomb likewise reflects the hybrid style[32] that was to influence and inspire not only the majority of the buildings constructed at the Rova in the 19th century, but ultimately architecture throughout the entire highland region of Madagascar." Vague, could 1-2 specific examples be included? (similar problem as in lead).

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• "He also had a house called Kelisoa ("Petite Beauty") built to house his concubines." ==> rephrase to avoid houses "He also built Kelisoa ("Petite Beauty"), a house for his concubines." (he didn't build it himself obviously, but the phrase is quite common).

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• "On her orders, the boundaries ..." - "On her orders" is self-evident, can be trimmed.

• Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Later queens also [left their mark] on the Rova through major construction projects." - "also changed the Rova's layout through ...". Also 4 "construct" following after each other, needs variation.

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• 1896-present "... the following year. In 1897 ..." ==> trim "the following year, and ...". Both parts happen in 1897.

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Destruction (see source): "Various public accusations of a cover-up placed the blame for the fire on government officials, social groups from outside the capital, foreign powers and so on." ==> The phrasing is relative close to the source text. It's only 1 sentence and a simple listing, but you would probably be better off to formally quote this directly from the source text.

• Changed. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Destruction (POV?) - Covering of the "official" position and the (as far as i understood) unproven "rumors" seems a bit unbalanced. The article has 1 sentence broadly covering the official side and 4 sentences describing speculations. Are those rumors and speculations based on factual evidence? ==> Suggest trimming the rumor part to 1-2 sentences with only the basic facts.

Leaning support as well, but prose needs some polishing. Consider rereading the whole text, the article should be accessible for readers without specific Malagasy or architecture/history knowledge. As mentioned, check if the handling of Malagasy terms can be improved. GermanJoe (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Made some changes - how does it look now? Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments, GermanJoe. I appreciate the time you took to review this article. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Just to note, I reviewed this article when it was a GAN. It has definitely improved further. Below are my comments.

• The article does not appear to have standardized on either U.S. or U.K. English. The units through the {{convert}} template are in U.K. English (which can be adjusted with a parameter), the article uses "colonize" (U.S.) instead of "colonise" (U.K.), and it uses "colourful" (U.K.) instead of "colorful" (U.S.). There's probably a lot more, but I'm not the best at knowing all the differences. Please pick one and go with it for the entire article.
• I'm not sure if there's a requirement for this, but I think it might be wise to use a non-breaking space between the ruler names and their number. Maybe other reviewers can share their opinion.

• Added (except where the name is wikilinked... I wasn't sure if that would screw up the link). Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tip—If you want to do those, do something like this: [[Radama I|Radama I]] – VisionHolder « talk » 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Various public accusations of a cover-up placed the blame for the fire on government officials, various ethnic and social groups, foreign powers and so on." To me, "...and so on" does not sound very encyclopedic.

• Removed. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Does "Palace of Andafiavaratra" deserve a red link?

• I don't know... I don't have any plans to write that article anytime soon. :) But if I ever did, I'd come back and put the link in. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is not whether you will write it, but a question of whether the topic is noteworthy and merits being written about. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In theory I agree, although when it's such a highly specialized topic that it's highly unlikely anyone else is going to write about it, it's likely to stay a red link for a very long time. Is that a problem? I'll go ahead and link it, and will probably do at least a short stub article on it sometime soon to get it going. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Red links are not the end of the world. In theory, it encourages new potential editors. There are several red links in some of the developed lemur articles that have been like that for more than a year and are unlikely to change any time soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Other than that, it all looks good.... particularly if Nikkimaria is happy with the sources. Excellent job! – VisionHolder « talk » 15:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I will review the article tomorrow to ensure British English is used throughout. I am also about to upload a new map for the 1896-1995 Rova layout and will correct the number of structures on that basis. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Switch to British English throughout is complete. I ran it through a British English spellchecker. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: The most important changes have been made (with one minor lingering comment), and I feel the article meets FA requirements. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support after a complete read-through and a check of the images and the English online sources, minor remaining point:

• I am still a bit concerned about the "destruction" section. The source describes the initial accusations as mostly caused by the immediate shock of the population after the fire, this "panic" reaction seems to have calmed down after a few days. I believe, you should try to give the official side a bit more weight and put the public reaction into a better context (which accusations are fringe panic reactions and could be skipped completely, which accusations are still believed today and deemed possible by a significant part of the population and are note-worthy?). The "and so on" part should be removed (the source doesn't specify more theories, so a vague hint on others doesn't add factual information). GermanJoe (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I reworded some more. I agree it would be preferable to have more information to offer about the official version of events, but to my knowledge nothing more is available. I've never seen an official explanation of how the fire started in any French, English or Malagasy source report. I would think if there were more information available it would have been published somewhere. Instead what inundates the sources is how quickly the investigation concluded, how it was simply declared an accident without further inquiry, and the practically universal belief that an arson was covered up. So in that regard, this section does accurately reflect the availability of information in the sources. Most books and academic journals either state it was an arson or refer to the common belief that arson was the cause of the fire. They almost never refer to it as an accident except when stating that this was the officially announced cause. I've added a line about how the belief in arson persists and is widespread and offered several sources that speak to popular opinion as well as a recent source characterizing it as arson (illustrative of several others). It's hard to get the facts, especially if a government cover-up really is involved. What are your thoughts? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• When this is all information available, no worries. I think, your tweaks improved the description in it's context. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [44].

---

Gerard (archbishop of York)

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... its not an Archbishop of Canterbury, it's one of their medieval archrivals - the Archbishops of York! And besides, this guy was a witch! Or, well, he was accused of sorcery. Well, actually, he owned a book of astrology and he studied Hebrew ... but these actions were so disturbing to his clergy that they refused to have his body inside York Minster, and it was only later that his body was moved inside the cathedral. Gerard had a bit of a temper - he once kicked over an Archbishop of Canterbury's chair in a fit of anger. He's had a peer review earlier this year, and I managed to finagle Malleus into copyediting on the strength of the "witch" connection. I promise a non-archbishop next... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Douglas William the Conqueror
• Which spelling of medieval/mediaeval does Mozley use? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Added Douglas. He actually uses "Mediæval" but I compromised on "mediaeval" .. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review There are only two images, and it's 2:30 at night, so I'm not going to link them. There's only one issue, and that is that the top image really should have an English description on the file description page. Whether you want to translate the French one that's already there or do something else entirely is up to you, just as long as something is there. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• The only problem IS ... I don't speak French enough for that. I wasn't aware that an English language description was part of the FA requirement for images, honestly. A proper license, yes, even a "proper" way of displaying that license I can see.. but Commons is a multi-lingual project, it doesn't require English descriptions, and quite honestly neither should we. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Meh. Though it's not required, I've added a translation, feel free to tweak. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I said "really should" and not "must". There is a set of templates which allow multiple languages to share space in the description, {{en|1= text in English }} being the template for English, {{fr|1= text in French }} for French, etc. The point is not to replace everything with English, the point is to have English available as one of the options for images used on English Wikipedia. I'm stunned that other language projects don't do more of this. I say "really should" because as an FA, this becomes one of the more exposed, and at least for one day, one of the more read articles. The images, as extentions of the articles, should be accessible to the readers. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Link Lord Chancellor in lead?
• Some overlinking, for example Whitsun only two paragraphs apart
• Is "Man and the Isles" the same as the Isle of Man? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Err.. Lord Chancellor is linked in the first sentence. Delinked the second Whitsun, also caught an 'avarice' which had snuck in. Man and the Isles is the diocese of the Isle of Man as well as the northern Scottish isles - Orkney's, Hebrides, etc. Thanks for the review, and sorry for the delay, RL has been kicking my butt very unexpectedly this week. (partly it's the heat we've been having... which doesn't seem to be ending!) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: No real issues I could see. Very comprehensive and makes the (complicated) issues of the time very easy to understand. Just a few minor points, and feel free to argue. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• "His successor as archbishop did subsequently have Gerard's remains moved from their initial resting place beside the cathedral porch into the cathedral church however." This sentence is a bit clunky; maybe move "however" to the start. And could "did" go? "… as archbishop subsequently had Gerard's remains …"
• "but it is unclear what caused his loss of office": Maybe "unclear why he lost his office"?
• Possibly link "Lord Chancellor" to the history section of that article? I think that may give the office a little context.
• "In 1102, after Anselm had refused to consecrate three bishops, two of whom had received investiture from the king, Gerard offered to consecrate them, but two refused." There is a lot happening in this sentence and it may benefit from splitting. Also, the repetition of two makes it a little confusing on first reading as it is not clear if the same two are being referred to (although this is obviously not important).
• "At about the same time, Gerard was working to find a mutually acceptable resolution to the Investiture Crisis, and by 1107 King Henry and Anselm had reached an agreement." The implication here is that he played a role in this. If so, are there any more details? If it is not certain, I'm not sure these facts should be in such close proximity.
• "King Henry proposed that Anselm accept a witnessed oath from Gerard that his profession made to Anselm when he was consecrated Bishop of Hereford would continue in force." This is hard going and I'm not sure "in force" is necessary. What about linking it with the previous sentence to make: "Gerard agreed to a compromise on the matter of obedience to Anselm proposed by King Henry. Gerard gave Anselm a witnessed oath that the profession Gerard had made to Anselm when he was consecrated Bishop of Hereford would continue [or would remain in force]."
• "A collection of his letters was circulating in the mid-12th century…" What about "was in circulation"?
• Is there anything more about the accusations of magic? The mind boggles slightly...
• The lead mentions astrology, but this is not explicit in the main body. Could it be made explicit this is what Julius Firmicus Maternus was about?
• It may be my browser, but I get note 5 in an odd position to the right of everything else on the page, all on its own. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with the prose stuff (points 1, 2, 4, 6, 7), but I'll leave Ealdgyth to deal with the stuff that requires some brain power. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already linked Lord Chancellor in the lead, the article is pretty heavy on links already, I'd prefer to not double link. On the settlement of the Investiture Crisis - I've added a bit more. It was more moral support than anything, but it helped. Unfortunatly, nothing more about the accusations of magic. I've added in that Firmicus was a late Roman astrologer. I'm not seeing it with note 5, I suspect browser issue. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that link in the lead and it's fine as it is. Everything else cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

SupportComments: The article has had a good going-over, but I have found a few issues to mizzle about:-

• "royal clerk" may be misunderstood. A possibly useful link on "clerk" might be this
• "he was forced to agree to a compromise with his counterpart at Canterbury". Can you clarify what they were compromising about?
• Bishop of Hereford: I would like to see the second paragraph to be prefaced by a few words, e.g. "Although not in holy orders..."
• It may not be obvious to the general reader why Gerard's presence at Rufus's hunting party in the New Forest can be deduced from his presence at Hing Henry I's coronation three days later, in Westminster Abbey. A word or two of explanation might be useful
• Likewise, re Robert Curthose. I know he's linked, but readers shouldn't have to jump to another article to find out who he was. A brief description, e.g. "the king's elder brother and a claimant to the English throne" would do. (I note he is indeed identified as the king's elder brother later, but this should be brought forward).
• Pipe link translation
• "He gave generously..." Since the last person mentioned is Thurgot, this should be "Gerard gave generously..."
• "From 1105 onwards Gerard slowly began to embrace the papal position on the investiture of bishops". Can you in a word or two clarify what the pope's position was? E.g. "against the lay investiture of bishops" (if that is so)?
• Link cathedral chapter
• "Gerard complained..." To whom?
• Death and legacy: "He encouraged..." The last person mentioned is William of Malmesbury, so again, "Gerard encouraged..."
• "A collection of his letters circulated in the mid-12th century, part of a collection..." Unfortunate repetition of "collection".

Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to these this afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1. linked to that. 2. clarified. 3. Went with "Although not yet ordained,..." 4. Added "...three days later at Winchester, close by the New Forest." 5. Now reads "...because Ranulf had defected to Henry's elder brother Robert Curthose, who also claimed the English throne." 6. Done. 7. Done. 8. Now reads "From 1105 onwards Gerard slowly began to embrace the papal position on investiture of bishops, which opposed laymen investing bishops with the symbols of episcopal authority. As part of his change of position, Gerard withdrew from court to care for his diocese." 9. Done. 10. Now reads "In this correspondence, Gerard complained that some of the York canons... " as it happened in the letters to Anselm mentioned in the previous sentence. 11. Fixed. 12. Seems to have been magically fixed (Malleus?) somewhere along the line. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

All fine & dandy now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, except for my Opposition to... the name of the article/title of the man. He was Gerard, Archbishop of York, was he not? "Archbishop of York" is the man's title, not simple a job description. If you need to distinguish between John Brown (clergyman), John Brown (cricketer) and John Brown (servant), then you put the job description into brackets. It is not a title. But in the case of a bishop, or an archbishop, then his job description is also a title. He is Gerard, Archbishop of York in the same way as HRH Prince Andrew is Andrew, Duke of York. The use of brackets and a lower-case "a" for archbishop is taking some inappropriate blanket-rule of Wiki MOS altogether too far. I can't support the article while it has such a ridiculous name. Amandajm (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

YOu need to take the title issue up with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), as this article conforms with that convention. When I started working on the article, it was Gerard, Archbishop of York, but it got moved to conform with the titling convention. I cannot move it elsewhere without not adhering to the MOS as well as getting into an edit war. I'm afraid I can't do anything about your opposition. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [45].

---

Tropical Storm Carrie (1972)

Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Call me Julian. Some days ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no activity in my contribution history, and nothing particular to interest me on FAC, I thought I would browse about a little and see the watery part of the project. It is a way I have of driving off the boredom, and regulating the keyboard. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the fingers; whenever it is a blank, empty page on my computer screen; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before articles for deletion, and bringing up the rear of every stub-class article I meet; and especially whenever my typos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately misspelling words, and methodically opposing people's nominations—then, I account it high time to expand an article as soon as I can. Juliancolton (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I try. :) Juliancolton (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why "U.S. Weather Bureau" but "United States Department of Commerce"? Also, author and publisher data given here doesn't seem to match exactly what you've written
• FN 19: hyphen should be dash. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Think I got both of these. Juliancolton (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Honestly, I didn't see anything wrong with this piece. All could do was add a link and nothing more. Then again, my eyes may not be the best for looking for the minute errors within prose but from my standpoint, this meets the featured article criteria. Also, very inspiring opening statement :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cool, thanks for the review! Juliancolton (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - All good on the copyrights front, however File:Carrie1972filledblkrain.gif's summary page has issues... mainly that there really isn't a summary. Please fill out a Template:Information template and stick it in that page. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 03:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Added the template and summary info. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

SupportComment, leaning to support: Professionally done, but I have a few quibbles:

• The image captions need to be made a little more informative. I don't think "Storm path" and "Rainfall from Carrie" are adequate descriptions
• "...a tropical wave that emerged from the western coast of Africa on August 15, 1972, and entered the Atlantic Ocean". Surely, when it "emerged from the western coast of Africa" it had already entered the Atlantic Ocean?
• Can a wave be properly described as a "weather system" (as in "A relatively strong weather system, the wave progressed westward..."
• There are a few over-complicated sentences. Here is one: "In response to the pressure gradient between Carrie and the high pressure area to its north producing gusty northeasterly winds, and by extension high seas, the National Weather Service issued small craft warnings starting on September 1 and extending from Massachusetts to the Carolinas".
• "algae" is a plural noun, thus "The algae releases..." is incorrect.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Brian, thank you for the review, as always. I've addressed your specific concerns, and while I can't immediately pick out any more instances of overly complicated sentences, I hope my fixes are to your satisfaction. Juliancolton (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy with what you've done and have switched to support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Strong support I had some minor quibbles that I relayed to the nominator offsite, but nothing considerably detrimental to the FA status this article very much deserves. Excellent work! ★ Auree _talk 22:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support! Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Some concerns with prose:
  • The influence of a nearby upper-level low pressure system caused the disturbance to further deteriorate, — find a link for "upper-level low"
  • The low pressure system maintained a cold core and had not yet established itself at the surface. — jargon; link cold core
  • For the first time, a low-level circulation center had been identified in association with the system,[1] — was identified?
  • reconnaissance aircraft flying into the cyclone reported sustained winds of up to around 55 mph (89 km/h).[1] — link to maximum sustained wind here and remove the link below
  • Post-storm reanalysis estimates the depression had strengthened into a tropical storm at around 0000 UTC on August 31.[2] — why present tense here?
  • At the time, it was located approximately 350 miles (560 km) east of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. — while not wrong, the antecedent for "it" is located two sentences away. Restate it here.
  • Carrie had already reached its initial peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 60 mph (97 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 1,002 millibars (29.6 inHg), — central pressure is jargon; link to atmospheric pressure, pressure system or something similar
  • and strong wind shear inhibited immediate strengthening as it continue to slow to a drift. — unclear antecedent, and subject/verb agreement
  • At its weakest, the storm's highest winds were found far from the center, likely generated more by the increasing pressure gradient in relation to an anticyclone to the north than by Carrie itself.[1] — link to pressure gradient, and rephrase the "Carrie itself" clause to something like "than by Carrie's low pressure center itself" or something similar
  • A low pressure system moving through the Mid-Atlantic states pulled Carrie northwest, back toward the United States East Coast, at an accelerated forward speed.[5] — should East Coast be capitalized? Do you need an apostrophe? Would it be simpler to say "the East Coast" and link it somewhere?
    • I'm using "US East Coast" as a region rather than a geographical feature, so I think it needs to be capitalized. I could reword it to "East Coast of the United States", but then it's just switching stuff around. Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • By later on September 2, the storm had begun to show signs of reorganization, — remove "by"
  • Carrie quickly deepened under the influence of baroclinic processes, — jargon; link to baroclinity, and rapid deepening (or bomb (meteorology)); this sentence is also too long, split it.
    • It didn't RI though (there are criteria for what constitutes RI, so I think by piping it in, we'd be implying the criteria were met). Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Good point. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The pressure gradient between Carrie and the high pressure area to its north produced gusty northeasterly winds, — link to anticyclone or high-pressure area
    • I already linked anticyclone above, does it need to be linked again? Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, my concern here is that most people don't know that a high-pressure area is an anticyclone. So I would link it again. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Alright, I linked it again. Juliancolton (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Are there any suitable articles for small craft / gale warnings?
  • Ongoing, as well as the threat as continued heavy rainfall necessitated the issuance of flash flood watches throughout eastern Massachusetts…" — I can't even parse this sentence. Please rewrite.
    • Typo'd "as" for "of" (or someone did). Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sustained winds were recorded at 28 mph (45 km/h), with only slightly higher gusts, although the Chesapeake Light reported unofficial gusts to near 50 mph (80 km/h). — what is an unofficial gust? Just say "unofficially reported"
  • Along the coast, rough surf caused beach erosion and swamped hundreds of small craft.[15] — link to coastal erosion
  • link Narragansett Electric Company
  • Total monetary damage was estimated at $1,780,000, of which $1,200,000 in losses was inflicted on Massachusetts. — was that 1972 USD or is it current-year USD? Same in the next sentence
  • Four fatalities were attributed to the storm, two the aftermath of boating accidents in Massachusetts, and two the result of rough surf along the coast of Maine. — this seems better handled with a colon and verbs on both of the sentence's latter clauses
• Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments; I've either attempted to fix all your points, or left comments where I don't necessarily agree. Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I gave it a detailed GA review, of which Juliancolton kindly addressed all of my comments. It is a great article with great writing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. All right, enough for me. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. seems like an example of WP's best work to me.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [46].

---

Super Science Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a companion to Astonishing Stories, which recently went through FAC: Super Science Stories and Astonishing Stories were sister magazines for much of their existence. Both were fairly minor magazines in the overall history of science fiction, but they had their moments and I hope I've managed to highlight them.

There are two possibly controversial points I would like to raise for reviewers' consideration. First, the issue grids, which I've been using in one form or another on many of these magazine articles, have drawn several comments -- they are not very compliant with WP:ACCESS, though in their defence they are intended as visual aids, and do not present information that is unavailable in the article text. I built a sandbox with a table version and a gif version; Malleus spent a good deal of time improving the table version -- see User:Mike Christie/Sandbox4 for the current version. There are still some problems with that version; the sandbox talk page has some discussion, as does the Astonishing FAC linked above. Hence I am still using a graphical version, though it is now svg instead of gif to avoid resizing problems.

The other point is that there is a substantial amount of text in this article that was taken directly from the Astonishing Stories article; I'd guess about 30-40%. It's been edited to try to give it a little different feel; Malleus also did a copyedit of the whole article and that will have changed the flavour some more. However, reviewers should be aware that this is in some ways not entirely original work. I raised this point at WT:FAC before nominating either magazine at FAC; the response there convinced me it was OK to proceed with the nominations, but I want to make sure reviewers are aware of the situation.

Is this the longest FAC nom statement ever? I'm sure it's the longest I've ever written. Thanks to Malleus for the copyedit; I hope you enjoy this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Source nitpicking - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• In a few instances you have omitted spaces after commas in shortened citations
• Be consistent in how you punctuate volume numbers in shortened citations
• Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The first and third issues are fixed -- I was only able to find one instance of each so please let me know if you see more. I couldn't see any inconsistencies in the volume punctuation; can you point me at an example? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Both sources with volumes use colons in References, but in Footnotes one does and the other does not - was that a conscious choice? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was worse than that once you pointed me at the problem; in one case there was no volume given at all. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image Review The stuff that is already in is fine. Is there an iconic/notable cover you could stick in? (probably non-free, but would be justifiable) Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the image review. Take a look at this version, which includes two cover images; I removed them when I discovered they were not public domain. I'd be glad to include one or both but I have a hard time justifying it as I've found no discussion of specific covers, and as far as I know there were no particularly well-known or iconic covers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  I think you would probably be justified including a single cover merely as an identifying image under the NFCC; if you're gonna do that, and all of them are copyrighted, and none of them are in any way iconic, then the first (or perhaps last) cover would probably be a fair bet. Your call as to find one that you feel is representative, I guess. Of course, if you feel that the article works fine without a cover (I haven't read it), and that adding one would not add significantly to reader understanding of the topic- great! I hope no one would feel the need to force you to use one. J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Another editor has just put back the first issue cover, and I think that's justifiable, based on your comments -- there is some discussion of the amateur level of the artwork in the early issues, though it's not specifically about that cover. I've added a fair use rationale. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Support -- Although this is the first time I've got round to reviewing such an article in WP, I think I enjoy the history of the SF mags as much as the stories in them, and it appears you do too... ;-) Great work -- structure, prose, referencing, detail and supporting materials look fine, just a couple of minor comments:
  • In the first sentence you mention a revival of the magazine in 1949-51, but this is never raised again in the lead. It reads oddly to see "The final issue" dated May 1943, when it's earlier implied that it was only the final issue of the original run. A brief statement re. the revival at that point would help I think.

    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

    Tks, that was really all I needed for unqualified support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

  • When Pohl sold his own stories to himself, did he ever do so under his own name or always a pseudonym? You tag one instance of the latter in a footnote, but if it was his standard practice (as I'd expect) then it might be worth mentioning in the main body after "began to augment his income by selling to himself" under Contents and reception.

    He always used a pseudonym, but in fact this was because he always used a pseudonym for everything he published till he was over thirty years old. In The Early Pohl he explains that he had a fondness for pseudonyms that took him years to outgrow. I could certainly add that all these stories were pseudonymous, but since he gives a different reason for the use of pseudonyms I don't want to mislead the readers. I see that it would be useful for the reader to know this, though. Any suggestions for how you think it should be handled? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

    Let me think about it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

    I've had a go at this -- see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

    Yep, that's fine -- I'd have put something similar, noting that it was his usual practice anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I linked a number of notables but found nothing to alter in the text from a prose perspective -- quite unusual for me so well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you! I have to give credit to Malleus, whose copyedit was very helpful. If you're interested in the history of sf magazines let me know if you're interested in collaborating on an article or two -- there are plenty left to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks, love to. I have my own copies of Aldiss' Thrillion-Year Spree, Ashley's Book of SF Lists, and a prized Encyclodepia of Science Fiction dating from 1978 with an entire chapter by Ashley devoted to the mags, which was what sparked my interest in this field in the first place, as basic references. MilHist has been my main focus at WP but more than happy to broaden my range by collaborating on things like this. ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch - I just read this interesting and very well-written article and find it meets all the FA criteria. My only quibble is that there is no mention of the Canadian and British reprint editions in the lead. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point -- I normally don't mention reprints in the lead as they usually contain no new fiction, but in this case the Canadian first reprint has some independent interest. I added a note about it and also mentioned the reprints of the later run, for completeness. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Struck my quibble. I forgot to mention that I am fine with adding one fair use image of the cover art / magazine cover to any FA on sf magazines that currently lacks such an image. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - A fascinating and well-written article. The detail with which it's told convinces me it must be comprehensive -- it is a magazine from the 1940s, after all! ceranthor 16:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, but only on two conditions: please shorten the first paragraph, and include more images than those boring charts. Otherwise, a very well-done, comprehensive article! Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've broken the first paragraph in two; you're right that it was too long. For the images, we do have one fair use cover but I don't see how I can justify another. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Informative to those unfamiliar with the topic. All criteria appears in order and as needed. Brad (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [47].

---

Gobrecht dollar

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. I had previously nominated this article, but it was pointed out that it had more flaws than I first believed. Now, Wehwalt and myself have (hopefully) improved the article enough to meet the standards of the FAC process. The Gobrecht dollar, minted from 1836 to 1839, was the first dollar coin minted in any quantity since the denomination was unofficially discontinued in 1804 and officially in 1806. The coin, though known as the Gobrecht dollar, might be more accurately referred to as the "flying eagle dollar", as its namesake was involved only in the engraving of the dies and slight modification of the designs. The basis for the design was a seated Liberty figure created by great early American artists Thomas Sully and a soaring eagle created by another prominent artist, Titian Peale, son of Rembrandt Peale, an artist responsible for the creation of many portraits of the American Founding Fathers. The Gobrecht dollar was minted as a test to determine whether or not a circulating silver dollar would prove favorable with the American public. Evidently, it did, as the denomination continued steady production until 1873. These coins continued to utilize Sully's seated Liberty, but the soaring eagle was rejected for a more heraldic creation after 1840. Peale's design was not forgotten, however, as it too continued to live on, albeit briefly, on the Flying Eagle cent, minted from 1856 to 1858. Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Lange
• Ref 16: should either provide page number or section number. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry about those two! I believe Wehwalt inserted the Lange reference, and I think he probably meant to write Taxay. I'll check with him and make sure though before I change it. The other problem has been tended to, but I'm not sure how well. I don't know which publisher compiled these laws, so I can't put that in there. I did put the page number that contains the relevant information, but it looks a little odd without a publisher, since it was almost certainly part of a large bound volume.-RHM22 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the Lange thing is also fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I am not sure what "Sully created an obverse design depicting a seated representation of Liberty and Sully a reverse depicting a soaring bald eagle." means; removing the second "Sully" would make sense. Fixed the n-dashes and I believe this article passes the FA criteria.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 17:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed that. The second "Sully" was supposed to be "Peale". Nice catch!-RHM22 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Review

• The lead images (of the coins) may not be in the public domain. Because the book was published in 1913 it was not published before 1913, the {{PD-US}} template is incorrect. Someone with slightly more copyright knowledge than I would have to tell you how to proceed. Until this is resolved, however, this nomination most certainly can't be closed as successful. Edit 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC): I would like to have this straightened out, but per my response below, I don't think at this point that it's a big enough issue to crash the candidacy. 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• The quality on File:RobertMPatterson.jpg is awful. It's like that at the source, so it's not our fault, but it still is the degree of bad quality that bears mentioning here. 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the quality is low for this image. I don't have any others copies available currently, though, so do you think I should remove it and replace it with a different image? I have images of other people that were important in the history of the coin, so there won't be a problem finding a replacement for the Patterson image.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If they are of equal importance to Patterson, then yes I would. Maybe it's just because I'm an image gnome, but I kept getting drawn back to that image while I was trying to concentrate on other things on that page, and I wasn't getting drawn back for the right reasons. I felt like a [Rubbernecking|rubbernecker]. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The source for File:Christian Gobrecht.jpg is a dead link. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll see if I can find an archive link.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's fixed. Turns out it was just an old URL, so I didn't need to use the Archive. Thanks for the image review!-RHM22 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely the crucial date is 1923, unless I am missing something here?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright being the monster that it is, a photograph of an object is copyrighted separately from the object itself. In further consideration, however, I would have to say this is a non-issue, as the photograph does not meet any reasonable threshold of originality/creativity, which the U.S. requires for copyright. If my reading of the laws is correct, we could still get hit with a cease and desist notice, although the odds of that are incredibly low, however that notice could be defeated by an inebriated first year associate. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added fresh images of a Gobrecht dollar. How is that? I should add that I am currently doing research at the ANA library and I carefully went through the stacks looking for auction catalogs that were US-published before 1978 with color plates and no copyright notice. I found three. The images were from one of them. --Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I called my lawyer and she said that I was in fact correct about the threshold or originality thing, however since it was in a larger document, she would have to see the document itself in order to give a definitive answer. However if you've gotten around the problem by getting another version, then it's all good anyways. Lemme take a quick look at the new stuff. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. As with the wire rim from the Indian Head dollar, iff there really isn't a notice, we're all good here. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no notice. I went through a fair number of auction catalogs and similar material, as soon as I saw an copyright marking I put it back on the shelves. I've done this at several archives and know what I am doing. The books are at the ANA library, anyone free to check or to call the librarian there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't interpret my comments as questioning my integrity, I intended no such thing, sorry if it came across that way. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I seem to have taken a little-used loophole on Wiki and run with it, as has RHM22. Actually, the more times this is discussed and upheld the easier for everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Commments:

• In general, the article seems to over-cite, using the same reference sentence after sentence. This can be trimmed back considerably.

I removed a few that seemed mostly unnecessary, but most of the references are still cited multiple times. I'll fix this by referencing a book that Wehwalt has provided me access to a little later today.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There's still a little bit of over-citing, particularly in the last paragraph of the "Design" section (#9 & 10) and in the "Restrikes" (#21) section. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• The mass and diameter are given in the infobox, but not covered (or cited) in the article.

I cited the mass in the article and reworked it a little in the infobox, but I removed the diameter entirely, because it seems to fluctuate based on the source, so I can't find an exact number.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Where you put the mass, I don't think you need to link "grams", and the second mass should have units (g) behind it. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Was there a stated reason why the 1804 dollars were being exported to the Orient (and later back to the U.S.)?

The 1804 dollars weren't really exported to the Orient (even though they were given as gifts there!), but rather the standard issue silver dollars. I have reworded to clear that up.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "After examining Mint records, officials incorrectly concluded that the last Draped Bust dollars minted were dated 1804, so that date was chosen for the new coins." ... I'm sorry, I'm not following the meaning or significance of the last half of that sentence.

Since no 1804 dollars had been struck since 1804 (they were dated 1803, but they didn't know that), they chose to use that date on the coins struck in 1835. It's not known why that was done, but certain numismatists have theorized that Mint officials didn't want to create only a few coins with a certain date because collectors would want them, and very few would be struck. I guess they were not successful with that, because the 1804 dollar is one of the most valuable and famous of all coins!-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

They did get the date right in restriking the $10 piece, also not struck since 1804, but 1804-dated pieces had been struck at the time. However, they got the way the number 4 lookednwrong, see Turban Head eagle#1804 issues, creating an even greater rarity than the 1804 dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting hung up on here is that I'm not familiar with the 1804 dollar and the Draped Bust dollars, and I keep thinking your leading into something on the Gobrecht dollar... Can you see it that way? If not, I'll try reading it again tomorrow to see if I'm just being a bit slower than normal. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• "...both Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury, President Jackson and his cabinet approved of the design." The word "both" usually indicates two people or things, not several.
• "An act of January 18, 1837 officially changed the legal standard for silver coins from 89.2% to 90% silver." – The source mentions that coins should be 90% silver, but does not document the change from 89.2% from what I could see. What source gave 89.2%? I'm assuming the Yeoman ref?
• I'm a little unclear about how this dollar transitioned into the Seated Liberty dollar. Can that be clarified? The way it's worded almost makes the Gobrecht dollar sound like a test run.

It was a sort of test run. That's why they were minted in such small numbers. Should I try to expand on that in the article?-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you should be more clear about this. I'm not a big coin collector, particularly of coins this old, so I come into this article thinking this was a common circulating coin, but gradually learn that it was more of a test-run for a future coin. I think it needs to be stated a little more explicitly, particularly in the lead and somewhere near the top of the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest linking the first use of "numismatic".
• "Following an increase in numismatic pursuits among the public in the mid-19th century..." – I'm assuming that means an increased interest in coin collecting? If so, I recommend just saying that.
• Your page range for Adams & Woodin should be 9–10, not just 10.
• Some of the following information from Adams & Woodin seems to be omitted from the article: "It is said that but eighteen of the coins with the name in the field were struck in silver, while 1,000 were made bearing the name on the base. These figures apply to the coin with the twenty-six stars surrounding the flying eagle on the reverse. The same obverse as the foregoing, but with the eagle flying in the plain field on the reverse, is excessively rare."

I'm not sure about this. I'll look into it a little later and see what else I can add.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked into it, and as expected, those pieces were patterns. There were several different types of patterns produced throughout the tenure of the Gobrecht dollar, and there would be too many to list each type individually. I could certainly add something about them if you think it would be a good idea, though.-RHM22 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of comprehensiveness, yes, I would at least discuss them. When I write about lemurs or any other species, I often have to go into gory detail about coloration patters (which can vary widely) for the same reasons. Although you don't need to outline every pattern, you should at least document that they exist and give a general overview. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

References: I checked the Adams & Woodin online source, verifying the facts and that no plagiarism has occurred. I could not check the offline sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Sorry for my delay in responding. I had some business to take care of, and it took longer than expected. Anyway, I have attempted to fix all of the issues you've raised excepting a couple, which I have elaborated on above. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still looking into the patterns, but I'll add something about them as soon as I can find some good sources for that information.-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• 1804 dollar: "The rationale for discontinuing the denomination was that many of the coins produced since the denomination was first struck...". Little redundancy here with multiple "denomination"s. Could change the second one to "it", or do any number of other things.
• Design: "began preparations for a series of silver dollar which, unlike the 1804 dollar, were intended...". First, should "dollar" be plural?
• "to assume the position. Shortly after assuming the position...". More repetitiveness here.
• "in order" can safely be chopped from "be hired immediately in order to fulfill the duties of engraver".
• "to" missing from "in an effort gain their approval."
• What is meant to be sourcing the last sentence of this section?
• Production: "Gobrecht dollars struck prior the act...". Add "to" after "prior" or change "prior" to "before". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and again, I apologize for my delay. I fixed all of the points you brought up except for the bit about sourcing. The reason that the last sentence of the design section is unsourced is because I removed some of the over-citing. If you think it necessary, I can certainly restore the reference to that sentence. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If ref 11 is what is intended to source that bit, you could just move the last citation of the section back a sentence. That would sufficiently cover both sentences, if it indeed is the source. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, with comments-

• One of the same comments I made last time: Under "1804 dollar", the first two sentences could probably be combined and the word "officially" is superfluous.
• In the second paragraph in that section: is it possible to make that active voice? It sounds awkward as is.
• In that same paragraph, in the second-to-last sentence, the words "over the fact" can be removed without changing the sentence's meaning.
• In the last sentence there, "amount" should probably be "number".
• In the second paragraph in "Design", "which would be carried out by Peale:" --> "which Peale would carry out:" or maybe "which Peale would execute:"
• In the second paragraph in "Production", the semi-colon and "this is because" --> a comma and "because", or maybe a comma and "as".
• That's it. I think the article has improved since last time I read it. Good luck. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I've fixed everything here except your first and second points. On the first, I combined the sentences, but I didn't remove "officially", because the denomination was unofficially halted in 1804 before it was done officially in 1806. I did reword the sentence to make it a little clearer. As for the second point, I think I fixed it, but I'm not really sure what active voice is.-RHM22 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that "No action was taken until the summer of 1834..." should read "[Someone] took no action until the summer of 1834..." Passive voice leaves the reader in doubt over the identity of that someone who took no action. I get what you're saying about "officially", so I struck that comment. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits; please see the edit summaries. A few spots that don't read as smoothly as they could, maybe someone will have a suggestion what to do. - Dank (push to talk)

• "numismatic historian R.W. Julian suggests the coins were postdated to prevent coin collectors from becoming angered over the fact that they would be unable to obtain the newly dated coins, which would be struck in very small numbers."
• "According to a common story, the flying eagle seen on the Gobrecht dollar was modeled after Peter, the Mint's pet eagle, who, after his untimely death by becoming caught in the Mint's machinery, was stuffed and remains on view at the Mint to this day."
• "were the coin held face up, with the obverse facing toward the viewer, and rotated on its horizontal axis, the reverse design would also face upward.": I went with "the image was upside-down on the reverse." - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank, for the copyedit and support. Everything looks great except for bit about medal alignment, as that means that both images face upward when rotated. This always proves difficult, because I can't find a good way to explain it. To demonstrate, assume that this is the obverse of the coins: /\ normally, when U.S. coins are rotated this way: > or this way: < , the other side (reverse) looks like this: \/ . This is commonly called 'coin alignment'. The opposite of that, when both sides are the same (/\ and /\) is known as 'medal alignment', because most medals created in the United States use that orientation. It's extremely hard to explain without a photograph or something that demonstrates it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if I had too few words, you had too many. Can you do something shorter? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I can't think of any good way to word it. I'd remove that information entirely if it wasn't so important to the article. I'll try to rework it to make it a little more concise.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose At the moment i would have to oppose, though it can be ammended to lead me to support. The article as it currently stands leads the reader to assume that there were 600 coins struck dated as 1838. This simply isnt so. The only coins dated as 1838 were a few pattern pieces and restrikes of those patterns. The 600 coins that the article refers to were the same type as the 1838 patterns, yet were struck dated as 1839. The article also fails to mention the important fact that the original 1836 issue of dollars was the only American coin issue to be issued as a proof into general circulation, no other american coin has been issued for general circulation as a proof. See [[48]] and any current red book issue for more details.XavierGreen (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the 1838 issue. I believe I had the correct date in there, but it was changed while I was reworking the article. At any rate, it's fixed now. As for the other issue, I was aware of it, but I decided not to include it because it didn't seem particularly relevant. Also, the "for" or "not for circulation" issue has long been contentious among numismatics. Many still consider the Gobrecht dollar to be a pattern, even though it's well documented that it was meant as a trial run. Still, I would be hesitant to include any information about it being the only regular issue proof coin, because some might argue that the 1856 Flying Eagle cent and the various gold stellas were also regular issues, even though I would personally disagree.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah but there is a distinct difference between issues like the 56cent/stellas and the gobrecht dollars. The stellas and 56 cents were never released directly into general circulation, they were patterns with large mintages that were disseminated into public hands in an irregular form (given to congressmen/sold to collectors at higher than face value). The first issue of Gobrecht dollars was released into circulation as any other circulating coin would be, they were disperesed through banks and saw circulation as regular coins. The stellas and 56 cents were never intended to circulate as money (though a few 56 cents seem to have circulated anyway when spent by people ignorant of their rarity) while the 1836 issue of dollars were specifically made to circulate as money.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I came across this while looking at my own FAC, and I couldn't believe how much info you had for a coin that lasted four years over 150 years ago. However, I have some issues before this passes.

It is a little surprising, but I have read others who do write-ups on obscure 15th century medals that are pages long! I have no idea how much effort it must take to find so much information on things like that.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I find it weird in the background section that you refer eastern Asia as "the Orient". I understand that's what it was called back then, but it feels a bit stuck in time.

This is something that came up a little while ago while Trade dollar (United States coin) was on the main page. On there, it was changed to "Eastern Asia", so I did the same here.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1806, Secretary of State James Madison" - going with the above, I think it should be something like "then-Secretary", as many more people know Madison as a president than SoS.
• "well received" should be "well-received"
• Why did Moore resign?

This I don't know. The source I used doesn't really go into any more detail, and I haven't found any online sources for that information either.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I was just curious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Numismatic" - what's that? Either link or explain please

I have the first use of that word linked.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Could you cut down on the quotes in the "Design" section?

I removed some from the quote about the reverse eagle, but I don't think it a good idea to remove any from the obverse quote, since everything he is saying is important; the Gobrecht dollar was the first federal United States coin to depict a seated figure, and I believe that the quote shows the designing process.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I more meant converting the quote into prose. It's great seeing quotes, but if they are merely describing something, one can just describe that as well in their own words. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• " In August, Patterson sent a uniface striking of the reverse die to President Jackson, who approved designs for both sides of the coin." - that is unsourced

The reason for that is because I was asked above to remove some sourcing. I can certainly replace it if you think it necessary, though.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, every single sentence in the article should be sourced (using the standard sourcing method, meaning that no section should end without a citation). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why can't I see the "Gobrecht" on the coin in the image of the Infobox?

That is because the infobox coin is an 1838 Gobrecht dollar, which was minted in very small numbers and is generally considered a pattern. The name would normally have been situated below the Liberty figure, but that was not done during the small 1838 production.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a 1836 now, here, please feel free to substitute.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would love if that was in, given that it has the "Gobrecht" on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "are technically patterns" - what does that mean? You never mention patterns elsewhere in the article
• "Gobrecht dollars struck prior to passage of the act weighed 26.96 grams (g), and those struck after 26.73 g." - the second portion doesn't really read well. Try adding another word or two
• "Persistent demand for the new coins prompted Woodbury to contact Patterson to request more to satisfy demand for the silver dollars" - there are some redundancies there ("persistent demand... to satisfy demand"). I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with the sentence
• "though it is widely believed " - by whom?
  • I'm not a huge fan of the "likely", but that's better at least. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• "designer of the cent" - which cent? The modern penny?
  • Which one-cent? Was it a contemporaneous one? A modern one? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That referred to the Flying Eagle Cent mentioned earlier. I have reworded that section.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• My biggest concern is that there are only 7 sources for the article. I suppose I'm also a bit worried that 6 of them are book sources. Given that two books were written in the internet era, I'm worried you may be missing some contemporary online sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review! I have fixed all of the points you've raised, except for the few that I have commented on above. As for the referencing, Wehwalt has been kind enough to supply me with some extra material, and I'll introduce some of that information into the article. I would have done it earlier, but I'm moving slow as molasses!-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! I gave some responses and struck out the ones I was satisfied with. Be sure to let me know when you add some more sourcing. I understand about moving slowly though. I have my own FAC I'm dealing with! (any reviews there would be great) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as a comment, the author William H. Woodin, cited with the pattern books, should receive a link in the references, he is unquestionably notable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason for the switch to oppose? There is already one oppose, the delegate will not pass it without the issues being addressed. I do not think RHM22 is wilfully ignoring you; I'm actually a bit worried about it. Opposes are good to let noms know to get on the ball, but he simply appears not to be on Wikipedia. If the weekend passes, I will email him. I got some pretty good images of Gobrecht dollars, including a couple struck in copper, at the ANA convention in Chicago, that might spice up the aritcle, if it is a help for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the fact that he isn't on Wikipedia is the main reason for my switch. It appears there is no one running the ship here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's why Sandy isn't archiving this. She's giving him a chance to come back. If this is still open middle of next week, I will do my best, but right now my FAC attention is fully on my own article and I am reluctant to take on other commitments until that clears. The thing is, I only have one "book" (images of a book I photographed last month and sent to RHM22) with me. Gobrecht dollars are not my field, but I'll do my best. Let's see what happens between now and then. I take it if the matters you have mentioned are cleared up, you'd reconsider?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea, of course :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the long absence. I've been working in a place where I have no internet access. I believe that I've addressed all of your issues except the sourcing, which I will fix as soon as I have the chance. Thanks to Wehwalt for all your help and to Hink for understanding.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out, there's a problem with ref#7. Check the bottom of the refs section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• "After Chief Engraver William Kneass's stroke" - would suggest rephrasing as "had a stroke". If your phrasing is kept, be consistent in whether you use "Kneass's" or "Kneass' "
• Wikilink dies in lead?
• "Gobrecht dollars struck prior to passage of the act weighed 26.96 grams (g), while those struck later weighed 26.73 g" - is it worth converting those values?
• "by whom" tag should be addressed
• Be consistent in whether you use "mid-19th" or "mid-nineteenth". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've fixed all your concerns.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - link check. No broken external links, no DAB-links. Earwig's tool shows no results (a deeper source check was not done). GermanJoe (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 00:51, 23 August 2011 [49].

---

Harmon Killebrew

Nominator(s): Wizardman 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I promised that I would bring a more notable person here after my last FAC, and I have done just that, nominating a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. This is an article that has a rather unique history. Back in 2008, this became part of a WikiProject Baseball article improvement drive, as we saw a few Hall of Famers who had rather poor articles. It became a GA easily, and for the moment that was all.

In December 2010, I saw him back in the news again due to his cancer diagnosis, and restarted work on it to try and bring it here. I realized that the prose wasn't really all that good, and over the past several months have essentially rewritten the entire article. He unfortunately died last month, and further modifications were again done to the article. The article was made tougher to modify because he was known as a nice, quiet guy; it's a lot easier to write about someone if they are (at least a little bit) verbose or controversial, as there's more to sink your teeth into.

In any event, I don't think I'll be able to improve this more than I already have, and I do believe it finally meets FAC criteria. It's a WikiCup nom, though I'm more concerned with it being another notable figure whose article the baseball project and wikipedia can be proud of. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• "the Twins finished the 1968 season below .500 for the first time since 1961" - source?
• "Killebrew led the best offense in the league and rookie manager Billy Martin's Twins won the new American League West division as a result." - source?
• "He chose to be released" - source?
• Source for career hitting stats table?
• FN 2: page(s)?
• Why not include both authors for shortened citations to Pahigian?
• Official title of NYT is The New York Times
• Sports Reference or Sports-Reference?
• Compare formatting of FNs 37 and 43 - this inconsistency occurs more than once
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
• FN 115: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  In progress, though noting that I'm not sure the he chose to be released needs a source. He was given those three options, and the fact that he signed with another baseball team the next year shows that he chose the release option. Everything else is done sans the wikilinking; I'll take a close look through the refs tonight and catch any of those issues. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  Everything is now done sans my point above, though if others also think it should be sourced I'll go find one to add in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

comment - the legacy section seems a little repetitive to some of the rest of the article. And I know it's a product of this type of article but the career sections are kind of a dry this and then that sort of thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Noted; if I were to move the legacy information into the article, it may be able to fix the dry prose, since anecdotes and the like would be mixed in. Not sure how well that would read but I could give it a shot. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  That could hinder navigation. I envision people seeing a "Legacy" section title in the table of contents and clicking on that to skip the boring career part. That wouldn't be possible if the legacy section were absorbed into the career section. Wknight94 ^talk 03:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  I went ahead and tried moving the legacy stuff into appropriate spots in the article, but it didn't read very well upon doing that, so I'll keep as is, though most repetition is out of the section now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I am not a fan of this sentence. Killebrew was a quiet, kind man who was not a fan of the partying lifestyle. Quiet and kind are subjective adjectives. Dincher (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  Added an extra ref for the adjectives. There are a myriad of refs out there that support and note Killebrew's quiet attitude, so I'd prefer to keep it in ideally. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Dincher (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Source-checking – Articles that I can effectively spot-check for sourcing issues don't come around that often, but this is one of them. I went through around 20 cites and came up with the following concerns:

• The first reference doesn't say anything about his AL right-handed home runs record being broken by A-Rod. I'd imagine it was written before that happened, and I'd imagine the fact was mentioned in an RS when the record-breaking homer was hit.
• It also isn't giving the figure for his number of games played in 1960, which is given in the article. Good news is that any stat site worth its salt should take care of it.
• In reference 3, the quote is different than the one found in the lead. SI: "Just washing the dishes, I guess". Article: "Well, I like to wash dishes, I guess". Are you sure this didn't come from another source? For what it's worth, a later reference from ESPN that I checked agrees with the SI version of the quote.
• First two words are missing from the title of ref 33. It also doesn't say that Maris broke the record, though this may be considered common knowledge for baseball fans.
• Says in the article that Killebrew made every All-Star Game from 1961 until 1972, but the source says his streak (ref 80) was only nine in a row when snapped. Is it only referring to fan balloting?
• Reference 110 doesn't mention anything about how Killebrew wasn't a partier; it just says he wasn't flashy. You'll definitely want to add another source to support that fact.
• Reference 115 doesn't say that Killebrew spread rumors about his being the model for the MLB logo; it says an announcer was responsible. The information clearly came from ref 116, so that should be used as a source here as well.
• While I'm here, please fix the use of Killebew after ref 85. Also, capitalize twins beforehand. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. Admittedly the source part was what I was a bit iffy about, given the multiple rewrites the article has went through while keeping many of the same refs. Fixed everything, just noting a couple things here. Maris's 61 home runs in 1961 is definitely common knowledge (a bit less so since 1998 but still). For the 1962-1972 streak, the nine in a row checks out (1963-1971 had nine games); the article says he was in every game from 1963 to 1971 rather than 1961, unless I somehow missed it twice (there were multiple all-star games in the early 1960s, but luckily that doesn't come into play here, even I get confused by that). I'll look around for a ref on the lack of partying, since I want to include that, but of course if there's no sources than I can't have it in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  Response on the All-Star Game issue: the article actually contradicts itself. The 1972 section has the apparently faulty 1961 date (it claims that was the last one he missed before '72), but the 1962 section indicates he missed the two All-Star Games that year. Looks like 1972 needs fixing. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  Ah ok, looks like I just made a year typo there then, never a good one to make; all the uncrossed issues are fixed now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  Only thing I see left to comment on from the source review is that the partying stuff is still in the lead and should probably be removed since it's been taken out of the body. If it can be sourced and put back in the body, obviously this becomes a moot point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Whoops, forgot it was in the lead. That's gone now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Images: File:TwinsRetired3.png has improper licensing; If it was a symbol used by the team, then the uploader does not own the rights to release. File:MOA Killebrew Drive 080705.JPG could do with a cleanup. Other than that, it checks out. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed first and cleaned up second. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've had a look to the end of the 1961-65 section, and intend to look at the rest. This article does look like it has been the work of several editors as the prose is slightly uneven, and the further into the article you look, the more awkward some parts become. I've copy-edited as I've gone along, but there are some parts that I cannot clear up myself and I have listed them below. I don't think the prose is up to scratch at the moment, but it fairly straightforward to fix and certainly it is not worth an oppose. It tends to lapse into sports-speak but it just needs a polish. If Wizardman has no objections (and I haven't mangled the article with what I've done so far) I'll try to copy-edit the rest as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• The article seems to switch between RBI and RBIs. I'm not sure which is correct.
• "He had his finest season in 1969…" Could this be more precise? Finest how? The most home runs and/or RBIs? Or the only time he won the MVP award. Or because everyone says it is?
• "Killebrew was, in fact, a quiet, kind man…" Reads like POV; what about "Colleagues/friends/whoever regarded as a quiet, kind man". I think "in fact" is rendered unnecessary by "despite" at the beginning of the sentence.
• "In his youth, he was a farmworker, where he lifted 10-gallon milk cans, each can weighing about 95 lb (43 kg).": Does farmworker really need linking? And "in his youth" is a little imprecise: the location of this information after his school career suggests a young adult at least and I think a date or something more specific would aid the chronology here.
• "becoming the youngest player in the majors at the time": Does this mean he was the youngest player in 1954, or he was the youngest player who had appeared in the majors up until that point?
• "Killebrew was called on to pinch run for Clyde Vollmer, who had drawn a bases-loaded walk off of Chicago White Sox starter Jack Harshman while pinch hitting for Senators reliever Chuck Stobbs." Jargon: pinch run, pinch hitting and reliever need linking at least. And I'm afraid "drawn a bases-loaded walk off of…" defeats my limited knowledge of baseball!
• "…where he played behind veteran Eddie Yost": Er, does this mean he stood behind him in the field (forgive my ignorance!) or he was behind him in the "pecking order"?
• "and a home stadium where hitting home runs to left field was difficult." Again with my ignorance, I assume this is where the majority of his hits would go as a right hander?
• "…the only player to hit a home run over the center field wall at Engel Stadium…" Was he the first, or the only one to date? If the latter, unless the stadium no longer exists, this needs a "only one as of 2011" on it.
• "had a slow April in 1959 … but he picked up the pace in May": Slow is unencyclopedic here, and so is picked up the pace. But I'm not sure what slow would mean in this context, so I can't suggest anything.
• "He did not play in the second game, but in the first game, he hit a pinch hit home run to give the AL its first run." Awkward repetition of run.
• "his speed began to decrease": Speed of running presumably, the implication of this following the mention of his triples season being he could no longer run fast enough to score triples? Or was it a fielding issue? Possibly spell it out.
• "It was considered the most dramatic home run in Twins history…" Who considers it?
• "the Twins went 28–19…" I think the win-loss thing should be spelt out on its first use.
• "and Killebrew hit a World Series home run off Don Drysdale in Game 4…" Is a World Series home run different from another type, or does this simply mean he hit a home run in the World Series?
• "Overall, Minnesota was shut out in three other games, twice by Sandy Koufax, and the Dodgers won the series in seven games." I'm not sure what shut outs are in this context. Why three other games? No other shut outs are referred to, so it would be better as just "three games". Also, I'm not sure if the info on Koufax in relevant here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  Your copyedits to the article look good. Changes made, though a few notes: RBI and RBIs seem to be interchangeable in the baseball community, but most prefer the latter given that runs is plural, so I've fixed those. In 1969, he led the league in HR, RBI, and got his only MVP; the latter in particular is why I wrote his finest. I could change it to finest statistical year, which seems to be true. I couldn't find anything more accurate on the farmhand note besides him doing that as a youngster, but I'll look around. On the Yost point, it's the latter; Yost was the starter and Killebrew the backup. Most right-handed batters would probably pull the ball to left field, since ironically they are on the left side of home plate from the umpire's point of view. I removed it though since even I had to double-check that since I was unsure if that sounded right. A professional team hasn't played in Engel Stadium since 99, but it still exists; I'll leave it as is for now, but if you're certain on adding in the as of then I'll do so. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

More comments: Done up to 1970-74, still copy-editing as I go. Sorry this is taking so long. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Killebrew's home run prowess was on display during the 1967 season when..." Not too sure about this; it reads a little like sports journalism and I wonder if it is needed at all? I've reworded it slightly, but ... Maybe lose the prowess part and keep the rest?
• "Killebrew made a bold prediction at the beginning of the 1968 season. He was serving as a prosecution witness in a case where his name was being used to sell stocks, and when the defense attorney asked him how the Twins would do this year, he replied, "I hope it's a great one."" Not too sure here. Who says the prediction was bold? The court case is not really that important to the story unless more details are given (it sounds quite interesting) and the quote is a little underwhelming. It is not actually a prediction and is not really bold, it's more a case of "I hope we do well". Maybe I'm missing something or maybe the story needs a little more bite.
• "At the time, the injury was considered career-threatening, but he returned to limited action in September, having missed the six to eight weeks originally projected": I don't think we need the projection; how many weeks was he out?/
• "again defeating the A's..." I assume this is Oakland Athletics? Should it have an apostrophe?
• "while playing in all 162 games": Is this "in all" meaning in total, or in all meaning he played in every possible game?
• " the Baltimore Orioles used the league's best pitching staff to shut down Minnesota and sweep the series..." I'm a bit lost here in terms of "shut down" and "sweep the series" (presumably win all the games? A number of games may help here). "Used the league's best pitching staff" sounds awkward and suggests they borrowed them from somewhere else. What about "used their pitching staff, the best in the league, to ..."
• "Baltimore avoided Killebrew by walking him six times in the three games..." I think walking is already linked, but maybe expand this a little: am I right in thinking this tactic is to eliminate the risk of him hitting lots of runs because he was a dangerous hitter? For the uninitiated, it may be worth spelling this out here as it would give a bit more impact of his reputation.
• "He spent most of the season's first half..." This is odd as it suggests the second half was less successful. Yet after mentioning the close race in the All Star voting (were they direct rivals for one place, or more generally in terms of the most votes?), nothing is said about the second half except he was third in the MVP.
• Was there any reaction to his 500th home run? Presumably it was a big deal. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  Issues fixed. The 1968 anecdote was originally very interesting when I found it, but when I found a ref that actually noted everything, the quotation shifted to a rather mild form. I took out the "prediction" but left the case in. The A's are the short form of the Athletics; I wrote it out since that was around the time they changed locations so it could have been interpreted as a new team. There's 162 games in a year, so Killebrew did in fact play in all of them. You're right on the walking; generally if players are intentionally walked then the pitcher/manager is afraid of their run-scoring ability, so either they didn't want to pitch to him or the pitcher had no control; since the rest of the Twins weren't walked I'd say the former, so I tweaked that a bit (I have no way of knowing if the walks were intentional, but that's getting into a whole new section of strategy; that'll be for another day). Surprisingly, I found nothing aside from the usual batch of references for his 500th home run; I figured I would have found something big. I'll keep looking though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Final comments, inclined to support: Sorry this has taken so long! The article looks very good and I will be delighted to support once these final concerns are addressed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the Kansas City Royals section is currently a career summary. It includes a lot of "currently". This really needs "as of 2011" but to be honest it would look dreadful if each record had a "as of 2011". I'm not too sure how to fix this; possibly stick in a note which says all of the records are current in 2011, or possibly (my preferred option) would be to join all the records together, such as "as of 2011, he is the fifth XXX". I'm not too bothered either way, but it needs something.
• Later life: could a note or explanation be added about how the voting works for the hall of fame; reading that he had 59% and 71% of the vote is a little odd to someone who has no idea how it works!
• When he was a commentator, for which station(s) did he work?
• His divorce and remarriage are mentioned, but not his first marriage.
• The first paragraph of "legacy" does not really fit here as it is not about his legacy. Maybe it could be moved to the end of his career in the Kansas section? Or if the section was re-titled (see below) it would work better.
• The picture of the chair in the flume ride is presumably the one mentioned in the text, but this is not immediately clear. Could something be added to the caption to help here?
• Maybe I'm missing it, but there is an excellent "technical" analysis in the lead which discusses why he was good; this does not seem to be replicated in the main body. This kind of "style and technique" is the one thing missing, even if it is just a word or two. I might put it in the legacy section and rename this "Character, technique and legacy" although this is not the catchiest title.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Did what I could here; moved the career summary in KC down to the legacy section and modified the title. I didn't add much else in the way of technique details just because they tend to be subjective and sensationalized in sports sources, though I did move it with the legacy stuff. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • • I put in one "as of 2011" which I believe gives the others context. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Most of my concerns are addressed. The prose would probably stand further tightening in places, but there is nothing too bad and I think this meets the standards comfortably. An excellent piece of work. (Copy-editing disclaimer) --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I keep meaning to review, but haven't found time. But I read the lead and spent a lot of time trying to untangle the sentence about the longest home run, going through several steps. At first, I was going to ask you to review for "as of" dates, because of his longest home run at Metropolitan Stadium, but then I realized that the article never mentions that record stands for eternity since that stadium is no more, and then I realized that we mention the longest home run:

During the 1967 season, Killebrew showed his ability to hit long home runs when, on June 3, 1967, he struck the longest home run recorded at Metropolitan Stadium, a shot that landed in the second deck of the bleachers.[54]

early in the article, including the lead, but don't state how long it was until later:

On June 3, 1967, Killebrew hit a 520-foot (160 m) home run, the longest measured home run ever hit at Metropolitan Stadium and the longest in Twins history.

This all needs to be disentangled somehow, and it reminds me that you may need to check for as of dates. An as of date isn't needed here because Metropolitan Stadium is no more, but the article should clarify that early on, and state how long the home run was earlier in the article, on first mention perhaps. I will try to read more later. The "longest in Twins history" does require an "as of" date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the distance for both home runs in the lead; if I should add it in the body in 1967 as well I can do that. I added an as of for the Twins record itself, Thome almost broke it a few days ago so that's probably good to have. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Any other comments for me to address? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead looks good! from Cryptic C62 · Talk:

• I've made a few minor adjustments to the lead. Please look these over and let me know if there are any changes with which you disagree.
• "striking 40 homers in a season eight times." I would advise against the use of "striking" in this manner, as it has a specific meaning in the context of baseball and may thus be somewhat confusing. Also, I would prefer to see "home run" instead of "homer".
• "He hit the most home runs for any player in the 1960s." There are a number of different ways that this statement could be interpreted, and I'm not sure that it adds a whole lot of substance to the lead. I suggest removing it, particularly since some extra space will be needed to address the next issue.
• I believe that the lead does not adequately summarize the Later life section. This section seems to be full of information that doesn't directly relate to baseball, whereas the lead section currently only mentions baseball-related factoids. At the very least, I think it would be appropriate to summarize the manner of his death at the end of the lead.

  I went ahead and added a paragraph on some later life stuff to the lead, and made the other changes. I think the home runs in the 60s is a nice touch, but it's probably not lead-worthy, so I'll find somewhere in the body to put it instead. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  Cool beans, thanks for that. I've switched the order of the last two lead paragraphs; it seemed odd not to have the paragraph describing his death at the end of the lead. Do you grok my jive, me hearty? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  Ten-four. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - on prose grounds, and it appears well-rounded. I'll jot some queries below and copyedit as I go (revert if I change meaning accidentally). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

During his 22-year baseball career, he played for the Washington Senators.. - the mention of the team renders the "baseball" redundant as it is implied. I think we can remove the adjective which is a tad repetitive...?

In 1965, he reached the World Series... - hmmm, I'll pay "The team reached." or "He played in...", but "He reached ..." sounds a little odd to my aussie ears...

The Kansas City Royals section seems a bit slim - is there any other info? Was everyone surprised he signed with the Royals? Was his old team annoyed? Did he have any interesting encounters that year palying his old team?

While still an active major leaguer, Killebrew converted to Mormonism, joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and never smoked or drank - why the need to mention his conversion twice? Why not just " While still an active major leaguer, Killebrew became a Mormon, and never smoked or drank"?

Otherwise looks good on prose grounds. Very keen on semicolons...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. I didn't find much on his Royals tenure aside from statistical notes in game logs, but I'll look a bit more for anything extra. Since the Twins released him, I don't think his joining another team was a surprise. He did homer against the Twins in his first appearance back against them, so I added that in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that all helps. No other deal-breaker prose guffs remain so I am happy to green-light on prose grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - link check. No broken external links, no DAB-links. Earwig's tool shows no results (source check already done - see above). GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [50].

---

Messiah (Handel)

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk), Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Handel's Messiah is among the most frequently performed and best-loved works in all choral music. People who know hardly a note of classical music are still likely to recognise the opening notes of the "Hallelujah" chorus. For much of its 270 years Messiah (not "The Messiah", please note) has been performed in versions that Handel would scarcely have recognised as his own music; he wrote it for a small orchestra and a chamber choir, whereas after his death adaptations using vast choral and instrumental forces became the norm. Recently there had been a greater respect for authenticity, and you are more likely now to hear something approaching Handel's original intentions. This article has been a team effort, with Tim riley, Gerda Arendt and myself all contributing to what we hope is a worthy article. Enjoy the soundfiles, if nothing else. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Had my say at the peer review, it hasn't gotten worse since. Well done all.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and peer review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Excellent article, and on a well-known topic, too! I have already fixed my only problem with the article. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 01:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. The prose is stellar; the topic is covered comprehensively as far as I can see. I have one, very minor comment:

• Why is the footnote about "The Messiah" at the end of the first paragraph? It would make more sense to me to place it immediately behind the name, at the beginning of the paragraph.

Ucucha 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. On the footnote issue, the problem is that there is already a citation after the catalogue reference. It would be untidy and awkward if the article began: "Messiah[n 1] (HWV 56)[1] is..." I think the footnote is best deferred into a less conspicuous place. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Looks pretty good, but I have a few comments.

• "In the years after his death the work was adapted for performance on a much larger scale, with giant orchestras and choirs." (lead) - Shouldn't that be has been?

• The plain past tense is used here to indicate that the adaptations were made in that period; such an adaptation, which the use of the past imperfect tense would imply, would be most unexpected nowadays. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Tim riley. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Background, first paragraph: Would box-office receipts be used to describe ticket sales in this period? Seems a little awkward to me.

• The Oxford English Dictionary cites 18th century use of the term, so I think it's appropriate. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Background, second paragraph: "Even as its future prospects in London declined in the 1730s, Handel remained committed to Italian opera, though to add variety to his theatre programmes he began to introduce oratorios, sung in English, as occasional alternatives to his staged works." seems a little wordy. Perhaps "Although future prospects for Italian operas in London declined during the 1730s, Handel remained committed to the genre; however, he began to introduce English-language oratorios as occasional alternatives to his staged works." or something of the like.

• I think that would be better: conom thoughts? Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think so, too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm outvoted. I've changed it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Background, third paragraph: "The work opened at the King's Theatre in January 1739 to a warm reception, and was quickly followed, though less successfully, by a further oratorio, Israel in Egypt, which may also have come from Jennens." - perhaps "The work opened at the King's Theatre in January 1739 to a warm reception, and was quickly followed by the less successful oratorio, Israel in Egypt (which may also have come from Jennens)". I don't think the Jennens bit of information is 100% relevant to the topic, so if needed at all could be included as an aside.

• Ditto. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ditto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Per above. Grrrr Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Synopsis, third paragraph: "Resurrection of the dead" - Should it be "resurrection of the dead" or "Resurrection of the Dead"?

• We need to revisit capitalisation of terms with specific doctrinal significance: we have two "resurrections" and four "Resurrections". Not my area of expertise, and I invite conoms to look at this. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think as a term, consistently using "Resurrection of the Dead" is not wrong. Will do if we reach consensus. - Looking closer: it occurs only once, the WP article is "Resurrection of the dead", Jennen's calls it "general Resurrection", as opposed to the Resurrection (of Jesus), which is mentioned the other occurances, and probably should be capital as a specific one, not a general term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• On the one occurance left, I think we should either use Jennens' term "general Resurrection" as a quote (no "of the dead" there), or just say "resurrection of the dead", without "general", perhaps best combined: "general Resurrection". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As there were no objections I take it to the article. Now I wonder if we should mark "final victory over sin and death" also as Jennens' idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Leave it; it's not an issue. Brianboulton (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Composition, second paragraph: "The effort of writing so much music in so short a time is remarkable, but not unusual for Handel and his contemporaries" - Remarkable by today's standards, but if not unusual at the time I doubt we should say it is remarkable. Perhaps something like "Although it seems remarkable today, the effort of writing so much music in so short a time was not unusual for Handel and his contemporaries"

• Brian, I think you drafted this: your call. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't like "today" which is inspecific, but I've made a similar alteration. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I like BB's new language. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• London, fourth paragraph: "The year 1750 also saw the institution of the annual charity performances of Messiah at London's Foundling Hospital, which continued until Handel's death and beyond." - Any chance on finding out when it stopped?

• It certainly seems to have stopped by the 1785, when The Times was first published. Messiah performances are mentioned in its advertisement columns, but nothing resembling an annual Foundlings benefit. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The only relevant information I can find is in Luckett, who says that the Foundling Hospital performances were saved in 1773 "for a few more years" by the singing of the Linley sisters. Personally I don't think it is necessary to extend the txt on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just a thought, though I don't regard this as important: it could say "and for a few decades beyond." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• 18th century, first paragraph: Why is New York not wikilinked? The other cities are all wikilinked and New York is not mentioned before this.

• The Manual of Style (WP:OVERLINK) enjoins us not to link capitals and other large cities that everybody has head of. I think New York is one such. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Right. WP:OVERLINK says that commonly known place names should not be linked. So, we don't need to link Paris, but we probably need to link Baltimore, Maryland. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Will link Baltimore. Thanks for spotting that. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• 20th century, third paragraph: "At the Handel Festival held in 1922 at Handel's native town, Halle, his choral works were given by a choir of 163 and an orchestra of 64" - shouldn't that be "in Handel's native town", or is at a town standard British English?

• In UK usage either "at" or "in" is correct. The usage here followed that in the cited source ("The Handel Festival at Halle") but "in" would avoid the repetition of "at", and I have changed it. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• 20th century, image: File:Deborah Warner's production of Handel's Messiah for the ENO.jpg doesn't seem to be of really good quality (lighting, guide rail in the way, etc.). I think it detracts a bit from the nearby text.

• I should strongly prefer to keep this image: rail notwithstanding it illustrates very clearly how different a staged performance of Messiah is from a normal concert-hall one. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Would this crop be better (minus rail and other distractions)? Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• That will do me, if everyone prefers it. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have made the change. If people don't like it we can always revert. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• New crop is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Peer Reviewer tool shows a couple external links may be dead. It also notes that some references may be inside punctuation, although I did not see any while reading.

• I've re-checked all the external links, and they are all fine. (The tool sometimes boggles at subscription sites, but these are clearly indicated). I've also re-checked the 205 references within the text, and none are within punctuation. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems pretty good. I will be happy to support after my comments are addressed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for these points. I have acted on some and left others to conoms to address, as indicated above. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added some comments. I am still pondering on the Resurrection of the Dead issue, and will add a comment shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. My comments have been addressed quite quickly and to my satisfaction. As I will be out of town for a few days, I will assume good faith about the one outstanding comment. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and your support. On the "Resurrection" issue, I think in traditional usage the term is capitalised when referring specifically to Christ; likewise "Passion", "Crucifixion", "Ascension" etc. The "general resurrection of the dead" need not be capitalised, though it sometimes is. I don't believe that there is a clear right or wrong way, but to achieve consistency I have been through the article and standardised capitalisation in accordance with these convetntions. Brianboulton (talk) 7:26 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• FN 29, 32: which Burrows?
  • Fixed. Also fixed another dateless Burrows ref later. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Use a consistent punctuation for shortened citations, for example FN 61 vs 63
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• No citations to March 2007
  • We pruned the relevant section - straggling citation now removed too. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Check formatting on FNs 44, 84, 99, 138, 139
  • All checked and fixed, I think. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Use a consistent formatting for multiple authors
  • Done, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • The article linked to is by Teri Noel Towe, an authority quoted in, e.g., Gramophone (here), High Fidelity here and in Alan Blyth's 1991 book Choral Music on Record. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps that might be pointed out, because in general I try to avoid that POV site, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Towe's article is essentially the same as that printed in Blyth's 1991 book; we could cite that instead if there is still unease about the present ref; other things being equal I prefer to cite an online reference as it makes things more accessible for our readers. Tim riley (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include publisher for Grove Music refs
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref 97: page?
  • Fixed
• Is more information available for refs 132 and 133? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref 132 links to the actual document. Ref 133 - link and author name now added. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

More to come on the outstanding queries above. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Now done, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Thank you to Nikkimaria for the eagle-eyed review. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Media No real problems, but if I'm being picky-

• The licensing on File:Charles Jennens23.jpg needs to be corrected (the first one is kind of irrelevant), and it'd be good if it could be moved to Commons.
• Same for File:Messiah-titlepage.jpg.
• File:Musick-hall-dublin.jpg is legit on enwp, but not Commons at this time- formatting it with {{information}} would be helpful.
• File:Messiah-Westminster-Abbey-1787.jpg Again, {{information}}, licensing and moving to Commons
• File:Crystal-palace-handel-1857.jpg {{information}}?
• File:Ebenezer-prout.jpg Again
• File:Hallelujah score 1741.jpg Move to Commons?
• File:Worthy-is-the-lamb.jpg Again?

Nothing here is essential- all the licensing and sourcing checks out. J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for this review. I have dealt with some of the superfluous licences and have added the {{information}} formats as requested. As to the Commons tranfers I'd rather someone else did these as I usually end up making a mess of such things. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• No great hurry, as long as we're all happy that it'll happen eventually. Media looks good. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support, however:

• I feel the flow of text needs work. There are too many semicolons (which can be often addressed with a comma followed by a conjunction).

• I will look at this aspect, but in my view the semicolon is often more potent than the comma-conjuction. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Brian and Tim, I also feel that, in general, you both overuse semicolons. As an alternative to comma and conjunction, you can simply break the sentence into two sentences, unless each clause is quite short. Readers know that two consecutive sentences are related. In my view, semicolons should be used sparingly. Of course, this is a very nitpicky point, but I hope you will consider it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps English prose writers are more comfortable with the use of semicolons than Americans? However, in he interests of transatlantic harmony I will try to zap a few.

Hmm. Not too many, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There's more than one way to the woods. On close stylistic calls like these, I'd defer to the main contributor(s). Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the Background section contains the claim that "all three oratorios received triumphant performances". That needs a citation in a FA (as do facts like "1733").

• No, the citation to Luckett at the end of the paragraph covers the information relating to the Sheldonian performances. It is not necessary to repeat citations at the end of every sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I take GFHandel's point, though, that "triumphant" performances are a bit idiomatic, and it would strike me as odd as a reader so that I would wonder whether the phrase is from the source or a quirk of the writer of the entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have reworded his, per below. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "giant orchestras"? At least "gigantic", but my suggested change was more elegant than "giant".

• A matter of personal preference, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Again, I must agree that "giant" orchestra sounds strange, at least to my American ear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• No references at all for the claims about the larger orchestras?

• There are lots of citations for use of large orchestras and choirs. See, for example, the first paragraph of the "18th century" section, and elsewhere in the performance history. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "finally abandoned" feels like tautology.

• Not really; abandonment can be the final stage in a gradual process of neglect. But I'm happy to accept your preference here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nebulous information can be bracketed to help with flow, e.g. "(in January and February 1741)" and "(a country squire with musical and literary tastes)".

• No! Why is this information "nebulous", i.e. indefinite or vague? In my view intrusive brackets such as you suggest kill rather than improve the flow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Because "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" is biographical to Jennens and does not deepen the understanding of the point of the sentence (that Handel received a text for Saul in 1735). Is "country squire" really needed in an article about Messiah? Additionally: running "...Charles Jennens" into "a country squire..." (as is currently the case in the article) would not be my preference. While I'm in the neighbourhood "new oratorio" also seems like tautology (could Handel have received a text for an oratorio he'd already written?). GFHandel ♬  00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I will leave it to other reviewers to decide if these and similar points warrant any action. My view is that they do not. Your "preferences" are not of themselves reasons for altering the text. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Brian that the MOS prefers commas to brackets in parenthetical clauses, however, I also find "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" to be overkill. How about just "a patron of the arts", as it says in his bio? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• In view of the importance of Jennens's part in the creation of Messiah it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the article should include a little information about him. I don't think that the few descriptive words can really be described as overkill, more a brief thumbnail characterisation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Brian. Fair enough, and this is my last comment on this small point, but I dont think the phrase "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" conveys anything like what you intend to convey, at least to American readers. We don't exactly know what the word "squire" means - American readers might think that you are describing his mode of dress, or that he had to travel far to get to London, or something like that. And "musical tastes" doesn't seem to add anything - why would you ask someone to set a libretto unless you were interested in a musical piece? What is important here, I think, is the idea that he had money and was an enthusiastic amateur, rather than a respected librettist. Is that what you are trying to convey? In any case, I urge you to consider this one more time and see if you can clarify for all readers what you are trying to describe about him that is relevant to Messiah. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have amended the text to "wealthy landowner with musical and literary interests". I would point out that none of the three main peer reviewers, all Americans, expressed any confusion with my original wording. However, in the interests of ending discussion on this very marginal issue I have compromised. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• That seems better to me. Congratulations on another super article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• "received" doesn't seem right in "received triumphant performances". Perhaps "resulted in triumphant performances"?

• I don't think the phrase "all three oratorios resulted in triumphant performances" actually makes sense. Maybe my own effort wasn't much good either, so I have found an alternative wording. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think that "received ... performances" is a particularly British phrase, and since this article is using British English, I simply take it as a colorful formulation. So I agree with Brian. None of the above affects my comments below, as I think these are all excellent stylistic points to think about, but all are quite minor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• As stated, this has been reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I made an attempt to address some of these in the first two sections ([51] and [52]), however my first change was quickly reverted as being "stylistic preferences, not improvements". I'm not trying to be difficult, and am only trying to help. I'm happy to take the time to look at further sections—but only if they are not quickly reverted (and of course if others feel it's worthwhile that I do so). Failing that, good luck with the FAC!
GFHandel ♬  23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support. I appreciate your wish to help with the prose; it would be better, however, if you raised your points as suggestions, rather than simply implementing them. The prose has been carefully edited and reviewed several times—that doesn't mean it can't be improved, but one should be cautious about making ad hoc changes and variations of style without discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Brian was right in that revert. To me, the prose as it is now seems elegant and engaging; your change made it drier. Tautologies are sometimes appropriate for emphasis, and brackets within a sentence do not often make for well-flowing prose. Ucucha 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In this case I disagree with your view about brackets because they can subconsciously help the reader to recognise the start and end of text that is subordinate to the theme of the sentence (as is the case with Jennens). So you are fine with "giant" and with the unreferenced claims about "triumphant performances" and facts such as "1733"? It's been a while since I looked at the FAC process, but it's obvious that things have changed since I did. Oh well, I'll move on. (I'm at a loss as to how we can be sure the performances were triumphant?) GFHandel ♬  23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you conclude from one comment by me that "things have changed", you are giving me too much influence. I am not a nominator of this article, and was merely commenting on some aspects that stood out to me. "Giant" sounds fine to me; the OED gives "Of extraordinary size, extent, or force; gigantic, huge, monstrous." as one of the meanings of that word. That the citation does not immediately follow the sentence does not mean that there is none; I would assume this fact is referenced to the next citation, which is to p. 30 of Luckett's book. I can't check that book (which, incidentally, appears to have an incorrect ISBN), but I see no reason to assume the fact is not in there. Ucucha 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FAs have so many footnotes that adding a <ref name="???" /> after another sentence where we claim multiple facts isn't a problem. You give one meaning of "giant", however I giggle at the implication of another meaning of the word (and I believe that the sentence can be changed to avoid that meaning). Don't get me wrong, I'm immensely impressed and appreciative of the large amount of work that has gone into lifting the quality of the article by all those involved. I'm just a little surprised at what is now permitted at FAC. I'll have to watch a few more go through to adjust to the standard. GFHandel ♬  00:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you wish The BFG to be in the orchestra, feel free to interpret it that way. I don't think standards at FAC have changed in the way you think they have; it has never been required to have a reference after every sentence. Ucucha 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Luckett, p. 30, contains all the information relating to the Sheldonian performances, including its year of 1733, and I have removed the unnecessary citation tag. The isbn was out by one digit - well spotted indeed! I have fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather late to the table, I too thank GFHandel for support and for seeking to polish the prose. I agree with my co-nom Brianboulton that it would help us at this stage if reviewers make suggestions for redrafing here rather than making major changes first, otherwise we are playing catch-up all the time (particularly tricky as there are, unusually, three co-nominators who need to keep abreast of textual changes.) But please do not imagine, GFH, that your help is not valued. I agree with Ucucha about FA standards, by the bye: the bar is being raised all the time, and some older FAs are being demoted. Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - I did some copy editing during the peer review, and it has improved since then. I believe that it is a well-written, comprehensive discussion of Messiah, well researched and referenced, appropriately illustrated and representative of the best work on Wikipedia. I support its promotion. Thanks, to the nominators, for another excellent article about the arts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - wonderfully done article. All of my concerns were met in the peer review. In the interest of full-disclosure, I suggested this article be improved to Brian (thanks to everyone for their work on it), found one of the images on Flickr (originally for the article on the English National Opera) and found a few of the sources used for minor points in the course of the peer review. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks on behalf of all three co-nominators to Ssilvers and Ruhfisch for their present support and past input - both greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I, too, peer-reviewed the article, which is excellent. Happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for review and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation consistency in page no. convention (pls review all):

• Luckett, pp. 117–119

versus:

• Luckett, pp. 127–28

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Another:

• Laurence (Vol. 2), pp. 245–246

Please check throughout; it appears that the article most consistently uses the last two digits, not three, and a thorough check is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

All now standardised at last two digits. Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In sources, according to the default sort and his article, Robbins Landon should be alphabetical at Robbins, not Landon-- please check sources for consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's correct: he is generally referred to as "Robbins Landon", rather than just "Landon", and so comes between Luckett and Sackville-West in the list. See obituaries in The Times, and Daily Telegraph. (Nb, however, that the house style of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography will certainly have him as "Landon, H. C. Robbins" if and when he gets an article, but that is an exception.) Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much-- BB and you have a new co-contributor, and I presume you're as involved as typical, so a paraphrasing check is not called for ?? I pooped out last night and will continue through FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [53].

---

Franklin half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. As often seemed to happen, there was some controversy over the design of the Franklin half dollar, which shows the Liberty Bell on its reverse (tails side). The Commission of Fine Arts disapproved the design as they felt showing the crack in the Liberty Bell would lead to jokes. The Treasury was sensible enough to ignore the disapproval and issue the coin. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources are fine; spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review You again? Right then, let's get to work. As with last time, the mint medals could really use a do-over (with a camera rather than a scanner, if possible, to eliminate those vertical lines). That's not really a major issue, but it would be nice if you had the time. The only major issue is File:Sesquicentennial american independence half dollar commemorative reverse.jpg seems to have lost all of its information in a transfer to Commons. I'll try and salvate it, but its heavily dependent on getting access to what was there before the move. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I fixed it as best I could. The admin that was lucky enough to be pestered by me into researching deleted contributions was unable to come up with the pre-transfer to commons page, and therefore we were unable to get our hands on the original upload data. It shouldn't be an issue. On a related note, the uploader of that image, Bobby131313, (who you appear to know), ran into some trouble and could use some concentrated kindness (see my post and the thread it is a part of for details). He's too valuable to lose. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • For everyone except the nominator, the TLDR for all of this is that the mint medals could use a quality boost but the media review gets an "all clear". Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do on the medals and will go see what is up with Bobby, I'm worried now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left him a note. I hope he returns. He's a pro and a good guy. Thank both of you for your reviews; I know the work you do is often not appreciated, but it is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actual photos of the medals introduced. --Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The new image works well and I trust Wehwalt on the copyright of it. I also checked the captions since I recently was reminded that it's part of the image review, and they're also good, as best as I can tell.

The one thing that I'm going to mention is that the Nellie Tayloe Ross mint medal is crooked. I tried to rotate it, but I couldn't fix it without creating a bunch of white space in the corners, so I left it alone. Considering how much of a fuss I've made over mint medals lately, I'm not even going to ask him to do anything, that's up to him, and I'd rather him not see my signature and trigger disgust/anger/annoyance. I just wanted to mention that I noticed it. The medals do look much better as photographs though, the detail comes out much better. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right and I'll fix that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't hate me. :D Sven Manguard Wha? 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. We are all doing this to improve the project, if we cannot give each other constructive criticism without resentment, we might as well go home now. Oh, wait ... Thanks, I've rephotographed Nellie. I'm not a good photographer, but I do my best.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's straight now. I'm guessing that the wooden curved thing that the coins are on is there to prevent the oils of your fingers from damaging the coins, or something along that vein? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the arm of an outdoor teak chair.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• "Mint director" should be probably capitalized, like in other numismatic articles

Background and selection

• "Numismatic writer Don Taxay later discovered that Sinnock had based his LIberty Bell (as depicted on both the Sesquicentennial half dollar and the Franklin half)"

Collecting

• "the Mint recut the master die before beginning the 1960 coinage, improving quality.[22]"

Will re-review later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the capitalization errors... I figured it would have required more typing to bring them to Wehwalt's attention than to simply fix them myself. Juliancolton (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm uncertain what the objection is to the two other things. Liberty Bell is always capitalized. I have to say the Mint recut the master die because I know of no record of which engraver did the actual work. Most likely Gasparro or Roberts.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Re-reviewed and nothing found. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 20:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support readily. Saw this while working on my own FAC and figured it'd be interesting to read. As expected, it was easy to follow, informative, and above all, highly engaging. I could find nary a stray comma or MoS violation. Nice work as always. Juliancolton (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much to the reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The coins were struck regularly until 1963; beginning in 1964 it was replaced...". Little tense conflict here between "were" and "it". Maybe change the start to "The coin was" would fix it?
• Background and selection: Should "Ross's" be "Ross'", without the last s?
• "due to heavy demand on the Mint for coin as the United States entered World War II." Is "coin" proper in this context? Would have expected to see something like "coinage" myself.
• in anticipation of a new issue, which in fact did not occur." The "in fact" is a little wordiness that can safely be removed. Of course it's a fact; otherwise it wouldn't be here to start with.
• Release and production: "The release noted Franklin's reputation for thrift, and hoped the half dollar...". Cutting out some middle material leaves "The release ... hoped", which doesn't make much sense. A possible fix would be "and expressed hope" after the comma.
• Collecting: "as the demand for coins began which would culminate in the great coin shortage of 1964." Should "began" be moved to the end of the sentence? Seems like it may fit better there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'm knocking off for the night and will get to these tomorrow. I don't see anything troublesome.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Those things are done, though sometimes slightly differently than suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: Thanks to this series I have a near-expert knowledge of American coinage history. I only wish I knew someone I could impress with it. One tiny, tiny nitpick: "close-up" as a noun requires a hyphen (in one of the picture captions). I thought the Stalin story hilarious. It also seems that designing for the Mint is a perilous business; Sinnock dies, as I remember from earlier articles did at least one of his predecessors. Nice work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll make that change. Sinnock's successor, Gilroy Roberts was the first Mint engraver, I believe, not to die in office, in 170 years that the office had existed. I don't believe retirement planning was big in the Engraver's Department at the Mint.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor was a youth employment policy. Mrs Ross was born when Grant was still president. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And survived into the Carter years ... imagine if she were treated like the Engravers and hadn't been tossed out by Eisenhower!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead looks good according to Cryptic C62 · Talk:

• "The Franklin half dollar is a coin struck by the United States Mint ("Mint") from 1948 to 1963." Would you be opposed to the insertion of "that was" before "struck"? I think it would make the meaning of this sentence clearer.
• "Sinnock's designs were based on his earlier work, but his death before their completion meant they were finished by his successor, Gilroy Roberts" Two issues. First: to whom does the first "his" refer? Second, I'm not a fan of the use of "meant" in this sentence. Possible rewrite: "Sinnock's designs were based on his earlier work, but he died before their completion. The designs were completed by Sinnock's successor, Gilroy Roberts.
• "the Mint received complaints that Sinnock's initials "JRS" on the cutoff at Franklin's shoulder were a tribute by a communist infiltrator to Joseph Stalin." I think such comments would better be described as "accusations" rather than "complaints". Also, can we lose the "by a communist infiltrator" bit? I don't like the fact that the phrase "a tribute to Joseph Stalin" is broken up by a somewhat unnecessary prepositional phrase.
• I have two questions that are not answered by the lead: Approximately how many of these coins were produced / survive today? Is this coin still legal tender?

Thanks for the comments. I have no objection to any of the changes. I have added to the article the number struck. Yes, it is a legal tender, of course the silver or collector value far exceeds fifty cents. By the Coinage Act of 1965, all coin minted under the authority of the United States is legal tender for an unlimited amount. I don't know whether it is necessary to add that, but certainly it can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Where was the addition regarding the number struck? My comments were specific to the lead section; I haven't read the article in its entirety. Regarding the present-day value, I do think that this would be an interesting and useful addition to the lead. Perhaps something like "While the coin is still recognized as a fifty-cent piece, a mint condition specimen may be worth as much as ${insert number here}." Whaddya think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not want to do that, as people consult people for information and they may assume that the five beat up common Franklin halves they just found in cleaning out Granny's attic are worth much more than they are. I added it further down in the body of the article. I could leave that, and say "Almost half a billion Franklin half dollars were struck in its sixteen years." in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A fair concern. Perhaps instead of putting a specific monetary value on it, we could add something like "While the coin is still recognized as a fifty-cent piece, mint condition specimens are often sought after as collector's pieces." I have no idea what the typical phrasing for something like this would be, but I'm sure you get the idea. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Basically any Franklin is worth having, though for quite a few, just worth having long enough to take down to the local coin shop and sell it to a dealer at melt.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans, thanks for that. I'm happy with the lead as is. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [54].

---

Operation Kita

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This article covers the dramatic voyage of two Japanese battleships and their escorts from Singapore to Japan in February 1945. By this stage of World War II the Allies were close to cutting off Japan's shipping routes, and the warships (which were loaded with supplies of raw materials) evaded attacks by 26 submarines and over 88 aircraft. Remarkably, they did not sustain any damage and all reached Japan.

The article passed a GA assessment in April and a Military History Wikiproject A class review in May. It has since been further expanded and improved (special thanks to Derfel73 (talk · contribs) for the map), and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Check dates for Hackett - website seems to indicate a revision date of 2011, creation date of 2000
  • Well spotted. It seems that the website has been updated in the last few weeks, so I've updated the date and added in the extra detail which has been posted there.
• Be consistent in whether or not CombinedFleet.com is italicized
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether or not states are abbreviated. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image Check - Yup, they're all good, all two of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm was reading this over and realized that the Empire of Japan, under casualties, lost "Several aircraft". I read the article over, and even did a search for "aircraft", and I don't see in the article how Japan lost those aircraft. Considering that they are the only casualties in the whole operation, I'd like to see at least something on that. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's in the second last sentence of the paragraph which begins with 'Another air attack was attempted' ("As a result, the only successes gained by the USAAF aircraft involved in the operation were to shoot down a Mitsubishi Ki-57 "Topsy" transport plane near the Completion Force on 13 February as well as several fighters in the area of the ships between the 12th and 14th of the month"). The source doesn't say how many fighters were shot down, unfortunately. Thanks for the image check and comments. I wanted to add some photos of the submarines involved, but the only ones I could find were of questionable copyright status or showed the subs after they had been heavily modified following the war, so they weren't of much use. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh. Well... yeah... there it is then. My bad... As to my "all two of them" comment, it had more to do with that I've done image reviews where there were a dozen plus images or half dozen plus issues, so having a clean two is nice. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: looks pretty good to me, Nick. I have a couple of suggestions below, which you can choose to incorporate if you wish: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I made a couple of tweaks to the article, please feel free to revert if you don't agree;
    • They look good to me
  • in the lead, this seems a little misplaced: "in February 1945 to return the two Ise-class hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers and their escorts from Singapore to Japan loaded with supplies". Specifically for me the separation between the word "return" and "Japan". Maybe just change "return" to "move" (or something similar), but then that might cause repetition with the next sentence where it says "movement". (suggestion only);
    • Tweaked a bit, but I couldn't get more significant changes to the wording to sound right
  • in the lead, I think a transitory conjunction might make this smoother: "Due to the intensifying Allied blockade, the Ise-class battleship..." For instance, "Nevertheless, due to the intensifying..."
    • Done
  • in the lead, you could formally introduce the abbreviations that are going to be used for the United States Navy and the United States Army Air Forces;
    • Done
  • in the Background section, check the punctuation and caps here: "In early 1945 The Japanese Government assessed..." (I think there should be a comma after "1945" and I'm not sure about the capital "T" in "The");
    • Fixed
  • I'm not sure about this: sometimes "U.S. Navy" but then "USS" and "USAAF" - the use of full stops for some abbreviations and not others seems slightly inconsistent (but only minor, and I'm not sure if there is some Wiki rule that covers this);
    • According to WP:MOS#Abbreviations 'U.S.' is more common in American English. While 'USN' is apparently OK, in my experience it's unusual to see this in serious military histories and U.S. Navy is the more common abbreviation (happy to be proved wrong on this though!). USAAF is the standard abbreviation for that organisation, though 'Army Air Forces' is sometimes also used (I've used it once or twice to break up the 'USAAFs').
      • Sure, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this could be explained (maybe in a footnote): "unable to attack due to the prohibition on radar-aimed bombing." (Specifically, why was it prohibited? I assume because there was a concern about missing and hitting something that the Allies didn't want to hit, but I'm not sure);
    • That's explained in the paragraph which begins with 'USAAF patrols also made contact with the Completion Force' ("As radar-directed blind bombing was prohibited to avoid accidental attacks on the Allied submarines in the area").
      • So it is. Sorry, not sure how I missed that. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • you explain this in the lead, but not in the body: "The ships of the Completion Force were among the last Japanese warships to reach the home islands from the South West Pacific". It might pay to add a brief clause saying that this was because the Allied blockade was tightened here also;
    • Done - the three remaining large warships at Singapore were sunk.
  • grammar here (I think): "The use of freighters and warships to carry oil were..." ("were" should be "was" as "use" is singular here - I think, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a grammarian);
    • Fixed
  • maybe state where this was: "and Hatsushimo sank after striking a mine on 30 July" (for instance "after striking a mine on Mars on 30 July..." Of course, Mars is not the loc, I'm just demonstrating);
    • Done
  • not a war stoper, but I wonder if the See also link is absolutely necessary;
    • Not really, especially as I haven't been able to find a source which compares the two operations. I've removed it.
  • in the citations, I'm not sure about this: "Morison (1959), p. 178". In the References it has "(2002) [1959]". I'm not sure, but I think it should therefore be "Morison (2002), p. 178" in the Citations. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about it either to be frank. The 2002 book is essentially a reprint of the 1959 edition, so I've used that date. Given that Morison died in 1976 and the book formed part of the first generation of histories of the war, it seems more meaningful to use 1959. The page numbers should also be OK for the 1959 edition of the book. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries. It is a good read. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support -- performed minor copyedit but little here to fault; referencing, detail, structure and supporting materials all look good -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Support—My concern was addressed and I think the article satisfies the FA criteria. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment—Overall it looks good, but I think the lead is not quite ready. It makes no mention of the vital role played by code breaking, nor the planned effort by the Allies to sink the ships. This made it all seem like a reactive response until I read the body. The lead also does not cover the important elements of the Aftermath section. I think that is worth a couple of sentences. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and comments. I've just expanded the lead per your suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "South West Pacific" is BritEng, but "maneuver" is AmEng; which are you going for? - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • American English - I've just corrected this Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edits and comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [55].

---

Small-toothed sportive lemur

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: I'm sorry if I've missed it, but are there any natural predators? Either way, is this worth mentioning? Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Little is known about the ecology of this species (and many other lemur species). I did manage to find a scrap of information and have added it to the article. Thanks for bringing it up. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• FN 19: can this page range be narrowed at all? Over 70 pages for one footnote seems like a lot

• Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books)

• Sorry I missed that when I reviewed it last night. Fixed now. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations

• The only reference that lists a publisher is a template that affects multiple articles. (This issue is similar to the problems created by using {{cite doi}} and related templates. Basically, Wikipedia needs a global/standard citation style if we're going to start holding people to any sort of standard.) I guess I can start using the location tag on all my book references... but first I need two questions answered. 1) Am I correct in assuming that we use only the first location if multiple are given? 2) What do we do if we can find the location information for all but one or two book references?

• How are you ordering literature entries with the same first author? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• My bad... I had them in reverse order. It's supposed to go: last1 -> year (oldest first) -> last2 -> etc. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Images are perfect. Great work on getting those releases. J Milburn (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking good.

• There's some inconsistency as to whether you spell out the genus in species names or just use L.- for instance, compare the last two paras in "Taxonomy and phylogeny"
  • I've tried to standardize this to using the full name the first time the name is mentioned in a paragraph and the abbreviation afterwards. Ucucha 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps the species split off from this one would also be very similar in appearance? Worth mentioning in the description section?
  • This was mentioned in section on taxonomy, and I didn't want it to be redundant, especially since it's already discussed in the lead. In general, though, (and FYI) sportive lemurs (and most genera of nocturnal lemurs) are very hard to distinguish visually—one of the reasons why there were only a few species for many decades, only with the blossoming of molecular phylogenetics have we seen an explosion in the number of species. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• "for food (interspecific competition), by living in more" Not sure about that comma
  • Removed. Ucucha 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• I assume you have nothing on breeding? Lifespan?
  • No, little is known about their behavior and ecology because very few long-term field studies that have been conducted. If I find anything, I will be certain to add it. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Why's it hunted? Food?
  • The source did not say, but generally, yes, most lemurs are hunted for food. One species is also considered a bad omen (the aye-aye), and others may be hunted as a pest, but being a folivore in dense tropical rainforest, that wouldn't be the case here. Of course, I can't say that without a source. It would be hard to work in, but I could take a source that talks about the general rise in bushmeat in Madagascar and add something about that... Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's awkward. Without clarifying why they are hunted/by whom, the mention seems a little out of place. If you could pinpoint a group that hunted them, that would be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I guess I don't understand how it's out of place. The paragraph its in talks about the human activities that threaten it, as well as the protection it receives from being found in national parks. Also, what types of "groups" are you talking about? Are you referring to the people in general ("Malagasy"), or are you looking for the names of specific communities? Either way, all the source gives me is: "Hunting pressure is also known to be high, and includes hunting with spears, and by chopping down trees known to have nest holes." – VisionHolder « talk » 23:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
        • By "groups" I was meaning "loggers" or "rural communities" or something- sorry, I don't have anything near the contextual knowledge required here. By "out of place", I mean it comes across a little as an "oh, by the way...". I guess we're getting a little bogged down here- perhaps wait to see what others think. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well written, very engaging. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and kind comments. Thanks also to Ucucha for the help in addressing the issues. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. After some more thought and seeing the below comments, I'm happy that this is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! If you have any lingering thoughts, or something comes to you later, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: this is not an area of Wiki that I have been involved in much, however, I remember this article from last year (before I left teaching to rejoin the Army) when I had students in my primary school class research lemurs and I see that it has been greatly improved since then. I would like to congratulate the editors who have made this possible. In regards to the FA criteria, I have read over the article a couple of times and I believe that it is well written and researched, comprehensive (I'm not an expert, though), structured, appropriately cited, well-illustrated and is of an appropriate length. I have also run it through the Earwig tool and no copyright violations were found. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and review. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• Forbes (1894) does not actually talk about the name being based on "one specimen", or about the origin of the name. The description does say that the molars (but not the premolars) are small.

Thanks. I misread the part about the premolars, and have removed the material from the article. Does it sound better now? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• The piece about the cecum seems out of place in a paragraph about identification; I doubt you'd use that character for IDing a lemur.

I've moved it around. I guess I didn't intend for that paragraph to focus on identification, but rather the similarities it shares with other sportive lemurs. Either way, I've moved it to the next paragraph. Hopefully it doesn't sound awkward. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would be wary of using the diagnostic characters given by Forbes (1894) without confirmation from modern sources that they are still considered valid.

Ucucha 01:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the only information exclusively from Forbes involves the diagnostic tooth size (from which it got its name) and the mention of the bony palate. Everything else was duplicated in the other source that's cited with it. Do you want me to remove the mention of the palate? As for the tooth size, since no one has challenged it, I'm assuming that fact is still supported (and implied in the name). Your thoughts? Otherwise, thanks for the thorough review. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - reading through now -on prose and comprehensiveness. Only one query and it is pretty basic. queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

can be found in Ranomafana National Park and Andringitra National Park. - strikes me as a tad repetitive. Would "can be found in Ranomafana and Andringitra National Parks." be okay?

Fixed. Thanks for the review, suggestion, and support! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [56].

---

Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This follows on from Mike Jackson, my first ever FA (this will be my second, all being well). An officer decorated for gallantry early in his career, Dannatt is the most recent British Chief of the General Staff to retire at the time of writing, and the article will hopefully be the second on a CGS to attain featured status.

After an A-class review at MilHist (which is pending closure), I'm confident this meets the criteria, but look forward to all comments, pro or con. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Nitpicking, but be consistent in punctuation for Dannatt citations
  • Fixed. --HJ
• FN 69, 92: is that a typo?
  • Yes, well spotted! --HJ
• FN 89: Number 10 of what? Is this a series, press releases...? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Number 10 is a metonym for 10 Downing Street. I can link it if you think I should, but I thought the website made it obvious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I mentioned gender-neutral language during the A-class review, but it's not enough to withhold support over. Far be it from me to lecture on British punctuation, but isn't it "St Lawrence College" in BritEng, usually? That's also the punctuation the school uses. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Dannatt appeared in newspaper headlines in October 2006 when he gave an interview for Sarah Sands of the Daily Mail in which he opined that a drawdown of troops from Iraq was necessary in order to allow the Army to focus on Afghanistan—which papers saw this as an attack on Tony Blair's policies—as well as advocating for wounded soldiers to recover in a military environment rather than civilian hospitals.": This might work better as two sentences, and I don't think it works to say "which papers" when you didn't say which papers you mean. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Dan. Although I'm all for gender-neutral language normally, I'm not so much of fan when it risks mucking my sentence structure. ;) As for St/St. Lawrence, I went by the spelling of our article's title, I didn't realise that was another Brits vs. Yanks thing! I've split the sentences, though, and I think it reads much better now. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Check - It looks good. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The lead section of the article is rather long. WP:LEAD only specifies the number of paragraphs – but in this article the paragraphs are substantial. Only the main points need to be mentioned. Aa77zz (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We really need more people reviewing Milhist articles, so thanks. There are 3 or 4 reviewers who occasionally give us specific goals for the lead, so rather than respond immediately, I'd like to see what other reviewers say ... hopefully everyone will go home happy. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the lead section could be improved, shorter would be better. I am reviewing the article in the next few days. I like it so far. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed about some of the detail from the lead, and I look forward to any comments you have. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Support, excellent article. I have one last recommendation, a list of titles and honours (including the title of Baron Dannatt) in the end of the article could help readers. Examples: David Petraeus and General Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I generally avoid titles and honours sections because the honours are all mentioned in the prose (and the important ones are in the infobox). I don't see much encyclopaedic value in listing them in their own section, and in fact tend to remove those sections if they're present in articles I'm working on. It's worth noting that Mike Jackson, the only other FA (so far) on a British CGS doesn't have such a section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree HJ, I do the same. Aside from being redundant, when inclusive of (gasp) the award ribbon images, such sections make the article look to me like a page from a children's book... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't even get that with British articles—Crown Copyright! Makes it bloody difficult to find free images for biographies! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Support, I also think this is an excellent article, well written with all the key facts. Dormskirk (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comment -- reviewed and copyedited at MilHist ACR and supported then. Having been through the relatively minor changes in the article since, I'm ready to support here pending spotchecks, which I can't do myself at present. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if anybody fancies doing a spotcheck, I can promise it won't take long—I've dotted my "I"s and crossed my "T"s. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy to offer full support following below exchange -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks of 7 sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Returning to Staff College, Camberley, Dannatt took the Higher Command and Staff Course (HCSC)" - not in cited source
• "The government took the unusual decision to extend the tenure of Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup as Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) rather than promote one of the outgoing service chiefs and so all three, including Dannatt, retired" - source agrees that Dannatt retired but doesn't mention the unusual decision or the fate of the other two service chiefs AFAICS. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. Both of those were in the citation at the end of the sentence/paragraph, but I admit that was unclear with another ref in the middle of the sentence. I've sorted both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know British naming conventions: should Baron Dannatt be a redlink?
  • Lord Dannatt would be a more likely search term, since that's how one would properly address him, but since both are red and Sir Mike Jackson is a redirect, I'll redirect both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
• I am not sure why "operation" is singular here-- military lingo?
  • ... he became involved in planning for subsequent operation ...
    • I think that's a typo. --HJ
• Is the second use of "mistaken" repetitive, redundant, understood? Not sure ...
  • ... after his name was mistaken for a girl's, leading to him being mistakenly invited to a birthday party where he was the only boy.
    • Ew, horrible prose. I've re-written the sentence. --HJ
• Punctuation (colon?)??
  • They had four children, three boys and one girl.
• Makes it seem like they had four children *and also* three boys and one girl? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Replaced the comma with an emdash for clarity (I dislike using colons in prose for some reason, but if you feel it's better, I'll use a colon). Thanks for the feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notes: I pooped out last night and will continue today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [57].

---

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Second try, first archived for lack of supports. The article was substantially overhauled prose-wise, and I believe the other sourcing concerns were sorted out as well. Learn about the worst Star Trek film, if you dare. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of reference list
• You have two Kreitzer sources, so shortened citations need to distinguish between the two
• Newspaper sources should either have weblinks or page numbers
• FN 61: Canada should not be italicized
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
• FN 128: formatting
• Be consistent in how authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In...") are notated
• Page numbers for Pilkington and Schultes? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Addressed most of these. For the missing page numbers, I wasn't able to get those citation numbers--for whatever reason my online repositories don't have full citation info for some. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments, inclined to support: I supported before and most of my comments are in the earlier review. I will be delighted do so again once these fairly minor prose issues are cleared up that I noticed on another read-through. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Kirk is beamed aboard the Klingon ship, where Spock and the Klingon hostage force Klaa to stand down and apologise." Minor point, but did Klaa not "stand down" before his vessel destroyed the entity, and apologise when Kirk beamed up?
• "Bryant performed his audition twice, as Shatner requested he redo his first performance speaking in Klingon": I'm not sure he can redo his first performance as it would be his second performance! What about "…repeat his performance speaking in Klingon"?
• "When Shatner tried to convince Bennett to reconsider the producer insisted on a meeting at his home." I think a comma would help here after "reconsider".
• "Paramount rushed the film into production in late 1988, concerned that the franchise's momentum following The Voyage Home had disappeared,[15] despite the writers' strike cutting into the film's pre-production." The "despite … preproduction" clause is a bit cut off here. Would it work better if "concerned … disappeared" was moved to the start of the sentence to give "Concerned that the franchise's momentum following The Voyage Home had disappeared, Paramount rushed the film into production in late 1988 despite the writer's strike cutting into pre-production."
• "After having Shatner explain the entire story in a day-long session…" What about "After Shatner explained …"
• "After being disappointed by the costume designers Shatner and Bennett approached to realize Rodis' ideas, Shatner suggested that Rodis become the costume designer as well." This sentence is a little heavy; could some of the names be cut: "After being disappointed by the costume designers approached to realize Rodis' ideas, Shatner suggested that Rodis become the costume designer as well." But I'm not sure this works either.
• "Rodis and Shatner also drew up sketches for what the various aliens seen in the film would look like.": Sketches of?
• "and developed nicknames for the planned characters." Is this significant?
• "Art department head Michael Okuda implemented his LCARS style of backlit controls on the Klingon ship and Enterprise." I followed the LCARS link but I'm still not sure what the sentence is getting at.
• "and left the screening "reveling" in what turned out to be a "momentary victory" once he saw the special effects.": Was he reveling in the victory after he saw the special effects or did it prove to be momentary when he saw the effects? This is a little confusing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've tried to address all the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: I'm more than happy to support this; a really informative, interesting article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Media checks out. File:Etech05 Bran1.jpg needs a Flickr review, but the bot'll get to it very soon. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ruby2010

• Wikilink first mention of Spock in lead (first paragraph)
• Shouldn't begin a sentence with "Because"
• Wikilink Harve Bennett in lead (i.e. "producer"
• Not a big fan of the short paragraphs in the cast section, but I see why you did it
• "Kelley noted his own ambition to direct deserted him years earlier and after seeing difficulties Nimoy faced directing.[2]" This implies there were two reasons Kelley did not want to direct. What was the first reason?
• Wikilink ping pong in cast section
• Some tense issues in the cast section's last paragraph (i.e. "Producer Harve Bennett makes a cameo as a Starfleet admiral.[10]" (makes ->made) etc)Nvmd
• "agreed that he would be a good fit for the task of scripting Star Trek.[24]" Input bolded
• Take another careful look at when "Star Trek" is italicized or not (just want to make sure they're italicized where they should be).
• Wikilink Pink Cadillac and The Globe and Mail

I looked the article over in the peer review, and was pleased then with its quality. Just make the suggested changes above and I'll be happy to add my support. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 23:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Article now looks great. Excellent job of mixing print and web sources! Ruby2010 comment! 03:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support by Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• "... they confront a renegade Vulcan and Spock's half-brother, Sybok, who is searching for God at the center of the galaxy."

  "... they confront a renegade Vulcan, Sybok, who is searching for God at the center of the galaxy." (Their relation is not really necessary in the lede; furthermore, Spock as a character is identified later).

• "The Final Frontier had the highest opening gross of any film in the series at that point ..."

  "It had the highest opening gross of any film in the series at that point ..."

  The previous sentence starts with the same and there appears to be no change in subject between these two sentences.

Story

• "... of the hostages and most of the crew."

  "... of the hostages and most of Enterprise's crew."

• "... the Klingon ship, where Klaa apologizes."

  "... the Klingon ship and receives Klaa's apology."

Cast

• "Nimoy recalled Shatner instructed him in riding a horse, ..."

  Would it be better to say "Nimoy recalled Shatner's attempts to instruct him in riding a horse, ..." or "Nimoy recalled Shatner's giving pointers to him on riding a horse, ..." since Nimoy's horse-riding skill was not taught by Shatner.

• "... after seeing difficulties Nimoy faced directing."

  "... after seeing difficulties Nimoy faced in directing the two previous Star Trek films."

Development

• "Before he was officially given the director's job, influenced by televangelists Shatner settled on his idea for the film's story. "They [the televangelists] were repulsive, strangely horrifying, and yet I became absolutely fascinated," he recalled."

  Shatner conceived his idea for the film's story before he was officially given the director's job. His inspiration were televangelists; "They [the televangelists] were repulsive, strangely horrifying, and yet I became absolutely fascinated," he recalled.

• "in Shatner's first outline,[14] entitled "An Act of Love", many of the elements—the Yosemite vacation, the abduction of Klingon, human and Romulan hostages on the failed paradise planet—survived to the final film."

  "Shatner's first outline was entitled "An Act of Love", and many of its elements—the Yosemite vacation, the abduction of Klingon, human and Romulan hostages on the failed paradise planet—remained in the final version of the film." (plot elements are not sentient)

• "When Kirk confronts "God", his image transforms into that of Satan, ..."

  "When Kirk confronts "God", the image of the being transforms into that of Satan, ..." (avoid confusion with Kirk)

• "... a good fit for task of scripting ..."

  "... a good fit for the task of scripting ..."

• "... done to give a "one man stands alone" conflict."

  "... done to give a conflict in which "one man stands alone" from the rest."

• "Shatner also reconsidered ..."

  "During this time, Shatner reconsidered ..."

• "... Sha Ka Ree remained as a place of ultimate knowledge ..."

  "... Sha Ka Ree remained; it was changed to a place of ultimate knowledge ..."

• "... and made casts of actors' faces using dental alginate and used them for close-up, high-quality "A" makeups, ..."

  The close-up shots were of casts of the actor's faces or of alien facial masks (based on the casts of the actors' faces)? It would also be better to separate this into another sentence, considering the "and"s.

• "... the film's opening scene between J'onn and Sybok;"

  Who is J'onn?

Filming

• "Production was smoother on set, with the crew shooting scenes ahead of schedule."

  "Production was smoother on set and the crew shot scenes ahead of schedule."

• "Spock's catch of the falling Kirk off Yosemite was replicated by creating a set of the forest floor, rotated ninety degrees."

  "Spock's catching of Kirk as the captain falls off Yosemite was filmed against a set that replicated the forest floor and was rotated ninety degrees."

• "The cast celebrated the end of filming the last week of December 1988, ..."

  "The cast celebrated the end of filming in the last week of December 1988, ..."

• "... a few days after principal photography wrapped to organize the film's postproduction schedule."

  "... a few days after principal photography had wrapped to organize the film's postproduction schedule."

Effects

• "... made The Final Frontier the first film in the series ..."

  "... made The Final Frontier the first film in the Star Trek series ..."

Themes

• "... centuries in the future beliefs in Eden persist, ..."

  I recommend a comma between "future" and "beliefs".

Release

• "1988 was the biggest summer and biggest year in Hollywood's North American box office history;"

  Even now?

  "1988 was the biggest summer and biggest year in Hollywood's North American box office history; the industry headed into summer 1989 having grossed $88 million over the year previous." is not sourced. Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• "... for a global cume of $63 million."

  What is a "cume"?

• "The season proved another record-breaker, ..."

  "The season proved to be another record-breaker for the film industry, ..."

Just these for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all these. For the release comment, I say "1988 was" when prefacing it as the biggest year in Hollywood history... shouldn't that make it clear it's no longer the case? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I still am not certain over the way 1988 is introduced; we are looking from a 2011 perspective. In those intervening years (1988–2011), if there were more than one year that was "bigger" than 1988, then the comparison seems clouded to me (1988 was the biggest year until 1990... then 1992... then 1996 and so forth). Perhaps the sentence should be rephrased to indicate that the view was from the 1989 perspective? Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Would adding "At the time" to the beginning of the sentence help? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I was going to check the source to think up a possible suggestion; the earliest reference for this statement would be Farhi's "Hollywood's Hit Formula", which is at the end of the next sentence "The Final Frontier was expected to be one of the summer's biggest movies and a sure hit". I read Farhi's article on ProQuest and it does not state anything about 1988 or a $88 million gross. I think you have left out a citation... Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper citation is the USA Today one, it got a bit separated from the initial claim. The relevant quote is "Hollywood enters the summer $ 88 million ahead of May 1988, reports Daily Variety. Last year was the biggest summer ($ 1.68 billion) and biggest year ($ 4.4 billion) at the movies". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

How is that? Feel free to tweak. I am moving to support since that was the last item. This is a comprehensive article about the worst (indeed) film in the old generation ST franchise (Thankfully, there is ST VI that lets us send off the old cast on a good note). For full disclosure, I was involved in the peer review for this article. Jappalang (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Tis a bit wordy, but if you're happy, I'm happy :) Thanks for the reviews, Jappa. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [58].

---

Robin Friday

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it was in the middle of an FAC I felt was progressing quite well but was closed last week when I went away on holiday; to remove some of the clutter on the FAC page, I presume, because although there had been quite a few useful comments there were not yet any supports or opposes. I'm back and ready to work on it again, though, so I'm reopening the candidacy. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to the circumstances, I'll let this FAC run, but in the future, if you want an exemption from the rule about two weeks between nominations, pls ask beforehand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of such a rule. Thanks for letting this one slide, I appreciate it. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why such a huge quote in FN 12?
  • The source is in the format of a quiz: I wanted to have all of the correct answers there to save the trouble of actually doing the quiz to find out the answers (it doesn't give you the correct answer if you get a question wrong). —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Check formatting for quotes within quotes
  • Okay. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• What makes this and similar a high-quality reliable source? This?
  • Royals' Record gives a list of references here (scroll to the bottom), as does Historical Kits here. I thought they were both sound but I'll bow to consensus if it goes against them. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Okay. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• FN 89: publisher?
  • Woops! Well spotted. Rectified. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• FN 104: does this album have a catalog number? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, and it's been added. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw

• Is it possible to get an appropriately licensed picture - with a fairly recent person I would have thought there might be one available.
  • I had one there before but it got taken off – I don't think it's necessary though. There's already a fair use image (the record sleeve) which serves as an illustration, so we can hardly argue that we need it for that. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of "Childhood" has quite a lot of claims - are they all covered by reference 5?
  • Yes. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Would it be worth explaining what a Borstal is for non UK readers?
  • I've put a separate wikilink for borstal. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Would it be worth adding a links from "asphalters" to Asphalt?
  • Okay. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• As a non football expert the section in the "Reading - 1973–74 season" confused me - what is the difference between signing Football League forms on 23 January and signing a contract on 6 February 1974?
  • You don't need to be professional to play in the Football League, only to be registered to do so (to "sign forms"). It was relatively common in the lower divisions in the "good old days" for players to train only part-time because the professional wages were so low; teams would allow them to maintain other higher-paying professions in order to keep them on the books. I hope this helps explain. I have re-written the sentence thus: "Hurley registered the amateur forward to play in The Football League on 23 January 1974 and gave him his first-team debut four days later." If this is still not completely clear I'm open to suggestions. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Note 89 seems to duplicate some of the text in the body of the article (section 1976–77 season (from 30 December 1976)) - one or other could be shortened
  • I included the parts of the newspaper text I used as the source as I don't imagine that specific copy of the South Wales Echo will be too easy to get hold of. I would agree if it were a footnote, but it isn't. It's part of the sourcing. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I tend not to include long quotes. But that may just be personal preference.
• Was he taken to court after being arrested for not having a train ticket?
  • No, it isn't that serious an offence; a (relatively) small fine would have been all. No court date for this is mentioned by any of my sources, in any case. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• I found the inclusion of both a "footnotes" section and then "notes" under the references confusing - but this may just be personal preference.— Rod ^talk 18:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've had no trouble with it, but I agree that it could be confusing. Have you got an alternative suggestion? —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • In some cases the info in the note could be included in the text eg Note C - this levels of detail is included for many of the other games.— Rod ^talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Seems clearer to me now.— Rod ^talk 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• On looking at your changes I also noticed "pub" (2nd para of "Borstal, first marriage and the Isthmian League"). I have been in the past that it is more encyclopaedic to write "public house" (despite common usage).— Rod ^talk 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've changed to public house as you suggested, and I've changed "Notes" in the references to "Source notes" in an attempt to make it clearer. And I've got rid of most of the quotes in the references, they don't really add much, actually; the only ones I've kept are the ones from the biography. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks.— Rod ^talk 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Several redirects. Update with new links. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Robin_Friday TGilmour (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. The BBC ones bounce back and forth it seems, so I've left them. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ref 126 seems to be dead. TGilmour (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, so it is. Replaced with RSSSF link, backed up by biography details and Rundle's data. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support A perfect article. TGilmour (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked sock. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image Review
  • The information at File:Themandontgiveafuck.jpg needs to be placed in a proper FUR template.
  • File:Alanshearerwiki.jpg is pretty poor quality, and really dosen't add much to the article. I'd personally either remove it entirely or replace it with an aggressive crop of File:Alan Shearer 1998 (2).jpg.
• Everything else checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Rationale for Friday done; removed Shearer, agree it doesn't add much. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I reviewed at the first FAC and looked at the changes since then; no glitches seem to have been introduced in the process of copy-editing, thankfully. The only thing I have to add is that I'm not wild about the two sources Nikki mentioned. I remember previous articles being asked about Historical Kits, but not whether it was ever established as reliable. Not familiar with Royals' Record, but if more reliable sites/articles are avaliable for the facts this cites, I'd consider replacing it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the references; have a look. Added Sedunary and Devlin refs, and an official Cardiff City one. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Comments. This is a fine, well-written article, which I expect to support once a couple of minor issues are addressed. Switched to support.

• "The local controversy surrounding the interracial relationship caused the couple and their circle of friends to be isolated socially, and even to be physically attacked one night in an Acton public house": who was attacked? Friday, the couple, or the whole circle of friends?
  • Everybody. I've changed it. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• "He openly smoked spliff and dropped pills": sounds like this should be "spliffs"; can you check the source?
  • I remember thinking it was strange too, but that's how it was put in the source. I've changed it. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    I think that's acceptable under the "minimal change" rule in WP:MOSQUOTE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Per MOSQUOTE, the cquote template should be reserved for pull quotes. I'd suggest making the "Even if it was three in the morning" quote just as a regular inline quotation. The later exchange between Friday and Thomas also should be fixed.
  • I liked having them pulled out, but okay. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Well, the MOS is a guideline, not policy, and you can argue against it in the name of common sense, but you have to convince others that there's a reason to disregard it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are several places where you use four or even five citations for a fairly short section of only two or three sentences. Are all those citations really necessary? I know another FAC reviewer who regards five citations as a sure sign of a problem; I wouldn't go that far but I think you can serve the reader better if you can reduce them to no more than two, or perhaps three. More citations makes it harder for the reader to figure out where the information comes from.
  • Can you give me an example? Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    For example, you have four footnotes supporting this text: "and walked into Andrews's office on 20 December 1977 to announce that he was retiring from professional football. The club promptly released him and cancelled his contract". Seems unlikely that you really need four separate references for that. However, this is a very minor point and not something I think you have to change; I just think it looks odd and I suspect it's unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

    • • Those clusters of refs usually come at the end of a paragraph, and it's simply to stop me putting endless references on every comma and full stop. I can change it if you really like but I think it's okay. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think you need note [B] in the lead -- the controversial part is only mentioned in the body. Also, where that incident is covered in the body I think you should add something like "though this is disputed", since [B] makes it clear it may never have happened.
  • It's quite a well-known story which people would probably look for in the lead; that's why I put the note link in there. I think "according to legend" makes it clear that it didn't happen, doesn't it? Otherwise it would just say it happened. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    OK to both -- I wouldn't do it that way myself, but that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Are there no pictures of Friday, or videos of any of his goals, that could be used or linked to? A video of his "best goal ever scored" would be worth identifying.
  • No footage exists. Filming Fourth Division matches was not common during the mid-1970s. I've added a note explaining. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    That's helpful. A pity; I'd like to have seen that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is the name of his third wife known?
  • Not given in the biography or any of my other sources unfortunately. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC

I've switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Comments - late to the party. Reading though now. jotting notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Should Crystal Palace's school of excellence - be capitalised?

Friday became physically stronger and fitter - I suspect you could take "physically" out and it wouldn't change the meaning....

Otherwise...barring a few semicolons here and there that could just as easily be full stops...I think we are over the white line with a Support from me (the above are minor quibbles) - entertaining read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Don't think caps for Palace. Okay on second point. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Casliber, that really sounded very mechanical and rude; apologies. Thanks a lot for the support and kind words, appreciated as always. =) —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No probs, thanks for an entertaining article ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
      • It would have been difficult to make it dull with the material I had... —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Prose seems there to me. ceranthor 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Have spotchecks for accurate representation of sources and copyvio/parphrasing been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• No. Somebody other than me will have to do this. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sandy, this is going to be difficult because the great majority of the content is sourced from a book that's not previewable on Google Books. I had a look at some of the other sources and there was no problem with them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, Mike. In such cases, it is not unreasonable to pick a paragraph worthy of examination and ask the creator to place the exact text from the source on talk, for comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  That sounds fine to me, I'm happy to do it whenever somebody is ready. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Ping my talk when done, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sure. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  OK -- could you quote me some of the source material for the section on the wedding -- from "After the pay dispute" to the end of that paragraph? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

LIZA FRIDAY: His mother gave me a small silver football boot and insisted I wore it, which I did, around my waist.

ROD LEWINGTON: At his wedding he invited everybody he could possibly think of. There must have been two hundred people there. It was on a Sunday and Robin turned up in a brown velvet suit, a tigerskin sort of shirt, open at the neck, and snakeskin boots. Southern TV cameras were there and Robin sat on the steps of the church and rolled a joint in front of them. Everyone was smoking. The bride showed up. We went into the church and the whole congregation was laughing because of the smoke. The vicar was laughing because he thought, 'What a happy congregation.' But they were all out of their brains. Then we went to the reception in Watlington Street, the grounds of a big old house there. And Robin was rolling these joints and handing them out to the relations, all these elderly aunts and uncles. By half past one that afternoon there wasn't a sober person there. They were either pissed or completely out of it. All these old women had their skirts tucked into their knickers and were jumping around the lawn and I just don't know what the vicar thought. I have been to a few weddings but never one like that.
Reading Evening Post, 8 August 1976
It's been quite a week of contract signing for Reading soccer star Robin Friday. After signing a new contract with the Elm Park club, Robin entered into a quite different one one with Liza Deimel on Saturday. Robin and Liza, both 24, were married in a church as his colleagues beat Charlton in a pre-season friendly. Liza was given away by her father, Mr Whithold Deimel, wearing a full-length cream dress with a small silver football boot hanging from her waist. She carried orchids. The Reading venue was kept secret but the road outside the church was still packed with people. Robin will shortly be starting his third season with Reading. The couple had a short honeymoon in Amsterdam and Robin was back at Elm Park today to continue training. The couple will be setting up home in Tilehurst Road.

LIZA FRIDAY: The wedding was the most hilarious thing ever. They came in their droves from London, they nicked all their wedding presents, they started beating each other up. Everybody was sitting around smoking dope, anything that had wedding paper on it went. By the time the whole thing was over we'd been stripped. My mother was going, 'I don't believe this.' We went to Amsterdam for our honeymoon and someone had given Robin a big lump of dope for a wedding present. I think loads of people did, because I was saying, 'These people haven't given us a present,' and he had pockets full of dope. When we got to Amsterdam airport he was speeding and he was paranoid. So he put all the dope in his mouth because he thought we were going to be searched – but he was also chewing gum. We spent the night – my wedding night – trying to separate the dope from the chewing gum and the more he tried to separate it the more it got on his fingers and the more aggravated he got. Some honeymoon. The next day we went on one of those canal boats and he was off looking for drugs within five minutes.

— The Greatest Footballer You Never Saw, pp. 140–141

• Here we go. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  Looks good -- the description of his clothes is a fairly close paraphrase but you didn't really have much choice there, so that's fine. I would suggest changing "packet" to "lump" since the former implies wrapping; it may have been wrapped but the source doesn't say so. Other than that you can consider this spot-checked; thanks for typing in all that source material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  No problem. I've changed to "quantity", as "lump" seems rather inappropriate in tone for this... Thanks for checking it. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, both, for the extra effort ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.