Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2011

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log

September 2011

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 27 September 2011 [1].

Happy Chandler

edit
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newly-revised and expanded biography of a man who went from state senator to lieutenant governor to governor to U.S. Senator to Commissioner of Baseball and back to governor. Chandler was a seriously busy nonagenarian who influenced Kentucky politics for the better part of six decades. I hope to address concerns within a few days at most and see this article promoted. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consecutive citations should be in numerical order - ex. [2][22] instead of [22][2]
    • Done.
  • Is his directory entry under his full name or Happy Chandler?
    • Actually, on second look, it's "Chandler, Albert Benjamin (Happy)". Corrected.
  • Be consistent in what is and is not italicized
    • Assume you mean Hall of Distinguished Alumni. Fixed.
  • Shortened citations need to disambiguate between Harrison sources
    • Fixed by multi-author fix below.
  • FN 61: formatting
    • Fixed.
  • For shortened citations to multi-author works, be consistent in whether you include both authors
    • Only found Harrison and Klotter, which I fixed.
  • Directory bibliographic entry: formatting
    • Why do we even have {{CongBio}}, I wonder, since it doesn't even use any recognized bibliographic style?
  • Newspaper and journal/magazine sources without weblinks should include page numbers
    • Will have to track these down. Hope to have them soon.
    • Done.
  • Book sources should include publishers
    • Should be fixed now.
  • "University Press of Kentucky" or "The University Press of Kentucky"?
    • "The". One day, I'll quit copying and pasting from other articles and I'll stop getting this comment.
  • Use a consistent formatting for authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In...")
    • Couldn't find what you were referencing here. The bibliography uses all standard cite templates, so there may be inconsistencies among the templates.
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
    • Should be fixed now.
  • Watch for small formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
Most concerns addressed. More later. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be done now. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Have reviewed up through the commissioner section; I'll try to come back later and look at the rest.

  • First term as governor: Prose redundancy from the section's first to second paragraphs. We have "to secure the nomination" and "Having secured the nomination" back-to-back.
    • Ick. I should have caught that earlier. Thanks.
  • In "and to end the common practice of assessing state employees...", the "to" is an excess word that can be removed without changing any meaning, making the prose a shade tighter.
    • Done.
  • Commissioner of baseball: Some over-citation is present here. To give an example, the section's second paragraph has five straight sentences with cites to ref 59. None of this information looks overly controversial; you could do fine with just one cite to this source at the end of the paragraph. The following paragraphs are similar in this regard. There are some things, like the press criticism, that are well-served by direct cites, but some pruning is in order elsewhere.
    • I'm always very leery about eliminating citations, since what seems non-controversial to one editor will inevitably be controversial to another. (Typically, this will occur 6 months to a year after removing the cite so I can't remember where it came from.) I'd really prefer to keep them if possible.
  • "In some cases, the offers were triple the salaries being paid in the Major League." In situations like this, the correct terminology sports-wise is "the Major Leagues". Sounds odd if you're unfamiliar with sports, but it is correct since there are two major leagues (American and National).
    • I've never fully understood how the National and American Leagues are any more than arbitrary designations, myself, but then again, the last time I followed baseball, I was 12 and the Braves' starting rotation was Glavine, Avery, Smoltz, and Leibrandt! Where I'm from, sports is Big Blue basketball and very little else. Changed.
  • Contraction needs fixing in "and didn't return by April 1, 1946."
    • Done.
  • Larry MacPhail's name should have the P capitalized. This occurs here and in the Other matters section.
    • Done.
  • Breaking baseball's color line: "Brooklyn Dodgers manager Branch Rickey had announced the signing Jackie Robinson...". Two things. First, "of" is needed before Robinson's name. Second, Rickey was the Dodgers' general manager, not manager.
    • Done and done.
  • Other matters: "Yankees-Dodgers" needs an en dash in a couple of places. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
Thanks for your review to this point. I look forward to the rest of it.

Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Governorship: Another contraction here: "weren't".
      • Fixed.
    • Typo in "In addition, it transferred the assessment and colleciton of taxes...".
      • Fixed.
    • Add "the" before "town" in "Chandler took similar actions in response to a protest in town of Clay."?
      • Done.
    • "The anti-Chandler forces eventually put forth Bert Combs as its nominee again." "its" → "their"?
      • This probably originally read "anti-Chandler faction"; hence "its", but I apparently changed one without the other. Fixed.
    • Does this say anywhere when Chandler was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame? The year of induction is given for the Kentucky Sports Hall of Fame, and that's not nearly as prestigious as the baseball Hall. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's in the lead, but it should also have been in the body, which is wasn't. I've added it. Interestingly, his commissioner profile on MLB.com doesn't even mention that he was inducted at all. Seems like a rather glaring omission.
I assume there's more to come. I'll do my best to address any additional suggestions quickly. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a couple of tiny technical questions: why isn't there a "last accessed" date for all on-line sources, just some of them? Some of the bibliography have page references as pp. A1 (for instance), why isn't that just p. A1? Why is Sports Illustrated wikilinked in the Further reading section but not in the bibliography? Two periods in the second Further reading ref, could be fixed. Any way you could collapse those suc-boxes? They make the article unnecessary long and I'm not sure even if you need to space the year ranges, all other year ranges in this article are unspaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 27 September 2011 [2].

Fairfax Harrison

edit
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I promised everyone something other than a bishop or a horse. So ... I present to you, an American lawyer, railroad executive, and historical writer. (See if you can figure out WHY I wrote about him?) He's probably best known now for his writings, but in his day he was very influential in business and industry. After the usual copyedit by Malleus, I present to you a American personage for a change... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - no spotchecks, but the only issue I see is an inconsistency in volume notation between the first and last references. I also tweaked the columning. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. The prose looks good. Two content and two stylistic queries -
  • The article mentions his brother Francis, but there was also at least one other brother, Archibald, per the Yale obituary. (Not a very major figure, admittedly.)
  • "His election was considered to be a sign of change in the Southern United States, especially in its railroads." - why was it a change? Was it viewed as the next generation taking over, or was it because he was himself a southerner?
  • Distances are sometimes converted as (xxx-kilometer) and sometimes as (xxx km).
  • Finally, I'm not sure there's much benefit from providing modern dollar values for stock price and dividends. Giving an explicit percentage for dividends would be useful, if you can track down the share values to calculate from (the 1928 one looks like ~5.5%, which is a bit over average for the period), but for stock prices you may as well leave them be. As stock represents an arbitrary unit of indeterminate size, the values are only really relevant in comparison to earlier or later ones of the same stock, rather than as real dollar amounts - providing a conversion adds twice as many numbers to the sentence but doesn't really add much meaning.
I'll go over it again tomorrow and see if there's anything that sticks out on a second reading. Shimgray | talk | 21:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the "kilometer" (yuk!) issue. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be tomorrow morning at the earliest before I'm able to get to these... more likely tomorrow evening. Today was a very long day at a street festival... hopefully tomorrow will not be as draining... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "Another brother was Archibald, and all three brothers attended Yale University." to deal with the first point. The second has been clarified a bit. The third, Malleus got. On the fourth - I'm inclined to leave them in because if I don't, I'm likely to get someone who insists that they be included... whether or not they make a lot of sense. Sometimes it's easier to just not fight... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Archibald's biography is also on the Yale obituaries, FWIW. Regarding values, I think I'm marginally against them simply because so many figures makes me glaze over when I read the sentence, but I know exactly what you mean about it being easier to keep them! I sometimes wonder if anyone would notice were the inflation template replaced with a random-digit generator... Shimgray | talk | 21:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm utterly unlikely to do Archibald's biography - it was enough of a stretch for me to do someone from past the 15th century and on the wrong side of the pond from my usual subjects (except horses). Fairfax is important to me because of his work on Thoroughbred bloodlines - he was one of the giants there - and it is unlikely I'd ever tackle a plain old American (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above, on prose quality and comprehensiveness. Shimgray | talk | 22:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was wondering if there was anything that could be added into the article itself about his pen-name (A Virginia Farmer) as this appears in the infobox but isn't mentioned at all subsequently (if I'm not mistaken). Also, is there a reason that the on-line references don't have accessdate parameters while the external links do? Finally, "Time Magazine Staff" (ref 19, et seq), no reason for Staff to be capitalised is there (same for all other "staff" authors)? Finally, is Master of Arts (postgraduate) a better link than the "earning a Masters in Arts" you currently have? In either case, I suspect it should be Master's... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into nothing that says why he used that pen name (and I've done pretty extensive google scholar searches for information on him...) He used it, but that is pretty much all that we know. The online references do have accessdates, when they are listed in the references section, just not in the citation section. I generally see "Staff" in capitals in most of the references I see that are similar, especially in American referencing. If you feel really strongly about it, I could change it... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a big issue, the one source I looked at (ref 19) had no mention of who authored it at all, and I've always been led to believe that "Staff" isn't a proper noun, that's why I mentioned it. And forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but I don't see ref 2 (the Obit) in your references section, it has no accessdate in the refs section. As far as the pen-name goes, is this something common in this kind of biography? As the infobox is part of the lead, I wondered if we would expect to see it at least mentioned in passing in the article, or expanded upon. It may be clear that I don't know what I'm talking about, but it's really just an innocent question! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the obit is the very last reference in the reference section ... "Yale University". I didn't mention the pen name in the article because it was only mentioned in passing in the one source - since it was so little noticed, I didn't feel it needed a huge amount of mention in the article - felt to me like the infobox was sufficient. As for the "Google Books Staff", I just generally see it in capitals when I see such a construction in the works I consult. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I do feel stupid. ref 2 has an external link which I couldn't see directly replicated in the refs. Turns out that on Safari, that link is in its own column on the right-hand side, making the whole article twice the width... I do apologise. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all.. sometimes I can search the house for a pencil and find it behind my ear, so ... is the "Staff" issue something you desparately want changed? I'm not hard-core enough about it to fight it ... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to why that last ref is miles right in Safari, very unusual. And well, it depends on whether you think a "staff writer" really should be credited as "Staff Writer", I'm not sure at all. But I have seen it all over FACs, so maybe I'm speaking out of turn... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the "60em" from the ref list has fixed the appearance for me. Was there a real need for it for other non-Safari viewers? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to break it into columns. I use Safari and was not having the issue you were describing. Try the new setting for me? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, doesn't work, same problem. I'm using a 3-year-old Macbook under Lion, Safari 5.1. Not using columns worked fine... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not inclined to not have columns because of occasional glitches - I'm using Safari 5.1 also, and no issues at all with the columing. Perhaps raise the issue at the reflist template page? Anyway, what is your thought on the Staff/staff issue? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not having columns causes glitches? How so? And no, if you insist (along with most of the rest of the FAC community, it appears!) that "staff writer" is a proper noun, then so be it, consensus rules, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase .. I am not inclined to remove the columns because of occasional glitches for some users on specific platforms when those are probably solvable through the template itself. The lack of columns leaves a lot of wasted space on the article which I find aesthetically unpleasing... (I know I didn't make much sense with my first try, sorry!). I'm not sure there is a consensus on Staff/staff at FAC, I've never had it discussed, and if you want it changed, I'll change it.. (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I'll just assume my dirty Macbook is causing the glitch so keep the columns, but I still think staff writers aren't "proper nouns" so decap them. (double grins..) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(sets a new record on the number of colons) Done! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Caption on lead image could use a comma
  • Map is fairly unreadable at present size - could it be slightly larger?
  • File:Fairfax-harrison-1913.jpg uses an obsolete licensing tag
  • File:Southern_RR_Locomotive_LOC_npcc_32807.jpg: given the information given in the Date field, that licensing tag may be incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added comma, increased size on the map to 400px, although it's pretty small still. I removed the obsolete tag (the other tag is still current so it's fine), and replaced the last image with a modern properly licensed image of the paint scheme. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, everything looks good now. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: a few late observations:-

  • I believe it is accepted that in featured biographies the subject's full birth and death dates are given in the opening sentence, not just the years. I have checked about 25 and they all give the full dates.
  • In the lead we have "secretary to the Confederate President" and in the Background section, "secretary for..." I think the former is correct.
  • In the map of the Southern Railway's routes in 1921, I assume that it is the bolded lines that indicate the routes, not all the lines. This should be stated in the caption.

That's all . Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got all of these (although I really prefer just year dates in the lead ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 27 September 2011 [3].

Astraeus hygrometricus

edit
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The barometer earthstar is a star-shaped mushroom unrelated to the genus of earthstars known as Geastrum, about which I have written previously. In a recent mushroom-collecting foray a few weeks ago I was fortunate to find dozens of these earthstars growing on a sandy bank outside a mixed forest in the Saskatchewan north. Naturally, I had no choice but to buff up the article and submit it to here, for your consideration. Thanks for reading, Sasata (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an earthstar. Thoughts from J Milburn-

  • "The mushroom has been used traditionally by Indian forest tribes and North American natives." It would be good to mention in what way it has been used (looking down, it wasn't really "used" by Native Americans)
  • "as Geastrum, an alternate spelling of Geastrum" They're the same spelling?
  • "The differences disappears" Sic?
  • The "story" in the taxonomy section feels incomplete- you mention that Cunningham sent it back to Geastrum, but it's placed in Astraeus today?
  • "to form irregular 4–20 "rays"." What does this mean?
  • "scurfy" A little jargony, I think
  • "rhizomorphs (small dark hairlike thread)" This gives the impression that that's always what rhizomorphs look like, rather than what they look like with this species.
  • "coalesce" Again, technical
  • "capillitium (a mass of thread-like sterile fibers dispersed among the spores) are branched" capillitum (singular, surely?) are
  • "They further noted that the fruit bodies" no people have been mentioned. Change to "the study's authors" or something akin?
  • I'm wondering about the declarion of inedibility in the mycomorphbox- that contradicts the categories, and, while we may want to dismiss many of those eaten as actually different species, elsewhere in the article, you note that the species is found in the countries where it/species like it are eaten
  • Do you have no sources talking about differentiating the species from A. asiaticus and A. thailandicus?
  • "Two primitive Indian forest tribes," Is that a PC term?
  • As the last one isn't a use as such, perhaps rename "Traditional uses" to "Traditional beliefs"?
  • There's no mention of the edibility issue in the lead

Looking very nice. I don't envy you having to sift through the sources to work out what was A. hygrometricus and what was something that looked like it. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are ok. Template:Information would be nice for File:Astraeus hygrometricus 001.jpg, and do we have death dates for the authors of File:Astraeus hygrometricus1928.jpg? J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I removed the image for now, and will replace in January 2012. I've added a MO image to replace it temporarily, but will look through my own collection and see if I can make something better for the article. I'll drop you a line if I make any more image changes. Thanks for checking. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was holding my support for similar reasons to Ucucha, but the fact he and Jim are happy with the section reassures me. Nice work, but it's an article that will probably need to be have some fairly large updates as more literature becomes available. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how you notate page ranges - for example, "185–8" vs "178–79"
  • Be consistent in whether you notate editions as ordinals or simple numerals
  • FN 9: publisher?
  • Foreign-language sources should consistently be identified as such - for example, FN 17
  • Why specify UK for London but not Cambridge? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ucucha:

  • I know I tend to link less than you do, but do you need links for temperate, tropical, humidity?
  • doi:10.1007/s10267-010-0039-6 seems relevant; it recognizes Astraeus koreanus as a variety of this species
  • "Until recently, the genus Astraeus was thought to contain only two species."—Apparently, Astraeus koreanus was proposed as a separate species in 1976.
  • Why are you including information from Thailand, when Phosri et al. (2007) have found that A. hygrometricus doesn't occur there?
  • Phosri et al. (2007) and Fangfuk et al. (2010) suggest that not only are some Asian species distinct from A. hygrometricus, true A. hygrometricus from France may also be a different species from the one recorded in North America, the Mediterranean, and Japan (Fangfuk et al., 2010:298).
  • "(2.5–5 cm (1.0–2.0 in) long)"—it's better to avoid nested parentheses
  • Astraeus pteridis is also found on the Canary Islands (Fangfuk et al., 2010).
  • Be consistent in using title case or sentence case for common names.
  • Actually, I meant the tree names in "Habitat, distribution, and ecology" (now fixed myself; not sure why I didn't do that yesterday). No strong opinion on whether you should change the capitalization in the titles of source articles. Ucucha (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was afraid of that... that website seems rather fragile. Perhaps we could link [4] instead; that link is hopefully going to be stable, but people will need to find the actual article themselves. Ucucha (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm now switching to support. I'm somewhat concerned that the taxonomy of this species is so confused at the moment that it's not possible to write an accurate account of this species (I suspect that what you have on this species from India and Nepal is unlikely to be really A. hygrometricus, for example), but I doubt you can do much better in that regard than you have done, so I'm happy to support. Ucucha (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support and nitpicks just two infelicities struck me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • to the genus of true earthstars, Geastrum, although historically, it has been taxonomically confused with them. — "them" seems to refer back to singular "genus"
  • First described in 1801 as Geastrum hygrometricus by Christiaan Hendrik Persoon, in 1885 Andrew P. Morgan... — reads as if Andrew was described as such in the absence of a clearly defined subject. Perhaps This species was first described...?

Comment a really interesting article. I have a couple of minor technical questions (which may be a result of the various ref templates) but why do you have "371–4" in ref 57 and then "40–41" in ref 32? Ref 44 has a "see pg." rather than just a "see p." which seems anomalous and is there a reason why the number in ref 48 (2115) isn't 2,115? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments TRM. I fixed the first two inconsistencies you pointed out, but regarding the third, the MoS says: "Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250)." Sasata (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 27 September 2011 [5].

Dermotherium

edit
Nominator(s): Ucucha (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the closest living relatives of primates are the colugos, two species of gliders from the forests of Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, they also have one of the poorest fossil records of all mammalian orders—the subject of this article, Dermotherium, is the only unambiguous fossil colugo that has ever been described. It is known from a handful of teeth and pieces of jaw from 25–35 million year old fossil sites in southern Asia. This article received a GA review by J Milburn and I hope your reviews will find that it's up to standards. Ucucha (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Known" occurs thrice in second sentence
  • All fossil sites where Dermotherium has been found probably developed in forested environments and Dermotherium was... — Dermotherium treated as if a single species, reads oddly to me
  • I think it's not too unusual in paleontology to have something like that. Do you think it's a big problem? I could write around it with something like "both species of Dermotherium", but that would become awkward.
  • (order Dermoptera; family Cynocephalidae) — not sure what this adds, it's in the taxobox, and both taxons redirect to colugo anyway
  • placental — link?
  • Added.
  • A highly technical review of dentition makes up two-thirds of the description, I wonder if that's disproportionate?
No problem, happy with changes, supporting above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to say in addition to my comments at GAC, I've got to second Jim's concerns about "All fossil sites where Dermotherium has been found". I think I mentioned it in my GA review- how about "All fossil sites where Dermotherium specimens have been found" or something? I'm happy to defer to you if this is common in paleontology, but it reads oddly to me. There are other examples, including "Dermotherium was probably a forest dweller". J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've reworded the offending sentences. Ucucha (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy that this is FA status. Please don't take this in the wrong way- I find the details of the dentures very dull, but I appreciate that they are absolutely essential to the article. The writing, sourcing and images are all solid, and the article covers all the bases. I'm confident that this is an accurate summary of all that is known about these animals. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a few minor comments, but nothing that detracts from my overall support:

  • Lead, "but also shares similarities with both in a mosaic pattern." I have no idea what this means, and the words "mosaic pattern" appear nowhere else in the article.
  • I agree with J Milburn that the discussion of the teeth is quite dull, but I also think that the length and detail are necessary given that the species are only known from their teeth and jaw fragments. I would be very suspicious if the sources started hypothesizing many other physical features based on a few molars :)
  • Range and ecology, "the carnivoran Chaprongictis phetchaburiensis, the lipotyphlan Siamosorex debonisi," Could we link "lipotyphlan", and I (and I'm guessing most other non-biologists) don't know what it means. Also, by "carnivoran" do you just mean that it eats meat? It seems rather odd to identify this species based on its diet when the rest of the species in the list are identified based on their general place among other species (rodent, rhinoceros, etc).
    • I linked both lipotyphlan and carnivoran. The latter refers not to the diet, but to the order Carnivora; it's a different term than "carnivore". Lipotyphla is the order of moles, shrews, hedgehogs, and friends, but Siamosorex belongs to an extinct family that no reader is likely to have ever heard of. Ucucha (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, right. Completely missed the distinction between carnivoran and carnivorous. Well, you learn (or remember something that you probably learned a decade ago in school) every day!
  • There are a lot of red links in the Range and ecology section. Are all of these going to have their own article at some point, or are there articles that they could be redirected to in the mean-time?
    • The taxonomic ones certainly deserve their own articles (at least at the genus level). I'm not as sure about the geographical and geological ones, but remember that they are all in areas of the world where Wikipedia's coverage is very spotty. Ucucha (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little article. It's amazing to me how much scientists can tell from just a few teeth and bone fragments! Dana boomer (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support! Ucucha (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. Everything looks good, so just reaffirming my support given above. Dana boomer (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just a small technical question, a number of refs are re-used, but re-defined each time here, e.g. refs 16, 18 and 19 point at fig 4, refs 25, 28 and 29 point at fig 6. Is there a reason not to "re-use" these references since they appear identical to the reader? Another tiny thing, fourth of the "literature cited" has a page number of 5851, shouldn't that really be 5,851? And the penultimate of those "cites" has pp. for a single page, is that implying your using the whole source which has that many pages? Seems at odds with the other refs in that section. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check. As for the first one, that is a shortcoming in Template:Sfn that I hadn't noticed; I'll see what I can do to fix it. WP:MOSNUM says that we can choose whether or not to put commas in four-digit numbers; it would look strange to me to put commas in an issue number. Yes, the 304 in Ungar's book is meant to be the number of pages in the whole book (the page cited is listed in the specific ref). It's the only full book, as opposed to a journal article or chapter, that is cited in the article, so there's not much to be at odds with. Ucucha (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no problem. I'm doing my best to learn some of the technical aspects of FAC to see what you experts expect so that I can read some if it across to FLC. Your patience and helpful response is much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with Sfn has now been fixed; thanks for bringing it up. Ucucha (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks for your diligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 27 September 2011 [6].

George Hirst

edit
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Hirst was a Yorkshire cricketer who played before the First World War, setting some pretty unrepeatable records and impressing everyone with what a nice chap he was. He was a very good all-rounder who was one of the first cricketers to deliberately make a cricket ball swing when it was bowled; this is currently the number one weapon in top-level cricket. He later became a very respected coach who worked successfully with both Eton schoolboys and very rough-and-ready Yorkshire cricketers. This article is currently a GA and has received a Peer Review. Any comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how you punctuate shortened citations
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for the almanacks
  • Be consistent in whether or not you include locations for book sources
  • FN 40: ISBN?
  • Be consistent in how you notate editions
  • Subscription/registration sources should consistently be notated as such
  • Where is Twickenham? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments

SupportLeaning to support: I peer reviewed this article, and during the course of thsi FAC I have done some further copyediting. There are a few outstanding issues related to the prose:-

Lead
  • I suggest you delete the phrase "with occasional success", which gives a somewhat misleading impression of general failure and anyway is not necessary in view of the next sentence.
Leading all-rounder
  • "...he took 104 wickets, at the increased average of 21.61..." You need to clarify for non-cricketers that in this context, "increased average" means a poorer performance. Possibly "at the more expensive average..."?
  • What are we to make of Wisden concerning the first Test of 1899, in which it says of Hirst's selection "It cannot be said that the experiment was in any way a success", and then says: "while he failed as a batsman and bowler, his fielding alone was almost good enough to justify his selection". This seems somewhat contradictory.
Discovery of "swerve"
  • The following sentence reads oddly: "He had always possessed the ability to make the ball swing through the air after release, but he now developed a method of deliberately achieving "swerve". Since you have earlier equated swing with swerve, if he had always possessed the ability to swing (or swerve) the ball, what does it mean when you say "he now developed a method of deliberately achieving "swerve"? Also, "deliberately" is rather undermined by his "sometimes it works..." comment. There is further information in the Style and technique section which indicates that Hirst's ability to swerve the ball was dependent on conditions.
Style and technique
  • "Known affectionately as "George Herbert", he was admired and affectionately regarded by his contemporaries and by spectators". Unnecessary repetition.

All in all this is a commendable and very detailed biography of a historically important cricketer. Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done, I think. The reason for the Wisden discrepancy is that one comment came in the match report and the other was in his Cricketer of the Year profile from a couple of years after. I took out the comment about fielding as it was a later one and is a bit too hagiographical and his fielding is mentioned later. I've had a go at re-wording the discovery of swing and I think I've managed to clear it up; as you know, it is a tricky subject to explain as no one still really knows what causes it! If you could have a look at the swing sentence and make any further suggestions to the phrasing, I would appreciate it. Thanks for the review and all your help. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a couple quick ones from the lead. I read most of the article, but didn't find anything else worth commenting on.

  • "One of the Wisden Cricketer of the Year for 1901". "Cricketer" should be plural since there were more than one.
  • "Hirst scored 36,356 runs and took 2,742 wickets in all his first-class career." The word "all" strikes me as unneeded and is interfering with the flow of the sentence when I read it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweaks and the support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Physically brave - weird expression. I sort of know what you're getting at but it is an odd way to describe a mental attribute. Maybe "fearless/unafraid/? of injury" but that is not an improvement flow wise and not quite accurate. Not a deal-breaker this one as nothing jumps to mind as an improvement.
I think the "physically" is needed, as it may refer to being brave "mentally" (i.e. immune to pressure, cool-headed, etc). And it was not really about not being afraid of injury. Physically fearless may be the right expression, but as you say it is not really an improvement. I will leave it for now, but try to think of a better way to phrase it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
many opponents were reduced to helplessness, even the best batsmen. - cumbersome. Can be trimmed to "even the best batsmen could be outplayed (or something)/have no answer/something similar.
I've tidied this up a bit. Thanks for the review and comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images are verifiably in the public domain and stored on the appropriate servers. No issues here. Jappalang (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is from a formerly enthusiastic but feckless baseball player with minimal knowledge of cricket. Here is a short list of queries and quibbles, none of which alters my support for a fine article.

:Early life

  • "After leaving school at ten years of age... " - 10 for numbers bigger than nine, usually?
First season for Yorkshire
  • "Not considered a good batsman at this stage, he batted at number eleven in the first innings" - Pipe eleven to 11?
  • "Hirst's batting remained undeveloped in 1893; he batted at number ten and did not pass fifty in any one innings, though he managed some useful scores." - 10 and 50?
  • "Although this was his only score over fifty" - 50?
  • "with three fifties" - 50s?
  • "hitting an unbeaten 115 out of a partnership of 176 for the ninth wicket" - What does "ninth wicket" refer to? "Wicket" seems to have different meanings in different contexts. I assume here it means something like "batting order". Could you add a brief parenthetical translation for us baseball fans who only sort of understand cricket?
  • "a feat appreciated by Yorkshire supporters as the fixture was always highly competitive" - Maybe add (scheduled match) after "fixture" for readers unfamiliar with this use of the word.
Leading all-rounder
  • "Hirst hit a century against Leicestershire and nine other scores over fifty... " - 50?
  • "His only score over fifty was an innings of 130 against Surrey" - 50?
Success against Australia
  • "Around the time of the first Test, the tourists endured a dispiriting spell of poor form and illness." - Is "tourists" commonly used in this context? Baseball uses "visiting team" or "visitors", so "tourists" may be just fine. Don't know.
  • "Fred Tate was one of the twelve and the selectors probably included him as they believed MacLaren could not possibly choose him in the final eleven over another player." - 12 and 11?
  • "In completing the first of ten consecutive doubles" - 10?
Record-breaking season
  • "He became only the second man after Bernard Bosanquet to score two centuries and take ten wickets in the same first-class match" - 10?
Final Tests
  • "his final Test record in 24 matches was 790 runs, with three scores over fifty," - 50?
  • "Hirst completed the fourteenth and final double of his career" - 14th?
Style and technique
  • "He usually bowled over the wicket, meaning he bowled from the right hand side of the wickets and so angled the ball across the pitch." - Delete "so?
Bibliography
I have made changes to fix all the above points with just a few exceptions. Where "fifty" is used in preference to "50", it is because a fifty in cricket (sometimes called a half-century) is a score between 50 and 99; using 50 suggests that he scored exactly that number but using "fifty" suggests the score 50-99. Also, "eleven" or "twelve" as the number in a team (i.e. one of the twelve and final eleven) is more like a synonym for "team" and is usually given as a word. It is sometimes used over here as XI or XII to distinguish it from a quantity, but I think the word is better. However, on this point if anyone has any strong objections I will change it to 11 (or XI if that would be better). "Tourists" is quite common here to refer to a touring sports team. For "and so angled the ball", it is clumsy writing on my part; I intended to show that because he bowled from that side, the ball slanted across, but "so" is too vague. I changed it to "therefore". Everything else done, and thanks for the missing OCLC; for some reason I couldn't find it when I looked. Thanks for the comments and support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of the changes look fine. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) - forgive me, haven't done a FAC in a while, saw this was up while talk page stalking, so some comments...
  • Shouldn't " right handed batsman" be hyphenated, i.e. right-handed?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see why Wisden should be part of the link, i.e. Wisden Cricketers of the Year, or else link Wisden on its own so non-cricket experts get the significance.
Not quite sure I follow; Wisden is not part of the pipe, it is unlinked outside: Wisden Cricketers of the Year. If anything, it maybe should be inside but I think following the CoY link shows that it belonged to Wisden. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I'm trying to say is that to non-experts, there's no clear indication as to what makes Wisden anything significant. So either link Wisden, or don't pipelink the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I've made Wisden part of the pipe; I really don't want two separate links next to each other (i.e. [[Wisden Cricketers' Almanack}Wisden]] Cricketer of the Year) as no one will realise it is too links: also, I think the CoY article makes it clear what this award is and what Wisden is. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " His Test figures were 790 runs and 59 wickets." perhaps, for a lead, it's best to be a little more verbose (especially in the world of technical cricket terminology), so why not "In Test cricket, he scored 790 runs and took 59 wickets."?
Simply because the previous sentence ends "in first-class cricket", and beginning the next sentence like this, or including the phrase in the sentence would lead to some repetition. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took far more wickets than he had managed earlier in his career" reads odd because before 1900 he only played for 9 years and subsequently played a further 22 or so seasons, so that's not unusual. I think you need to refine this.
Done: I wanted to change that whole thing about swing bowling anyway as it did not really tell the tale well enough. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " From 1903 he achieved 11 consecutive doubles. He set records in 1905, when he scored 341, still the highest total for Yorkshire as of 2011, and in 1906, when he completed an unprecedented and unrepeated double of 2,000 runs and 200 wickets." -> " From 1903 he achieved 11 consecutive doubles and set records in 1905, when he scored 341, still the highest total for Yorkshire as of 2011. In 1906, he completed an unprecedented and unrepeated double of 2,000 runs and 200 wickets." (just opinion, but flows a little better for me?)
Personally, I prefer it as it is because he set records in 'both 1905 and 1906. The alternative suggests the only record came in 1905. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the alternative makes it clear that in 1906 he did something unprecedented and unrepeated. That's, surely, record speak? Perhaps "and scored a record 341 in 1905, still the ..." as well... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite what I meant. I think the reason you think an alternative is needed is because of the short sentence, but I think that is better than changing the sentence around for reasons of flow. At the moment, the second sentence begins with "he set some records" and then gives the two records he set in 1905 and 1906. The alternative now says "he completed 11 doubles and set some records [plural], here is the record [singular] he set in 1905. In 1906 he did the double double." The answer here is to take out the mention of "he set some records", but this would be what is left: "From 1903 he achieved 11 consecutive doubles and in 1905 scored 341, still the highest total for Yorkshire as of 2011. In 1906, he completed an unprecedented and unrepeated double of 2,000 runs and 200 wickets." For me, there is no flow between the two parts of the first sentence and we have a short, choppy second sentence. As such, I prefer it as it is right now. If it is a huge problem, I will try to recast that part completely, but I would prefer to leave it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see it. You're right, my objection was the short sentence structure, but I appear to be alone and my alternative also seems weak. So I suggest you follow your own advice and leave it! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after making occasional appearances in 1920 and 1921, he retired as a player" -> first para says he played in 1929 for YCCC.
Changed to "retired from regular first-class cricket", as I don't want to repeat the single appearance in the lead. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acting as a coach to young players" why not just "coaching young players"?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A popular player, coach and personality with cricketers and spectators, Hirst died in 1954, aged 82." reads a little bit too much like an obituary to me.
If it's a huge problem, I'll change it but I think this flows quite well as it is. The alternative is ponderous and leads more "he"s and I think the lead already strains under them: "He was a popular player, coach and personality with cricketers and spectators [or something similar]. He died in 1954, aged 82." It sounds tacked on to me and I prefer the current version. But feel free to argue! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "professional for Elland Cricket Club for 1890 " -> "professional for Elland Cricket Club for the 1890 season"? Otherwise the for... for reads a little odd.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placing him third in the Yorkshire averages" context, that season? ever?
Done, although I think it was already implied it was for the season. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "out of a partnership" odd, but I always say "in a partnership"... personal choice perhaps?
I always use "out of" when comparing the proportion of runs scored which was the intention here. I'll change it if it is a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "highest total of wickets" perhaps just "most wickets".
I think "total" is needed here to make it clear that it is something precise, not just "most wickets" in terms of "he took lots of wickets" or "lots of five-fors". --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From left to right: Schofield Haigh, Hirst and Wilfred Rhodes. The Yorkshire team-mates at Marsden, 1905" - why not a comma and just "the" instead of ". The" without a full stop?
Re-worded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was often unlucky" - you should qualify this I think.
Not sure I can be; the source is a little vague and I genuinely don't know if Warner meant unlucky with conditions, the pitches, he beat the edge lots, or Bosanquet took all the wickets! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link you can use for the South Africa team of the day?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1,000 run-100 wicket -> en-dash needed I think.
Missed that. I hate dashes. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The English opening batsman scored the 105 runs required for victory without being separated" batsmen?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a minor counties match " I thought we capitalised minor counties to Minor Counties (like the ECB?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " his coaching connection with Yorkshire until " why not replace this Yorkshire with "the county" to make the reading more elegant.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Headingley.
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wisden mention him as the father of seam bowling, but I don't see much mention of that here, just the swing aspects of his bowling game.
To be honest, I think that is a mistake on Wisden's part; I always thought Maurice Tate developed seam bowling. Unless they meant in the sense of "medium paced bowlers bag of tricks"? But there is nothing to say on seam. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "plain speaking" be hyphenated?
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: Has a spotcheck of the sources been done here? Ucucha (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, no problems here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ucucha (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was happy with the article when I reviewed it for Good article: reading through both the article and this review, there is little more I can add. There may be a few quibbles over minor points of language, but to be honest there is nothing I am bothered enough about that I think my suggestion will be any better: it'd just be different. Nice work once again. Harrias talk 21:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 27 September 2011 [7].

Pepper v Hart

edit
Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the requisite standards. A note: in the two prior FACs, User:Savidan raised concerns over whether or not my sources covered the entire broad spectrum of academic opinion. As I did before, I believe these concerns are invalid. My sources - and there are many of them - are stripped from my complete access to JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw and LexisNexis, the full spectrum of journal repositories for just about every common law jurisdiction whose academics could have a stake in this piece of case law. I have thoroughly reviewed the articles used, and, at Savidan's request, included a couple of new ones (where they proved useful). If he does believe that, despite the wide spectrum of opinions and sources for opinions, some crucial aspect of academia is being left out, I invite him to explain what aspect I am missing. The onus is on him to show that I am missing something, and not on me to prove a negative. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bradley or Bardley?
  • Littleboy or Littleboy & Kelly 2005?
  • Millet or Millett?
  • Check alphabetization of secondary sources
  • No citations to Miers 1993
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Duff titles should use endashes
  • "Library of the House of Commons" of which country? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All fixed, except "duff titles", "consistent date format" and "check alphabetization ". In order - what's a duff title, what dates can you see that don't follow the format of "dd month yyyy" and what do you mean by "alphabetization of secondary sources"? Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In order: the titles of the two works by Duff published in 1999, compare the retrieval date formats of the two primary sources, and since the first point has made "Bradley" standard the alphabetization issue that was present in the secondary source list no longer exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems pretty much there. I think, given the very wide range of dates involved, it would be better to have the dates from the case citations in the main text (and perhaps the whole of the citations, since they are all short). Or at the least the two before 1800. Sources not checked. Otherwise no issues. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; one possible issue there is that they look a wee bit alien, and also that there's no real way to explain what each bit means if they're in the article prose. Any suggestions on how to fix those? I guess I could bluelink "case citation" to the actual citation each time, but... Ironholds (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could leave your current explanation at the top of the notes as a ref for all of them, with a link to the UK table at Case citation. But I note that Swan and Burr, for the two really old ones, are not in that table (haven't checked all the others) so these should probably get a note each with the full titles, even as things are. As a minimum you could just put "the 1687 case ..." etc for the older ones, but the dates are sufficiently relevant for all of them to go in the main text imo, given the evolution in thinking before & after the case that you bring out very nicely. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about the current table-form-with-references, and then "the [blotto year] case of X v Y[ref]" for the older ones? Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine, if I've understood you correctly. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what is "the current table-form-with-references"? Just do it & we'll see how it looks. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, try now? Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link at "court/reporter", otherwise that's fine thanks. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning to oppose: I have not read much of the article, but I have concerns in the lead and the first section. Articles concerned with interpretations of law need to be made very clear to the layman, and I found myself somewhat confused by the end of the "Facts" section.

  • The lead contains a particularly awkward sentence, which needs attention in several respects - length, punctuation, clarity etc: "Since Steyn's lecture, there have been several judicial decisions which limited the precedent set by the House of Lords, preventing the use of Hansard as a source of law, in criminal law cases or to overrule precedent set prior to Pepper except in exceptional circumstances."
    Try now? Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, much better. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Facts" section we have a quote from Section 63 of the Finance Act 1976, which begins: "The cash equivalent of any benefit chargeable to Cash tax ... is an amount..." etc. What on earth, I wondered, is "Cash tax"? I discovered on looking at the wording in the act that in fact, "Cash" is part of some marginal notation, not part of the wording of the section, which reads: "The cash equivalent of any benefit chargeable to tax..." etc. But even with this correction, I defy anyone but the most dedicated tax lawyer to understand what the section means. Can you, in your own words, explain what you think it is saying?
    I find it pretty easy. When looking at what benefits to tax, the way of translating "benefit" into "actual money" is to look at the cost of providing it, not the benefit that the recipient might have. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's a bit more understandable. If you are sure that is what the section of the Act is saying, why not paraphrase it in these words? Why force your readers to struggle with legalese? You can include the exact wording as a footnote if you wiish, or add an external link to the online copy of the Finance Act, for the benefit of anyone who wants to check the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because my interpretation of it - while I'm sure my interpretation is correct - is just that, interpretation. It's taking a primary source and saying "this is what the primary source means in practise", and I'm not comfortable doing that. There's a big difference between rephrasing a clear statement in a secondary source and rewording a statute to say what I believe it says. Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoth the policy: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The supposed link to the WP article on the Finance Act 1976 is useless. It goes to a general Finance Act article that mentions several acts, but not that of 1976.
    Yes; it's a stock short title, and is used for every finance act. We have no article on the 1976 Act, but the link instead serves to explain what the Act does; it's the piece of legislation which lays out the tax and budget regimes each financial year. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the link should be to Finance Act, not to Finance Act 1976. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the 2nd point, I have removed the "Cash". I am not a tax lawyer of any level of deicication, but can understand both the legislation (for which WP are hardly responsible) and, more importantly, the explanation that follows, though I wonder if the "however" is appropriate - should this not be a "furthermore" in relation to the Special Commissioners? A link to fixed cost might be worked in somewhere, though I suppose this might increase confusion rather than diminish it. But if Brian finds it impenetrable the whole explanation could be set out more simply. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a simple explanation, in the terms that Ironholds has outlined above, would be a considerable help to the general reader. In the fond hope that something like this will happen, I am striking my "leaning to oppose". If I can find the time in the next few days I will read and comment on the rest of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Impressive. I think this is finally achieved. AGK [•] 00:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (disclosure: I conducted the GA review). I think some of the criticisms in previous FACs -- about the thoroughness of the literature review -- were misconceived. I am confident -- having conducted my own searches at the GA stage, having wide access to materials, and given Ironholds one additional source that I found -- that this article presents a comprehensive review of the sources and passes that criterion. Confident that other key criteria (eg prose, images) have been adequately dealt with by other reviewers, I support and would not want to duplicate their work. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:23, 27 September 2011 [8].

Chester A. Arthur

edit
Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a peer review and a good article approval, I think Chester A. Arthur is ready to run the FA gauntlet. Enjoy the article -- there's more to him than those muttonchops! Coemgenus (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Had my say at the peer review, all issues that could be addressed were, and a look this morning convinces me it meets the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to New York politician, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continuing:
  • So far, I've made the following edits: Here are some edits that I didn't explain in the edit summaries:
  • "a lucrative sinecure": a lucrative job with few responsibilities
  • "after Tweed's fall from power in 1871, he never spoke ...": ... Arthur never spoke [correct this please if you meant Tweed never spoke]
  • "re-appointment": reappointment. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once there, he traveled with Conkling to Albany, where the former Senator had hoped for a quick re-election to the Senate and, thereby, a rebuke to the Garfield administration. To their surprise, the Republican majority in the state legislature was divided ...": The "their" in this sentence seemed to me to refer to the Republican majority. Fixed.
  • "which would have the effect of reducing": in order to reduce (one of the "in order to" exceptions, since "to" could be misread here). - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would only reduce tariffs": only reduced tariffs. Only use the "future-in-past" tense ("would", here) if you actually need it ... if you're signalling the reader that you're talking about something off in the future before returning to the time of the narrative. I'm guessing that the reduced tariffs weren't years off in the future, since you say they "didn't help", so they're close enough to the time of the narrative that the past tense is better. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite Arthur's objections, Congress overrode his veto, enacting the bill into law. While successfully reducing the surplus by $19 million ...": Congress overrode his veto, and the new law reduced the surplus by $19 million.
  • "Arthur believed the twenty-year ban was a breach of the renegotiated treaty of 1880, which allowed only a "reasonable" suspension of immigration; as a result, he vetoed the bill.": Arthur vetoed the bill, seeing the twenty-year ban as a breach of the renegotiated treaty of 1880, which allowed only a "reasonable" suspension of immigration. [ Avoid "as a result" and similar phrases if it's implied by context.]
  • "would deny": would have denied. The future-in-past tense is for things that did (later) happen, not for things that didn't. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The contracts to build the ABCD ships were all awarded to John Roach & Sons of Chester, Pennsylvania. While Roach was the low bidder on all four contracts, assigning them to his shipyard sparked controversy, as Roach once employed Secretary Chandler as a lobbyist. As a result, Democrats ...": The contracts to build the ABCD ships were all awarded to the low bidder, John Roach & Sons of Chester, Pennsylvania, even though Roach once employed Secretary Chandler as a lobbyist. Democrats ... - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New London, Connecticut": New London, Connecticut, - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Squadron of Evolution.": see WP:LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't made these edits:
  • "forbade federal office holders from being required ...": you can't forbid someone from being told by someone else to do something ... they don't have any control over that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed the ISBN and I couldn't find any doubled periods, but I'll keep looking the doubled period. I thought the dates were consistent. What do you mean? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see Brad101 has fixed them. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I think I got them.See my last couple of edits. Brad (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Criteria 3 media meets standards. Brad (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first thing that jumped out at me as I skimmed the article was the lack of pronouns:

The Senate confirmed Arthur's appointment. As Collector, Arthur not only controlled nearly a thousand jobs, but he also stood to receive personal compensation as great as any federal officeholder. Arthur's salary was $6,500, but senior customs employees were also compensated by the "moiety" system, which awarded them a percentage of the fines levied on importers who attempted to evade the tariff. In total, Arthur's income came to more than $50,000—more than the president's salary, and more than enough for him to enjoy fashionable clothes and a lavish lifestyle. Among those who dealt with the Custom House, Arthur was one of the era's more popular collectors.

Arthur urged Congress to increased funding for Indian education, which it did in 1884, although not to the extent Arthur wished. Arthur also favored a move to the allotment system, by which individual Native Americans, rather than tribes, would own land. Arthur was unable to convince Congress to adopt the idea during his administration but, in 1887, the Dawes Act changed the law to favor such a system.

etc. This is part of the reason why fewer footnotes are good, as they make textual problems a little easier to spot. —Designate (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'll try to trim back the Arthurs when I examine the footnote cluttering. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The pronoun situation should be under control now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A minor thing: you have party lowercase in Republican party but capitalized in Whig Party and Greenback Party (and Republican Party in the infobox).
Also, is it necessary to say he was born in 1829 in the second paragraph of the lead? —Designate (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just beginning to read through. I have a quick question - the piece about moving to Kansas is a bit confusing. He got engaged, then moved to Kansas and then moved back because the frontier didn't agree with him, and then got married? Is that correct? First, I'd suggest rewording that the frontier didn't agree with him. Then, clarify why he went to Kansas. Did he intend to move there with his fiancee? Anyway, slightly confused in that section, but otherwise good. Will continue reading. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the sequence right. I tried to clarify it, but even his biographers aren't clear on Arthur's motivations. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lead

  • Should Rivers and Harbors Act be linked in the lead? I'm uncertain whether you're referring to a specific act, or a generic rivers and harbor act.
  • "...that appropriated federal funds..." related to the above act; if it was vetoed, shouldn't this read "would have appropriated"?
  • "...than the modern Presidency..." would this read better as "a modern presidency", with a lower case "presidency"? I don't believe this is a valid honorific or proper noun.

Birth and family

  • Could use a link to the article for Belfast College. There are several, and I'm not sure which one it is.
  • "...the Arthurs moved to Burlington, Jericho, and Waterville, Vermont, in quick succession as William moved to jobs with different schools." could be rephrased as "...the Arthurs moved in quick succession throughout Vermont, to the towns of Burlington, Jericho and Waterville, as William took jobs with different schools." I think eliminating the serial comma and ", Vermont" here would be preferable; the first time I read through this, I thought that Burlington was a city in a region called Jericho.

Education

  • "...began to pursue an education in the law. While studying the law..." The phrase "the law" is slightly repetitive here, perhaps the second instance could be shortened to just "law"?

--Gyrobo (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I fixed these, except for two. I left Rivers and Harbors Act unlinked, because there's no article for that exact bill. As for Belfast College, I've been unable to figure out which one it was, either, though I spent some time looking when I wrote that section. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conkling's machine

  • "As a rule, these jobs were dispensed to adherents of the political machine..." Was this a formal rule, or just traditional practice?
  • "...which made the job a choice political plum." While wp:euphemisms can really make the text pop, is there a better way to phrase this to convey a more comprehensive meaning?

Clash with Hayes

  • "...assured his protégé's re-appointment by President Grant." Could this be rephrased slightly? I'm unsure whether Grant personally assured Conkling, or whether Conkling just assumed it would happen.
  • "Hayes's opponent, New York Governor Samuel J. Tilden, carried New York but, after months of disputes over certain electoral votes, lost the Presidency." This sentence appears at the end of a paragraph and is uncited.

--Gyrobo (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Election of 1880[reply]

  • I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

Vice Presidency

  • I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.
  • "...and Arthur boarded a train for the capital two days later." Could you please specify the city? You mention Albany, the capital of New York, but presumably he'd be going to the national capital.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, and I've re-added the political plum. I think my issue was "choice political plum", mentioning that it's highly coveted should provide adequate context while preserving the passion of the original wording. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking office

  • "...because of concerns that his first oath was given by a state judge." Should there be a mention of why this was a concern, similar to how Calvin Coolidge's initial swearing in is described?
  • I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

--Gyrobo (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civil service reform

  • I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.
  • "...the kind of corruption that reformers feared Arthur would countenance..." The word "countenance" seems a bit archaic here, perhaps this could be rephrased slightly to be more straightforward?

--Gyrobo (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that's that archaic -- I think people know what it means. What word do you think would be better? "approve of"? "permit"?
  • Your copyedits were helpful. It reads better now, to my mind, and doesn't change the meaning. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surplus and the tariff

  • I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Foreign affairs and immigration[reply]

  • Frelinghuysen hasn't been discussed for two sections, maybe he could be quickly reintroduced? Is there anything one why Frelinghuysen was chosen that could bolster such a reintroduction?
  • I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naval reform

  • I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

Civil rights

  • Some copyedits, involving the consistent capitalization of "West" throughout the article, specifying what "Solid South" meant, and the last sentence was a little jumbled. If my edits distort the sources, please revert. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health, travel, and renomination

  • I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

Administration and cabinet

  • Nothing amiss.

Judicial appointments

  • I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

Retirement and death

  • Copyedits, and I've broken the section into two paragraphs, which I believe gives more weight to each part of his life/death. How does the article look to you now?

--Gyrobo (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article one more time, inserting non-breaking spaces per MOS:NBSP to prevent dates from being inadvertently split across lines. The prose looks very good right now, but one thing that struck me was the absence of a Legacy section. The other president FAs include such a section. I don't know if the sources provide enough information for it, but if they do, it would be nice to have, even if it's a few sentences about a statue unveiling and postage stamp. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to avoid a Legacy section, if possible. The sources don't really provide much information on a legacy, possibly because most Americans know almost nothing of Arthur or his works, so anything I wrote would verge on original research. There's not much legacy to speak of. Those sections usually end up being just lists of non-notable stuff named after him. Among the FAs of Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes has no legacy section. Coolidge has a legacy section without the name here, and it's not good. Cleveland has an "honors and memorials" section that is also mediocre. I'd just as soon do without. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking the same thing, but I was afraid that saying so would trivialize the subject (he is a former president after all, his life should have had some kind of notable implications!). But since you, his biographers, and the public in general feel the same way, then there's no reason to devote a section to, say, Arthur's portrayal in the Futurama episode "The Day the Earth Stood Stupid", wherein he utters the immortal line "Chester A. Arthur fall down!"
  • Support this comprehensive, well-written article. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has a spotcheck of the sources been done? Ucucha (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecked two online sources (Abbot and Marszalek) and found their data to be accurately reflected in the article text, with no evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecked Bastert (regarding Frelinghuysen) and the information is all found in the source without close paraphrasing. – Quadell (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:26, 24 September 2011 [9].

Heidi Game

edit
Nominator(s): The Writer 2.0 Talk 12:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC), Wehwalt (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... we feel it meets the criteria. The Heidi Game was a turning point for the world of professional football though it has seemingly become a mere distant memory for everyone else except Jets and Raiders fans. While football fans were less than thrilled to see a little girl on top of a mountain with a minute remaining in an exciting game, Heidi did pave the way for the revision of television procedures which, as a result, now allow sports fans to watch their games to the final seconds... and allow networks to avoid dropping the ball (and yet they still manage to). The Writer 2.0 Talk 12:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, ditto as conom. We've tried to devote as much attention to the TV happenings as possible, while still doing justice to a very exciting football game, and to both football teams, although the Jets certainly had more to say about it, and more colorfully! We did take care to consult books on the Raiders, and Oakland newspaper coverage, which is included in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transcluded at approximately this timestamp: Ucucha (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Is Pro! paginated?
The pages I got from the Hall of Fame do not have page numbers. It is possible the local inserts were not given page numbers. I don't have a complete copy of Pro!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are also from the Heidi Game file at the Hall of Fame. They had newspaper clippings, cut out and pasted to pages. They do not in all cases include the page numbers. Some of then didn't have dates, those I could not use. So we don't have page numbers. On the comments I did not reply to, either I or TW2.0 will work through. Thank you for a very thorough review as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have given this two once-overs and have found a very well written, well sourced article, typical of the work of Wehwalt and The Writer 2.0. I see no reason why it shouldn't be pushed to Featured Article status. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks: An excellent article and very entertaining in places. I'm not a footballer at all and while I have a rudimentary grasp, I do not understand the rules. As such, I was slightly lost in places here but was able to follow most of it sufficiently well, particularly when following links. I also found it a little hard to keep track of which team was being referred to, or which player was which, but despite my ignorance was able to work it out without too much trouble. It seems very comprehensive and explains the background very well. Fantastic work. Just a few points, some of which are minor enough to be ignored and none of them affect my support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "…called NBC to inquire about the schedule, or to complain or opine…": Is the first "or" necessary?
  • "to the responsible employees": Minor point, but this sounds like employees who are responsible in the sense of dedicated. Perhaps "employees responsible"? But feel free to ignore this if you want.
  • Could the winning record ("7–5–2") be explained on its first mention for people (like me!) unfamiliar with the convention. (It is made more confusing by the 13-1 record mentioned shortly after)
  • "NBC hoped that viewers who tuned their television channel selectors to the game would not walk over to the television and change the channel or turn off the power switch…" Seems unnecessarily wordy; why not just "change the channel or switch off the television"?
I am emphasizing to the reader that there was no remote control in those days. Actual physical action was required. The problems of the Heidi game are dependent on the shortcomings of Sixties technology, and we take every opportunity to remind the reader, so to speak, that Connal could not have texted Cline.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nice idea, actually. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that saw running back Charlie Smith score his first touchdown of the game on a 3-yard pass from Lamonica…": I'm never sure about using "saw" like this in sports articles (and I'm guilty myself). And, unless it is standard football terminology, score a touchdown on a pass does not sound quite right to me.
  • "with Lamonica finding", "The fourth quarter began with Raiders' running back Smith fumbling" and "With the Raiders trailing": noun-verbing.
I agree with the first one. "To fumble" is a legitimate verb that has usages outside football. And "to trail" is a common football usage, in fact, sports in general, for "losing to".
  • "Ridlehuber could not remember whether AFL rules permitted advancing a fumbled kickoff return, so tried to make it appear he was entering the end zone with the same motion he gathered in the ball." Was this controversial at all, as it appears he may have been bending the rules? It may also be worth saying if it actually was within the rules or not.
The rules did permit it. Ridlehuber was probably thinking of the muffed punt rule, which did not come into play because it wasn;'t a punt. It wasn't controversial because no one else thought of it because it wasn't a punt!
  • "who was stymied": Unencyclopedic word? Not sure.
  • "The eastern half of the nation…" Presumably, as implied earlier, everyone else saw the ending of the game? Possibly worth mentioning.
Yes, except within 90 miles of Oakland.
  • The television reaction section is brilliant! Especially the Clary quote.
Thank you on behalf of both of us. I just happened to pick up that Clary book in a used bookstore.
  • "The uniforms were not seen again…" Foul play? Or just an accident?
I can't find any follow up on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the Raiders trailing by four points, Lamonica, attempting to extend the Raiders' final drive, attempted a pass to Smith to the right, the ball sailed over Smith's head and fell to the ground.": A little too much going on here, it may be worth splitting the sentence. Also, attempting…attempted.
  • "Week 4" and "1 yard touchdown" and possibly a few others. Should the numbers be written as words here per MOSNUM or is it a football convention? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Week 4" is a common usage in the NFL. Tonight concludes Week 1 of this NFL season. I've very rarely seen yards expressed as words in touchdowns and so forth. Thank you for your review and the support. I'll work through these, or my conom will.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone else think 1960 is a little too far back for background? I hardly think 1960 and 1962 have any relevance to an individual game played in 1968. I would strike this entirely: "The Jets and Oakland Raiders were founding members of the American Football League; both teams began to play in 1960, the Jets under the name Titans of New York. Both teams had little success in their early years, playing so poorly that both the Titans and Raiders were allowed to draft players from other AFL teams following the 1962 season." If there were some linkage, like maybe which players were drafted in 1962 who played in this game, maybe it would seem less awkward to me. Wknight94 talk 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the rivalry did not start in earnest until at least 1963. That being said, the language serves the very useful purpose of introducing the reader to the AFL and the two involved teams, which has to be done in some manner. If we take this out, then some other introductory language is needed. This is principally to benefit those who come to this article with little knowledge of football; most if not all US football fans know who the Jets and the Raders are, and know of the Heidi game. Incidentally, the Jets still had three original Titans as late as 1969. Grantham, Maynard ... the third escapes me.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who comes to the article with no knowledge of football, I have to agree with Wehwalt. I think the background sets the article up very well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt, I can understand if the intent is to introduce the reader to a Jets/Raiders rivalry (which I honestly didn't know existed even in 1963), but there is no mention of such a rivalry until the next paragraph. I didn't know there was supposed to be a connection until you mentioned it here. Maybe just some first sentence about a developing rivalry from 1963? Or even rename the subsection from "Football" to "Football rivalry"? (Or, if consensus is that I'm nitpicking too much, then never mind.) Wknight94 talk 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about renaming the subsection "Jets–Raiders rivalry"?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Wknight94 talk 21:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (see update below): I peer-reviewed this article some while ago. Most of the issues which I raised at PR have been dealt with satisfactorily, but I still have a few problems with the prose: For example:-

  • "In 2005, TV Guide designated the Heidi game as the sixth (of one-hundred) most unexpected TV moments, interviewing Jennifer Edwards, title star of Heidi: "My gravestone is gonna say, 'She was a great moment in sports.'" This sentence goes awry after the words "unexpected TV moments", losing both its structure and its grammar. The latter part of the sentence needs to be rewritten.
  • It still doesn't read well. You now have two sentences: "In 2005, TV Guide designated the Heidi game as the sixth (of one-hundred) most unexpected TV moments, interviewing Jennifer Edwards, title star of Heidi. According to Edwards, "My gravestone is gonna say, 'She was a great moment in sports.'" The designation by the magazine of sixth most unexpected TV moment, and its interview with Edwards, are separate events, not linked as per your first sentence. I suggest: "In 2005, TV Guide designated the Heidi game as the sixth (of one-hundred) most unexpected TV moments. Interviewed by the magazine, Jennifer Edwards, title star of Heidi, commented: "My gravestone is gonna say, 'She was a great moment in sports.'" Or some such clear separation of the two events. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While in California, the Jets wrote to Mel Hein, AFL supervisor of officials, complaining that an official had cursed at Hudson, provoking a response which led to Hudson's ejection." Two things here: first, "the Jets wrote" sounds wrong; teams do not write letters. Secondly, two successive clauses beginning with an "...ing" verb is at least one two many
  • "They also showed the sportswriters from the New York papers who were assigned to cover the Jets excerpts from the game films." I had to really struggle to interpret this. It would be much clearer if it was rephrased thus: "They also showed excerpts from the game films to the sportswriters from the New York papers who were assigned to cover the Jets ."
  • "Two weeks later, the Jets defeated the Colts in the Super Bowl. In the Jets' upset victory (the Colts were favored by as many as 19½ points), "the American Football League came of age"." What does "favored by as many as 19½ points" mean? Whose comments is it that the AFL "came of age"?
This is a common phrase in American football. It means the betting line for the game was the Colts, minus as many as 19 1/2 points. In other words, bettors were being called upon to bet that either that the Colts would win by a greater margin, or that they would not (which is what happened, the Colts did not make the line, as they lost the game). It is properly expressed football lingo.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've explained it, I understand that this is a case of spread betting; whether this term is used in the US I don't know, but I suggest you employ the link, either directly ("the Colts were favored in the spread betting by as many as 19½ points") or indirectly ("the Colts were favored by as many as 19½ points"). Either form would in my view eliminate the need for any further explanation. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will pipe it. An American sports fan/gambler might understand that the spread on the game was x points, but he'd probably say "line" as the colloquial term. I know from visits to the UK that it is less common there, that the result is usually bet on.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My other remaining problem with the article is that in my view the last three paragraphs of the "Football events" section give way to much detail of events which have nothing to do with the Heidi game. For example: "With the Raiders trailing by four points, they attempted one final drive inside the two-minute warning. Lamonica attempted a pass to Smith to the right; the ball sailed over Smith's head and fell to the ground. The play was ruled a lateral, and Jets linebacker Ralph Baker fell on the ball to preserve New York's 27–23 victory." This level of detail for another game entirely does not seem justifiable; I would condense the gist of these three paragraphs into a short and succinct closing statement.

Thank you for the review. To a certain extent, the story of the Jets postseason victories is part of the Heidi Game story. Nevertheless I will shorten it as soon as I review the original sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the nitpicks and done some shortening. I do not think it a good idea to omit mention of the rematch and of Super Bowl III, as both Namath and Madden mention them, there has to be sufficient text so that they are explained to the reader. As the players and coaches involved view it as part of the same narrative, well, we don't write the sources. Even the Raider sources mention the Super Bowl, so it is not Jets partisanship. However, I've taken it down to the minimum.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The additional nitpicks are done. Thank you for your attention to an article on a sport you do not favour with many clicks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns as expressed above have been adequately covered. I don't find American football articles particularly easy, but they teach me things, so (within reason) I'm generally willing to give them a go. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a media review yet? Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I see. There are only two images. Both should be routine; one ran on the main page a few days ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm pretty sure the opening quotation in the Jets-Raiders rivalry section violates the MOS. It's appropriate for a magazine article, but not usually for an encyclopedia. Can that be reformatted so that the section doesn't begin with a quote, and so that a blockquote is not used for less than 3 lines? Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the linkage in this sentence "The two starting quarterbacks combined for 71 pass attempts, and the officials called 19 penalties, leading to many clock stoppages", but I think non-football-savvy readers may not. Can we specify a little more that the clock stops for incomplete passes so that the teams and officials can reset? Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. On the other, it's not a blockquote, it's an epigraph. I don't see much discussion of epigraphs, but it's a permissible template. Here is an article that was promoted (in 2006) with discussion of epigraphs at FAC. It was recently delisted, but the epigraphs don't seem to have played a role in that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I believe we can trust Wehwalt and the Hall of Fame employee that the publications, from which File:Heidi Game program.jpg and File:Namath 1965.jpgare derived, do not bear copyright notices (the 1965 Catalog of Copyright Entries also show no registrations for such the Raider-Jets program or Jet Stream). That said, the publications and the contents first published in it did not comply with US copyright formalities then and are now in the public domain. They are "free", although Joe Namath's image is ugly... the artifact blocks suggest this to be a blown-up low-resolution scan. Jappalang (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's what we have ... thanks for the review. As far as I know, there is nothing left undone (three supports, image check done, source review done)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made some extremely minor edits to fix whatever tiny problems I saw. A few comments though:

  • Can we find out a little more about the poll in 1997 that listed the Heidi Game as the most memorable game of all time? I don't dispute the result I would think that it definitely is...its just that only saying "a poll" is vague and kind of odd. I'm just curious as to who was polled, who conducted it etc. I don't have access to the source.
See here--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stuff about Weeb's wife and Johnny Sample's Dad while interesting, seems kind of trivial to me.
The Weeb stuff really serves to make the Jets aware of the television snafu. The Sample one, I felt symptomized what did happen, people woke up Monday morning believing the Jets had won and were disabused (or abused) by the morning paper or at the water cooler.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is pedantic but "doffed" is that some kind of fancified British word? Seems needlessly obscure. "A poll" I conducted revealed 0% of American readers have ever heard of the word (I asked my gf if she knew what it meant).
Touche. It was a narrow win over "removed", but I guess I will have to go with the runner up.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Fancified British word"? What a liberty!!. Next time I see a typical American expression, e.g. "anyways", I shall trash it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You just wait, the next time you use a cricket term in an article, I will hit it for six.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, congratulations it looks like the Jets (and Raiders) have another FA. AaronY (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - the article has only two images and both are no longer under copyright, and so free to use here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:26, 24 September 2011 [10].

Aldwych tube station

edit
Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aldwych is possibly the London Underground's most famous closed station. Opened in 1907 as a left-over from an altered plan and poorly integrated into the network, the station always suffered from poor patronage and was used during World War II as a secure place to protect the Elgin Marbles from the Blitz. It was closed in 1994 when the lifts wore out, but has had a second career as a filming location, standing-in for operational stations on the network. DavidCane (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comment: Good to see the railway histories at FAC again. I have not checked this out for prose, but I have some general points for consideration:-

  • In the lead, I think you mean "relic" rather than "relict", which is an archaic word for a widow.
  • Lead image caption. I don't think "Aldwych" is adequate. Suggest "Entrance to Aldwych (formerly Strand) station".
  • Construction section: I find the layout chart a little difficult to follow. First, does this chart have any relevance to the text it is placed within? Secondly, it's quite hard to spot the "track removed" line; it needs to more firmly defined. Thirdly, does the dotted line have any significance? Finally, the numbering of the platforms doesn't seem to serve any function.
    • I think that the diagram is best placed here as it relates to the construction works most closely. I have modified the diagram to make the colours more explicit and added a legend item to indicate that the southbound tunnel passes under the branch tunnels. I removed the platform labels as it read a bit strangely because platforms 1 and 2 were missing (they are used for the Central line) and they didn't add anything.--DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal for extension. Several weaknesses here. In particular, the central part of the section seems a bit thin. We are told that "Planning of the Fleet line continued and parliamentary approval was given in July 1969 for the first stage of the line from Baker Street to Charing Cross", but we are not told when this work began or when this stage (or "phase" - be consistent) was completed. Nor are we given any reason why the second phase was delayed or why, when the work resumed, it took a different route. Also, the section seems to end in mid-air. It needs some kind of closing statement, even if only something like "As of August 1911 no decision has been taken about the future of Aldwych station as an element of an expanded DLR".
    • I have added an explanation on the cause of delay for phase 2 and why it took a different route when it was constructed and inserted your proposed wording for the current status.--DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike the lapse into listiness in the last section. I suppose the list of films is just about defensible, but the paragraph beginning "Appearances in other media include" should definitely be changed to prose.
    • I pruned the list before nomination to keep it as short as possible. It currently contains some well known films where it was used for minor roles as well as others where the tube had a more significant relevance to the plot. I have turned the other items into prose as suggested.--DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but patronage continued to be low -sounds funny, why not "did not rise" or "did not increase"?

Otherwise, I found surprisingly little to nitpick. Looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went with the second suggestion.--DavidCane (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aloha. I love reading Wikipedia articles about railways, especially the Tube. I'm solely going over the prose, giving suggestions on how to make it look a little tighter:
    • Lead
      • "Weekday peak hours only service": as I understand it, there is no peak service on a Saturday or Sunday for obvious reasons. It's your call on what to do with it.
        • I would prefer to keep it as it is. There are two factors here: first, that it was only open on weekdays and second, that it was only open during the peak hours of those days. Removing the mention of weekdays introduces a need for the user to know that peak hours only occur on weekdays and, therefore, adds ambiguity.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Planning
      • "Royal Assent to the private bill was given...": the bill authorising the station isn't previously mentioned. Suggest "The station received parliamentary approval in the GNS&R Act 1899 and was enacted on 1 August of that year", perhaps with the phrase "after receiving Royal Assent" after it.
      • "Prior to the confirmation of the merger..." to the end of the paragraph: this has several issues with how tight the prose is. For example, the extension to Temple is already explained once, so you don't need to do it again in the following sentence.
      • "The branch would have passed and interchanged with the already approved Strand station": this seems like an either/or situation to me; an interchange would pass through the station by definition.
        • Not necessarily; an interchange can happen without the line passing the station as with the other end of the Aldwych branch at Holborn. For readers unfamiliar with the geography of London, it helps to be clear that the proposed branch was to continue beyond Aldwych.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The deliberations of a Royal Commission on traffic in London prevented parliamentary consideration of the proposal, which was withdrawn.": it may be prudent to change the order of clauses in this sentence, i.e.: "the proposal was withdrawn after the deliberations of a Royal Commission on traffit in London prevented its consideration in Parliament".
      • "The UERL began constructing the main route in July 1902. Progress was rapid, so that it was largely complete by the Autumn of 1906.": I'm not sure about the phrase "Progress was rapid". It looks a mite unnecessary (and, compared to Bakerloo's eight years to do a much longer core section, a little inaccurate) You could easily consolidate those two sentences into one without it.
        • I don't think that it is unreasonable to say that progress was rapid considering they constructed almost nine miles of line, most of it underground, in four years. The GNP&BR's line from Finsbury Park to Hammersmith was 8.8 miles when it opened; the longest of all of the tube lines at that time. The BS&WR line from Baker Street to Elephant & Castle was just 3.6 miles when it opened.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "As with other UERL stations, the platform walls were tiled with distinctive patterns, which for this station were in cream and dark green." → "All UERL stations were tiled with distinctive patterns; at Aldwych, the platform walls were cream and dark green."
      • "Due to the reduced lift provision, passages and stairs that had been constructed to provide a second route between the platforms and lifts were never brought into use and were left in an unfinished condition without tiling.": the fact they were not fully decorated implies that they were constructed. Try "Due to the reduced lift provision, a secondary route between the platforms and lifts was never brought into use and was left undecorated".
        • I've shortened it a little, but retained more of the original wording to make it clearer how unfinished the walls were - these were very unfinished areas with the tunnel lining rings still visible and no electrics.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Operation
      • "The original 1907 lifts required replacement at a cost of £3 million. This was not justifiable as only 450 passengers used the station each day and it was losing London Regional Transport £150,000 per year. Permission was granted by the Secretary of State for Transport on 1 September 1994 and the Aldwych branch closed on 30 September." → "The original 1907 lifts required replacement at a cost of £3 million, which was not justifiable as the station's low patronage cost London Regional Transport £150,000 per year. The Secretary of State for Transport gave permission to close the station on 1 September 1994, and the branch closed on 30 September." (active voice)
    • Proposals...
      • "Consideration was given to the extension in 1919 and 1948" → "The extension was considered in 1919 and 1948".
      • "...that these were never proceeded with.": The "with" is unnecessary; you can easily write "that these never proceeded" or "that these were never realised".
        • I don't think that there is any need to change this. The current wording seems more appropriate as the plans could not proceed on their own, someone had to act on them, and "realised" is a bit ambiguous.--DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The major concern is the "Planning" section; the rest looks fine to me. I'd be willing to give the article's prose a once over if you so wish. Sceptre (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the lead, it is not clear whether "its" and "it" are referring to the branch, the station, or the shuttle service, and there are some awkward shifts between singular and plural. Please review the prose. Ucucha (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:55, 20 September 2011 [11].

United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010

edit
Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 01:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few FAs about elections, let alone one about a primary election, but I believe this article meets the FA criteria and documents a pretty interesting campaign to boot. It is already a GA and has undergone a peer review. I anxiously await any comments or questions. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 01:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you sort out some confusion in the text? We have "Starting in April 2008, the media began to report growing speculation that Chris Matthews, news commentator and host of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, might challenge Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary." First, "in 2008" is rather vague - early, middle or end? Secondly, you need to specify the Democratic primary you are talking about. Thirdly, a little later we read that Specter was a Republican until April 28, 2009. So why was there talk in 2008 of him being challenged in a Democratic primary? Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what you mean by your first comment; the current text reads "April 2008", so I'm not sure how it could be further clarified. I agree with your second and third comments; I meant to indicate that he would run in the Democratic primary so he could later challenge the Republican Specter, not that he was running against Specter in the Democratic primary. I've changed it to read, "(Matthews) might run in the Democratic primary for the United States Senate Pennsylvania seat then occupied by Arlen Specter". Is this better? — Hunter Kahn 17:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what my first point meant, either, so forget it. Your redraft largely resolves the other two confusions. I think however tha the year of the primary should be indicated, and Specter should be identified as a Republican, Thus "...might run in the 2010 (?) Democratic primary for the United States Senate Pennsylvania seat then occupied by the Republican Arlen Specter". Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "Long-time Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party, in part he knew he was unlikely to win the Republican primary." - grammar
  • File:Flag_of_Pennsylvania.svg is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't sure what to do about this because that picture pops up automatically as part of the "Infobox Election" template. For now, I've simply removed the state "Pennsylvania" from that template, so no flag is showing up in the article at all. I've reached out to the original uploader to see about the author info, but until that's resolved, I'll just keep it out of the article altogether. — Hunter Kahn 18:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nice article, well-referenced, but there are some curious ommissions. Most importantly, the article does not seem to mention the negotiations that happened when Specter switched parties- he only switched once he had a guarantee from Harry Reid & Obama of keeping seniority and being backed in any primary. This was all over the place when he switched, and basically confirmed once Obama & the Democratic establishment strongly backed Specter - which makes sense, they had to preserve credibility for any future officeholders considering switching. Yet this is never mentioned in the article, letting a casual viewer wonder why the Democratic establishment so strongly backed Specter. (On the off-chance this deal was never *confirmed*, it was at the very least *speculated* on endlessly, and practically assumed as a fact by all commentators on teh election.)

Another issue: the lede finishes on this passage

"This drew allegations from Republicans that the administration violated federal statues forbidding government employees from interfering with a Senate election, although no formal investigation was ever held."

I'm not liking the implication on the last clause, which implies some kind of dark cover-up. Number 1, as the article notes, the Republicans gained control of Congress after the 2010 elections, and didn't bother investigating. Number 2, it implies that there "should" have been such an investigation, and the absence of one is notable. I'd rather move this up to the second paragraph, where the Democratic Party efforts to avoid a primary are already mentioned, and withhold judgment on if "investigations" were necessary. I took a shot at editing the lede, feel free to modify.

On the same issue, I think the "Alleged White House job offer" section is a bit slanted. It wasn't an "alleged" job offer; it definitely happened, although it sounds like it wasn't literally an Administration job inside the White House, which makes sense. To avoid confusion, I recommend "Clinton job offer to Sestak" which makes it clear who offered it. Otherwise... well... how to put this. Full disclosure: I'm on the liberal side of politics. I'm pretty sure there was commentary by people to the effect that this was a complete non-issue in the sense that this kind of petitioning and favor-offering happens *all the time* in primaries to avoid primary fights by both parties. Obviously, this kind of back-room dealing doesn't make for good publicity, so of course the White House is going to be fairly circumspect in talking about it... but... nothing in the section currently brings up this point. But we do have a big quote box from Darrel Issa where he just flat states that this is illegal, a rather remarkable position since no election law agency ever came close to picking up the case, and it'd have been a huge loser if they had. Issa himself dropped it after they decided it wasn't going anywhere. I'm pretty sure this isn't just me talking; I read similar thoughts in the likes of the Washington Post, I'm pretty sure... could these views be included in that section to counterbalance Issa's views? For someone not familiar with American politics, they might think that Issa is correct in this quote that this wasn't "politics as usual", which is just a false statement about American politics pretty much. SnowFire (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for the comment, SnowFire. I believe I can address them in short order, and will try to do so tomorrow (Friday). — Hunter Kahn 03:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, change of plans: due to a minor emergency that will keep me away from the computer for the weekend, I won't be able to address this until Sunday night or Monday at the very latest. I'm sure it won't take me long when I get back though. Sorry for the delay! — Hunter Kahn 12:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Works for me. Did some Googling myself, and while some journalists drew a straight line and flatly stated "Obama offered his support as part of the deal", there are other sources where the White House of course denies any quid pro quo. On the record. Uh huh. I like your passage which doesn't directly say it was part of a deal, but lets readers connect the dots as Obama announces he'll support Specter immediately after Specter switched parties, which is true. The Clinton job offer section is much improved with the addition you made, as well.
Four mega-nits, doing anything is optional: A). Image:Arlen Specter.jpg is a meh picture. The out-of-focus questioner is needed in the picture to explain the giant blurry microphone that would be left if she was cropped out. If there are any better pictures, it'd be good to switch one in and replace this. B) You use "maintains" twice in short succession for section titles. It's probably the best word in each individual context (better than "Specter stays in lead" for example) but still a little repetitive. If you can find an equivalent phrasing for one of them, that'd be neat, but keeping two "maintains" is fine as well. C) The "see also" FAC police will disagree since it was already linked in the article, but I think that there should be a "see also" section with just one link: United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2010#General election. Yes, it's linked in the first sentence, but it's easy to miss, and this is a logical continuation to this story - now that you're done with reading the primary article, go see how the general went, as currently the article does not discuss the results of the general election at all. A tiny See also section accomplishes this better than an awkward "General election" section with a "main" template and two sentences that note Toomey's eventual victory. D) I looked around the category system a little, and it seems that Category:United States presidential primaries exists, but there is no category for primaries in general? Weird. It'd be way cool if somebody made a "Primary elections in the United States" category (with Prez primaries as a subcategory) and stuck articles like this into it. But like I said, this and the other three nits are just optional ideas. SnowFire (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "bringing Specter's five-term Senatorial career to an end" - technically his career didn't end until the end of his term
    • "Just prior to the start of the primary campaign, after serving in the Senate as a Republican for 29 years, Specter had switched to the Democratic Party in anticipation of a difficult primary challenge by Pat Toomey, who would go on to defeat Sestak in the general election." - that's a bit lengthy. Furthermore, the [who] in the last portion is somewhat ambiguous whether it refers to Specter or Toomey. Given that's a rather crucial part, it should be clearer, IMO.
    • "Specter grew more critical of Sestak as the race progressed, attacking his House attendance record, accusing Sestak of failing to pay his staffers minimum wage and claiming Sestak was demoted while serving in the U.S. Navy for creating a poor command climate." - that's pretty poorly worded, IMO. You use [his] when you refer to Sestak, but then you use "Sestak" two more times for a total of three in the same sentence. I see several other sentences in the article where you use either Sestak or Specter more than once in a sentence unnecessarily.
    • "the media began to report growing speculation" - that's a rather broad statement, since the "media" is pretty generic. Who in the media? Political writers? Gossip columnists?
    • Speaking of Matthews, the timing is a bit off. You go from April to November, and then you mention an October fundraiser.
    • When you write things like "X said...", that implies that there should be some sort of quotation. If you're avoiding a quote by doing a paraphrase, you should use a different word, such as a person "opined", "believed", "remarked that", etc.
      • I will make this change if needed, but are you sure about this? In newspaper writing, you're specifically supposed to avoid those other types of word and stick strictly to "said" because other words usually attribute emotion/motives/etc. to the subject, whereas said is always neutral. I know Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, but I find that rule of thumb to generally be a good one. — Hunter Kahn 14:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, when you use "says", that implies a quote, at least in my opinion. At the very least, when you say "said", I think you should say "said that". That would remove any implication of an exact quote. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've gone through the article and changed a few of the "said"s by either adding new words or changing them to "said that" as per your concerns. I didn't do this with every instance of the word said that doesn't have a quote, as in some cases I felt the word alone was appropriate. Let me know if you feel this is enough. — Hunter Kahn 15:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did Specter make that quote that he was running as a republican? Since you give a date when he switched, I think it'd be rather interesting to say how late he was still going as a republican.
    • "The event was expected to raise about $2.5 million" - how much did it actually raise?

More later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a very comprehensive and in many ways enjoyable article, but unfortunately the prose does not, in my view, meet FA standards at present. I have made a few copyedits, but I am defeated by the constant repetition of "claimed" or "claiming", which occur at least 50 times in the article. We even have "claiming the action contradicted claims" on one occasion. Someone needs to go through and find some alternative phrasing. Another thing that bothers me slightly is that no mention is made of the fact that Specter was over 80 years old at the time of the primary. Might that not have been a factor in his defeat? Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In all the sources I reviewed, I don't believe Arlen Specter's age was ever discussed. Honestly, I can't recall anybody ever suggesting it was a factor in his defeat, nor were any concerns raised about whether he could continue to do the job; and of course, the man put up an extremely vigorous fight for re-election despite his age. With regard to the copyedits, is the claimed/claiming thing the main problem here? Because this article has gone through a peer review, and also neither of the other two reviewers raised major prose problems. Perhaps I could give a try (hopefully this weekend) at fixing the claimed/claiming thing and then you could take another look? — Hunter Kahn 00:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My wikibreak was somewhat involuntary, but I'm back now. I've looked again at the prose, and I think that the efforts made to improve it during the course of this review, including the responses to my own concerns, have been effective. The article reads well now, and I am happy to add my support. Sorry for the delay. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch. I lived through this election, and while I am not an expert on it, this article gets it right as far as I recall, and it gets the feel right too. I have a few quibbles that do not detract from my support.

  • Quibble - the MOS says that after a person in introduced using their full name, only the last name should be used in most cases. While I am fine with keeping titles to help identify the players (i.e. using Governor Rendell, and not just Rendell), I think this article goes too far by keeping the full name and the title. Thus I would say that instead of six uses of "Governor Ed Rendell", there should be two (once in the lead and once in the body, both on first use), with the rest switched to just "Governor Rendell" (the reference article title should not be changed, of course).
  • Not sure "Pennsylvania Governor" has to be used four times either.
  • I also think that "President Barack Obama" should just be "President Obama" in almost all cases. Here I wonder if even that is needed, since most readers will know Obama's office, once it is clear he has become President (he starts off as candidate Obama). This may be a MOS / style issue I am not aware of.
  • Overuse of Joe Biden vs just Biden, Pat Toomey vs just Toomey, etc.
  • Since Terry Madonna is at Franklin and Marshall, should the connection be made clearer here? A September poll by Franklin & Marshall College found Specter maintained a 37 percent to 11 percent lead over Sestak,...
  • Are both uses of "percent" needed here? ...but had recaptured a projected lead against Pat Toomey in the general election by a margin of 49 percent to 42 percent.
  • I know the article is on the primary, but I was surprised that there was no mention of Toomey's eventual victory in the general election after the lead. I knd of assumed that the general election result would be given towards the end of the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My condolences on your loss. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I believe I've now removed all instances of repeated first names, but if I've missed any please let me know, or feel free to drop them from the article yourself. I also believe I've addressed your other grammar items like repeated titles, the percent thing, etc. (Regarding the Madonna thing, does this address your question?) With regard to the general election results, I tried really hard to keep this article strictly focused on the primary, since the general election has it's own page. However, I see what you mean, so I've tried to find a middle ground by adding just one sentence about the general election to the end of the "Results" section. Let me know if you think that's sufficient. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 01:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:55, 20 September 2011 [12].

Frank Bladin

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another of my older RAAF bios that passed GAN and MilHist ACR but which I felt just needed a little more work before nominating for FAC. Not a Chief of the Air Staff this time, but a quiet achiever who didn't quite make it to the top job, deserving as he may have been... Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Just when I'm trying to get round all the Milhist biographies, you go and nominate another one, Ian! Bloody typical! ;) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't give the DOB in the body and it's not cited in the lead.
    • Ah, tks, HJ -- a hangover from an earlier WP convention that bios shouldn't restate the birth date in the main body...
  • junior public level—and for those of us not familiar with the Australian education system?
    • Well it's changed more than once since Bladin's time... I think junior level may have meant 3 years of secondary school, intermediate 4 years, and senior (or "leaving") 5 years, but then it could vary from state to state. I don't mind losing that bit if it seems too confusing.
  • Was it normal to spend three years at Duntroon? I only ask, because I believe one normally does two years at the British equivalent.
    • I believe he spent the regulation time there.
  • Anything available about how he met his wife?
    • Couldn't see anything in the sources.
  • I think I've mentioned the "during 1929–30" construction before—it's hideous! Is there anything I can do to convince you to get rid of it?
    • I only use this when it's successive years as it looks a bit silly IMO to say "between 1929 and 1930", and "during 1929 and 1930" could be interpreted as something occurring once in the first year and again in the second, as opposed to a continuous term. Anyway, happy to entertain suggestions... ;-)
      • Because any language or orthography involving just the years could be misinterpreted, you usually see months given (or seasons if you don't know the months, which would of course be a bad idea here, I think when you travel to the underside of the world the seasons get switched around ... quarters maybe?) - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bladin attended RAF Staff College, Andover—worth mentioning that he was serving at a British establishment (Andover isn't very well known, and one could easily miss the omission of the extra "A" in RAF/RAAF)and whether this was normal (I believe from some of your other articles it was).
    • I can spell out the posting to the UK.
  • How can he be an Air Officer Commanding if he's only a group captain?
    • Well he was promoted to air commodore shortly after so I guess they had that in mind when they did it...
  • A major engagement over Darwin on 2 May resulted in the loss of eight Spitfires and several others crash-landing through engine failure or lack of fuel, for the destruction of one Japanese bomber and five fighters.—I think you're trying to cram too much into one sentence. Perhaps remove through engine failure or lack of fuel to make it easier to read?
    • When I orginally wrote that bit there was no article on the engagement and I felt it should be spelt out; now there's an article I'm happy to trim as you suggest.
  • Should "2nd Tactical Air Force" be 'Second Tactical Air Force'? That's the title the article uses (and is more in keeping with WP:ORDINAL).

Support now that my nit-picks have been sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, tks HJ. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure of your shortened-citation style for ADB, as Dalkin is the author of the individual entry, not the whole
  • The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History or Oxford Military History of Australia?
  • Compare shortened-citation titling for Gillison vs Odgers vs Herington
  • Why sometimes include link from notes for Odgers and sometimes not?
  • FN 41: what is "W2"?
  • Date ranges, even in titles, should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an image review here. Ucucha (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ian's noms get promoted so quickly that I better jump on this one while it's still here.
  • Concerning WP:Checklist#second commas ... I'm open to anything anybody wants to show me in an Australian style guide, or any other evidence that professionally copyedited Australian manuscripts don't need second commas. This is certainly an evolving standard, and these commas get dropped in a heartbeat in all kinds of non-scholarly contexts, so I've always been concerned about the risk as coming across as fussy here. But as long as all the guides I regularly use recommend it (see WT:Checklist), and without anything contradicting that advice, I'm going to keep asking for them, I think. So:
  • "Royal Military College, Duntroon": Royal Military College, Duntroon,
  • I'd like to ask for a footnote (in Footnotes, or just an ordinary ref in Notes, doesn't matter to me) immediately after "He became Air Officer Commanding (AOC) North-Western Area" ... nothing fancy, it can just repeat the basic idea from the link. Generally, we don't insert anything (such as an acronym) in the middle of any kind of name or label ... that is, readers are going to take the (AOC) and also the link as cues that the name of the position stops after the first 3 words ... and it does, in a way, but in another way, it doesn't. They could figure this out by clicking of course ... but they rarely do. They're a little more likely to click on a footnote or read it at the end, and even if they don't click, the presence of the footnote, especially coming immediately after the expression, will clue them in that there's something unusual going on with the name. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Dan, not quite sure what exactly you feel should go in a footnote. If your concern is with the "(AOC)" between the position (Air Officer Commanding) and the command (North-Western Area) then there are other options such as "Air Officer Commanding North-Western Area (AOC NWA)", or "Air Officer Commanding (AOC), North-Western Area". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mentioned in despatches": Okay, after more research, I'm going to flip-flop here, and ask for "received a Mention in Despatches". "Mentioned in Despatches" is more common ... but as I've Mentioned (heh), outside the military, I'm finding zero evidence of "proper verbs" (except for proper nouns used as verbs, i.e. "Googled") ... I even tried a gsearch for "proper verb", and none of the first 100 hits gave evidence that anyone even knew of the concept (outside "Googled" etc.) The point here is this isn't just an unfamiliar word for most of our readers, it's an unfamiliar part of speech! I asked before that it be eithered lowercased or turned into a noun (Mention in Despatches) ... but now that advice just looks wrong, because the lowercasing is going to look wrong to anyone familiar with the lingo (including people who have seen it in newspapers), and the lowercasing also makes it look like it's not a decoration, which it was, or became. So, sorry I didn't get it right the first time, but I'd really prefer "received a Mention in Despatches", which AFAICT is at least accepted orthography. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC, we're generally linking "seconded" at the first occurrence.
  • "secondary airfields with which to disperse his forces": shouldn't that be "to which" or "from which"?
  • "and earned the distinction of being the first Australian ...": this is fine, but "being" is so out of fashion among wordistas ... you may want to consider "and earned distinction as the first Australian" or "was the first Australian". - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulted in the loss of eight Spitfires and several others crash-landing": a little nonparallel
  • "reported the Spitfires' "heavy losses" and caused resentment in NWA": I can't think of the solution right now, but this is also slightly nonparallel ... something will probably occur to you.
  • "but for his pedigree as a Duntroon graduate rather than having a background that was confined to the Air Force alone": slightly unclear
  • "he handed over to ...": I'm guessing it's fine in AusEng, so keep it if you like, but "handed over" is almost always transitive to my ear; "handed off" is sometimes intransitive.
  • "all-through": haven't seen this one.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:55, 20 September 2011 [13].

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

edit
Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) and • Astynax talk 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it has all qualities necessary and required. It's a fairly small article, about a child who did not live past the age 2, but who nonetheless had enouch impact in the history of a country. Lecen (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

  • Glad to see this back at FAC. There isn't much to do in the current article, that I can tell, judging from the last FAC. There was a request to remove the translation "Alphonse", which has been done (at least, I didn't get a hit on it). There was a comment at the end, "You don't find the report of the baptism and diagnosis of hereditary epilepsy useful then?", although earlier this was labeled as just a suggestion and not a request ... still, it probably wouldn't hurt to at least give those some consideration. The writing looks good at first glance. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Dank. Good to see you around. Not only Afonso, but his father Pedro II and his grandfather Pedro I had both epilepsy. According to Pedro I's biographies, they inherited from the Spanish Bourbons. However, Pedro II's biographer Roderick J. Barman implies that it could have come from the Austrian House of Habsburg (who was well known to marry to Bourbons too). Nonetheless, I added a small piece of text: "His death revealed that Afonso suffered from epilepsy just as his father before him". Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - beautifully written and engaging. Can the nominator confirm that "monarchial" is an accepted WP:ENGVAR variant of "monarchical". Same for "skeptical" (I write "sceptical"). Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think a native English speaker would say "on the monarchial institution"; it would be commoner to say "on the institution of monarchy" or "on the future of the monarchy". The peer review tool doesn't pick up any spelling conflicts. DrKiernan (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Lecen and I have attempted to be consistent in using USEng in the articles related to the Empire of Brazil. "Monarchial institution" is correctly spelled for USEng, and I can attest to the phrase being used in lectures (it is easier to pronounce), popular histories and textbooks. "Monarchical" is also a correct variant in USEng. • Astynax talk 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Garner's says that monarchial is "invariably inferior" to monarchical; also, I agree with DrKiernan on the point. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it is correctly spelled, is used by native English speakers, and by English-speaking authors (and evidently widely allowed by the guidelines under which their editors operate). • Astynax talk 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The wording of the endnote has been changed, and I see that Lecen has hyphenated the ISBN's to be consistent. Out of curiosity, is there a MOS preference for hypenation of ISBN numbers? The use and placement of hyphens in ISBNs seems to vary from book to book. I'm just wondering. • Astynax talk 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does very. The only requirement I'm aware of is that you be consistent in whether any hyphens are included, regardless of their placement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphens contain information. The first set of numbers is usually a single digit and denotes the language of publication, the second set denotes the publisher, the third the book, and the fourth and final number (always a single digit) is a control. DrKiernan (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I am aware of how ISBNs are formatted, but when searching on the MOS, could not find any indication of whether or not hyphens were to be employed (or even if consistency was demanded), and had assumed that we would use the format as given in the publication itself. The only thing I could find regarding hypenation was an ongoing debate at WT:ISBN. • Astynax talk 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm afraid I don't quite see the same "beautifully written" prose that Graham does, and I find the constant switching between emperor and monarch to be rather jarring. A few other examples of the problems I see:

  1. "With fatherhood, the self-esteem of the insecure and shy 19-year old Emperor Pedro II improved, allowing him to become more mature and expansive." What does "mature and expansive" mean exactly, and it what way did the birth allow him to become whatever it means?
  2. "Afonso's early death, however, prompted questions about the monarchy's future." What's that "however" doing there?
  3. "... royal childbirths were attended by both the emperor and court." Why "both"?
  4. "Soon after Afonso's birth, the prince was carried in the arms of his father, who proudly presented the newborn to the throng which had gathered in the palace." Very awkward. And why is "prince" not capitalised here when it was in the lead?
  5. "... was heir to the throne and entitled 'Prince Imperial.'". I don't think "entitled" can be the right word here.
  6. "However, it was the Emperor who displayed the most interest ...". The most interest in what?
  7. "... as is discernible in a letter dated 21 December 1846". Discernable by whom?
  8. "He was thrust into a thankless and burdensome role as the national symbol for a country ...". Shouldn't that be "of a country"?
  9. "Emperor at the age of 5 and declared of age and fit to begin ruling at 14, Pedro II had been an awkward and shy adolescent who had become suspicious of everyone around him." Too many words. How about "... an awkward and shy adolescent suspicious of everyone around him"?
  10. "Pedro II found in the birth of Afonso, for the first time since his early childhood, the reassurance of a close and permanent bond to someone else." He didn't find it in the birth, he found it in Afonso.
  11. "It allowed him to firmly establish his authority as a monarch". What is the "it" referring to there?
  12. "The marriage thereafter became a happy one, aided by her faithful dedication, his development of a more stable and mature character ...". We seem to be over-egging the pudding here with yet another reference to his personality change.
  13. "... a country that had nearly disintegrated during his childhood with rebellions that had flared throughout its provinces". That "with" linking word really doesn't work.
  14. "Afonso was healthy, and as eldest son of Pedro II ...". Shouldn't that be "as the eldest son"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies: Thank you for your comments. I've taken the liberty of changing your list from unordered to numbered so that I can respond without interleaving (which I personally find confusing):
  1. What does "mature and expansive" mean exactly, and it what way did the birth allow him to become whatever it means? · When referring to a person, "mature" means to have reached the adult stage of development emotionally, physically and/or mentally. When referring to a person, "expansive" means to be open, extroverted or outgoing (antonyms: "reserved" or "shy"). I'm personally not sure the sources' explanation of the reasons fatherhood produced this change in Pedro II's personality are germane to this article (though of interest in Pedro II of Brazil).
    I know what the individual words mean, but I can no logic in improved self-esteem allowing anything. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Does "With fatherhood, the insecure and shy 19-year old Emperor Pedro II became more mature and gregarious." work for everyone? (And the trouble with "expansive" is that it can mean gregarious, or confident, or generous ... I chose one, maybe the wrong one.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Afonso's early death, however, prompted questions about the monarchy's future." What's that "however" doing there?" · This sentence was originally part of the preceding paragaraph, and I assume the "however" was used to contrast the negative consequences of Afonso's death with the positive effects produced by his birth and short life. I've removed it.
  3. "... royal childbirths were attended by both the emperor and court." Why "both"? · "Both" is used to give the sense that this was a formal occasion that demanded that the Emperor and the court attend the birth in conjunction (not one or the other, but jointly).
    "Both" is unequivocally redundant. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "... royal childbirths were formal occasions, attended by the court."? (I doubt the readers would assume the emperor didn't attend, both because an emperor is generally included in the concept of "court", and because he's the father.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Soon after Afonso's birth, the prince was carried in the arms of his father, who proudly presented the newborn to the throng which had gathered in the palace." Very awkward. And why is "prince" not capitalised here when it was in the lead? · Fixed.
  5. "... was heir to the throne and entitled 'Prince Imperial.'". I don't think "entitled" can be the right word here. · Lecen has changed the word to "styled", although "entitled" is also correct (meaning "3. Give (someone) a specified title expressing their rank, office, or character".
  6. "However, it was the Emperor who displayed the most interest ...". The most interest in what? · I've attempted to clarify.
  7. "... as is discernible in a letter dated 21 December 1846". Discernable by whom? · Clearly, Barman's reference is to a reader of the letter. Must we specify that in the sentence (as in: "according to historian Rodrick Barman, readers of a letter dated 21 December 1846 to Pedro II's sister Maria II of Portugal can discern...")?
    I think you need to rewrite that sentence, as it looks as if it's you who's doing the discerning and as such looks like original research. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "He was thrust into a thankless and burdensome role as the national symbol for a country ...". Shouldn't that be "of a country"? · Pedro II was a child at the time, with most Brazilians still supporting Pedro I (the author of the nation's independence) and many actively working for his return to the throne. Only eventually would Pedro II become a symbol "of" the nation. It may seem a minor difference, but "for" is more accurate.
  9. "Emperor at the age of 5 and declared of age and fit to begin ruling at 14, Pedro II had been an awkward and shy adolescent who had become suspicious of everyone around him." Too many words. How about "... an awkward and shy adolescent suspicious of everyone around him"? · Agreed and changed.
  10. "Pedro II found in the birth of Afonso, for the first time since his early childhood, the reassurance of a close and permanent bond to someone else." He didn't find it in the birth, he found it in Afonso. · Perhaps, but according to the references, the birth of a male heir itself (as well as fatherhood) was the trigger. To say he "found it in Afonso" goes beyond the point and implies some activity on Afonso's part. Pedro II eventually found much joy and comfort in the activities and presence of his children, but Afonso's birth was a watershed that changed his personality.
    Then it makes no sense. It isn't possible to have a "close and permanent bond" with an event. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, I've seen people develop close and personal bonds with Arbcom cases. But I agree with Malleus here ... that is, I think there's a general preference, at least at the A-class and FAC level, not to go into detail about exactly what was in someone's head and where it came from, even if the sources are very sure on the point. We can report that his behavior appeared to change ... but you've already done that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "It allowed him to firmly establish his authority as a monarch". What is the "it" referring to there? · Clarified.
  12. "The marriage thereafter became a happy one, aided by her faithful dedication, his development of a more stable and mature character ...". We seem to be over-egging the pudding here with yet another reference to his personality change. · His character change played an essential part in improving what had been a very cold marriage.
    I still think you're over-egging the pudding with the wordy "development of a more stable and mature character". Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "... a country that had nearly disintegrated during his childhood with rebellions that had flared throughout its provinces". That "with" linking word really doesn't work. · Changed.
  14. "Afonso was healthy, and as eldest son of Pedro II ...". Shouldn't that be "as the eldest son"? · The phrase "as eldest son" (without "the") has long been used when referring to a legal position as heir. It is correct as it stands, but I have no objection should you or another editor wish to change it. • Astynax talk 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments. That wasn't a complete list of prose issues, just some examples. Here are a few more:
  1. "The future of the monarchy as an institution no longer mattered to him, and he thenceforth would concentrate 'all my forces and all my devotion to assuring the progress and the prosperity of my people'."
  2. "The Empire would not survive him." Why "would not" as opposed to "did not"?
  3. "Soon after Afonso's birth, Pedro II carried the newborn Prince and proudly presented him to the throng gathered in the palace." There's clearly some redundancy there with "soon after Afso's birth" and "newborn". You could usefully drop the opening "Soon after Afonso' birth".
  4. "... nor did he attempt to encourage acceptance of a female ruler among the political elites". Why "elites" rather than "elite"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what historian Roderick J. Barman precisely said (pages 110 and 111 [14]):
"The passage of the years and the growing of a beard were not of themselves sufficient to instill maturity. The most powerful cause for the changes was probably the experience of fatherhood. D. Teresa Cristina gave birth to a son, christened D. Afonso, at the end of February 1845. In accord with the practice of the Portuguese monarchy, the delivery took presence of the emperor, members of the court, and public officials. "As soon as the empress had given birth the emperor, who had not quitted her side for an instant, took the young prince in his arms and, showing him to the people around him, said with emotion: 'Gentleman, it is a prince whom God...' a which point sobs choked his voice." Pedro II was experiencing what one study has termed "engrossment". Fathers present at the birth of their first born "develop a feeling of preoccupation, absorption and interest in the newborn. The father is gripped and held by this particular feeling and has a desire to look at, hold, and touch the infant." "In addition,... he feels increased sense of self-steem and worth when he is engrossed in his infant." Another study endorses this conclusion. "Being nurturant, affectionate, and loving may be good for fathers as well as for babies. The opportunities to express these emotions to their children may allow men to become more expressive and gentle in their relationships with other people too." In Pedro II's case, the birth of a son broke through his emotional detachment from other humans, gave him a sense of rootednessm abd built up a feeling of self-worth. Three more children -D. Isabel, D. Leopoldina, and D. Pedro- were to follow in 1846, 1847, and 1848, respectively. Their offspring brought Pedro II and D. Teresa Cristina together in a relationship affectionate on his side and adoring on hers. Fatherhood gave the emperor the emotional security and the self-confidence so conspicuously missing during his childhood and adolescence, and these qualities were essential for the fulfillment of his duties as monarch. The change in personality wrought by fatherhood was accelerated and reinforced by the success of an official visit to the sourthen provinces of Brazil undertaken eight months after D. Afonso's birth"
Another historian, Jeffrey D. Needell (who was not used in this article), reached the same conclusion as Barman [15]:
"He [Pedro II] had emerged from the imperial villa an unusually mature prince who had successfully manipulated the Empire's elder statesmen, putting them against one another, shirking dependence upon on party over another, defying the personal authority of such formidable chieftains as Antônio Carlos and Honório. This initial instinct for independence and entitlement matured, year after year, into a sense and a practice of confident political mastery and a growing sense of a personal, "civilizing" mission. All of these were doubtless strengthened by traditional measures of adulthood; his marriage (in 1843) and fatherhood (1845-1848), as well as by the 1845-1846 trip he took to the provinces of the south, where he was free of the constant oversight of his customary entourage to act as he wished and to mingle without intermediaries."
Do you have any suggestion to what should be written in the article about this topic? --Lecen (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I may butt in ... what question was that responding to, #10? - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that anything needs to be added rather than clarified, as this is an article about Afonso, not Pedro II. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies:
  1. "The future of the monarchy as an institution no longer mattered to him, and he thenceforth would concentrate 'all my forces and all my devotion to assuring the progress and the prosperity of my people'." · I presume that you noticed that the use of "my" is within the quoted material, so I am unclear as to what problem you see with the sentence.
    My problem is that the sentence as currently constructed is ungrammatical, quotation marks or no. You need to recast it to avoid the jarring switch from third person to first person. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The Empire would not survive him." Why "would not" as opposed to "did not"? · The fall of the Empire lay in the future, far beyond the scope of this article, even though Afonso's death indirectly contributed to that event.
    There is no excuse for the subjunctive here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Soon after Afonso's birth, Pedro II carried the newborn Prince and proudly presented him to the throng gathered in the palace." There's clearly some redundancy there with "soon after Afso's birth" and "newborn". You could usefully drop the opening "Soon after Afonso' birth". · Changed.
  4. "... nor did he attempt to encourage acceptance of a female ruler among the political elites". Why "elites" rather than "elite"? · The plural was used because in Brazil at the time there were multiple centers of power (i.e., the political establishment, the provincial planter "aristocracy", the military, and other groups). • Astynax talk 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but together they formed the political elite. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Made a few changes. Is it better now? --Lecen (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better I think. I realise that it must seem I'm being tough on this article, but it's a rather short narrative of a boy who died aged two, so I think it needs to be top notch. I was just reading through your changes and I came across this: "the nation was entering into an unprecedented era of prosperity"; as opposed to "entering out of"? I've fixed that now, but I'll read through the whole thing again over the weekend hopefully. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at least for now. I'm very unconvinced by the quality of the prose and the dodging and weaving to try and persuade me that what is obviously ungrammatical is actually grammatical. I think the prose could fairly easily be fixed, but I don't think it is being fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Okay, one more on the todo list, I'll get to it this weekend, unless someone beats me to it (please!) - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article has been improved quite substantially during this review, and I think it now meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am still unhappy with the prose tone and especially with the lead section. Not so much ungrammatical but somewhat clunky in places. --John (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John, could you tell us exactly what is wrong? --Lecen (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the lead section isn't about the subject and needs to be rewritten. Here's another (random) example: "As was the custom of Portuguese sovereigns (from whom the Brazilian monarchy directly descended), royal births were attended by both the Emperor and court." A featured article shouldn't contain any sentences like this. --John (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are those the two only reasons to your oppose or are there others? If you let me know what are all the issues you've seen in the article I will address them so that you may feel confortable enough to support the nomination. Lastly, I'd like to thank you for having reviewed the article. --Lecen (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead paragraph is one problem, and the overall prose quality is another. The quote I posted was an example of the second problem. --John (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I had a a hack at it, but I still think it needs more work. I may comment further. --John (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like your changes at all. "took from the Portuguese sovereigns they descended from" is ungrammatical. You've also introduced material which does not appear to be supported by the sources in "restored a sense of purpose" (as I understand, it wasn't restored it was new), and removed material that aids the clarity of the story. DrKiernan (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being honest. I strongly oppose the promotion of this article in its current state. --John (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made several changes to the article and still "strongly oppose" it? --Lecen (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick ... DrKiernan is a solid copyeditor, and he's never given Lecen any slack, I don't see why his criticisms should shift your oppose to "strong". Also, I rather agree with his points. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not it. I moved to strong oppose because of this because I think if we are going to tell this story we need to tell it in context. This two-year-old is only notable because of his royal connections; it doesn't therefore make sense not to tell how the story ended. I still have concerns about the writing. DrK is quite right that the edits I made were not perfect, and I do not ever take offense at having my edits criticized. --John (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the correction. I'm sorry, but I agree that your edits weren't your usual good work, and I've noted that below. I don't have a strong opinion either way on the thing that's got you upset; it doesn't hurt the article to include it, but on the other hand, if the reader wants to know about Pedro II, it's a click away. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, you added an entire unsourced sentence into a FA nominee. That's why I removed it. However, neither the end of the empire nor Pedro II's exile has any importance here. No biographer has said that Afonso's death caused the downfall fo the monarchy. What they did say was that it was one of the primary reasons to why Pedro II stopped having hopes about the monarchy's future. Lastly, you have also removed several sentences that had (in my opinion) a negative effect in the overall text. Am I supposed to stay quiet, then? You must remember that the FAC is not supposed to be a war between nominators and reviewers. The entire idea is that reviewers should aid nominators, be friendly to them. So far, I did not oppose a single change (except for the last one) you made. --Lecen (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I undid most of my edits in response to Dank's comment below. The writing is clunky and the lead is too long and unfocused. There are also MoS compliance and spelling issues. "To harbinger" (while correct per my dictionary) is an example of the clunky English. We really need a complete rewrite by someone who can write English idiomatically. --John (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John, the entire article has been rewritten from top to bottom by both Dank and Malleus Fatuorum. Very little has been left of what I and Astynax wrote. If you're telling that the text is "clunky" that means that neither Dank and Malleus Fatuorum have done a good job. And if that's the case, I have no idea what I can do about it then. Even when I merely express my opinion here I'm met with great hostility. I tried hard to cooperate but that seems not have been enough. --Lecen (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling still with reconciling the sentence "As was the custom with Portuguese sovereigns (from whom the Brazilian monarchy directly descended), royal births were formal occasions, attended by the court." with 1a, "...well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".
Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(layout)#Images images should generally be left on the default thumbnail size. Other than those two points I think it is ok now. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good one. "Generally", not always. Is that really an issue? The sentence you complained about it has been yet again changed by Malleus. --Lecen (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the image sizes need to be hard-coded in contravention of MoS? --John (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of them are larger, and only because they are wider than normal. If smaller, they would look odd. And there is no contravention of the MOS or else, a bunch of Featured Articles would have to be changed. See for example in Portal:Featured content. Which article is the main featured article? Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Take a look at the size of its pictures. --Lecen (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lecen, I'm definitely not an image guy, but just reading MOS:IMAGE and remembering what I've heard, I think John is right here, and I've restored his edits to the images (that is, the image size isn't fixed, below the lead). In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, some of the images are old and grainy, and you might not even be able to recognize them at a lower resolution. I have no trouble figuring out what's in the images in this article ... and if someone has trouble seeing them, they can always click. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the image size issue wasn't a show stopper but there needs to be a good reason in general to diverge from MoS guidance. I now support this promotion. --John (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • John, my thinking about the second paragraph is: if this is an article about the life of a kid who died at age 2, then there's not a lot we can say ("And at 9 months, he started crawling ..."). I think we can trust the readers to understand that the article is actually about the relevance of the life and early death of this prince, in which case the second paragraph seems relevant to me.
  • Does anyone object if I lowercase "Prince" except where it's a title? There's no danger of misunderstanding "the young prince", and lowercasing honorifics, styles, offices and ranks (unless they're right in front of the name, or it's clearly the formal name of the office) is very much in style these days. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ruling circles": that's not common language, but I'm not sure if I chose well ... I went with "political class". - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: in most of the articles I see about royalty, for instance George II of Great Britain, the "II" disappears early in the article; here, "Pedro II" seems to go on for a while. If this is some kind of convention with Brazilian nobility, I have no problem with it, it's not that jarring, it just seems a little odd. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All books (including biographies) call him Pedro II from the beginning to the end. I simply followed their standard. Is that an issue? P.S.: Your edits are fine, I don't see any reason at all to complain. --Lecen (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great. On Pedro II ... I don't know. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barman wrote "emperor" with lower case. See here. --Lecen (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted two sentences from the last paragraph of Legacy, not because they were bad, but because you don't absolutely need them I think, and if you do want something there, I think it should be "meatier" ... it should answer questions about what happened, rather than simply suggesting that something was very wrong. But readers can always go to the article on Pedro II or other articles for that.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. My support is just slightly weak, because the article is (necessarily) short, but I don't want to be discouraging people from doing a good job with short articles on Brazilian royalty, and judging from the comments so far, this is a full and authoritative article on a very short life. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the very first sentence of the lead: "Dom Afonso (23 February 1845 – 11 June 1847) was the heir apparent to the throne of the Empire of Brazil, bearing the title of Prince Imperial." Does that "bearing the title of" seem idiomatic to you? Added to which its placement suggests that the throne of the Empire of Brazil bore the title, not Afonso. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you tell me which sentences do you believe should be improved? --Lecen (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we could delete "bearing the title of Prince Imperial" without any harm ... it's a short article, the readers will see that soon enough. Also, I got a comment on my talk page that "Pedro II" throughout the article (as opposed to Pedro) doesn't sound right. It doesn't sound right to me either, but I've got this vague memory that I tried to remove the number after South American royalty once and was told it wasn't done. I can't find anything on this in my style guides ... anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) The first sentence would be a start, and I've made my suggested improvement to the article. But tell me, after all of this navel gazing, why is "Dona" in italics when "Dom" isn't? Are we all looking at the same ball? Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between Dom and Dona is that the former has been used in English (see John Chapman (priest)) while Dona so far hasn't. If you remove the italics readers will believe that that's actually the name of the person. I saw casual readers wondering in Empire of Brazil about "Princess Donna". I took me a few moments to realize that this reader was talking about Dona (Lady) Isabel, Pedro II's daughter. In other words, I believe Dona should be kept in italics. --Lecen (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thus you encapsulate very nicely why this article is unlikely to meet the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I was trying to do is to share my thoughts on the subject, nothing more. --Lecen (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard and read "Dona" quite a bit in English. I have no objection to putting both Dom and Dona in italics, or neither of them. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither should be in italics, but if one is then so should the other. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lecen I understand your concern about not italicizing Dona ... fortunately, the word occurs only once in this article, so you could link it, which would make it hard for people to read it as "Donna". On "Pedro II", since your experience is that the "II" is preserved in biographies and no one knows different (so far), it's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, sorry, I just noticed that the name immediately after "Dona" is linked, so we're better off like it is now, not linked and not italicized ... people won't think "Dona" is part of her name when it's the only part not linked, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status report: currently we've got 2 supports and 2 opposes just on prose ... not a position we should be putting the delegates in, and quite possibly my fault for not paying attention. I'll try to sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay John, I'm going through your edits now ... except I didnt look at the edits to images.
  • I did't follow the hatnote for d/m/y formats; I couldn't find any m/d/y formats. <tweaked>
  • You weren't happy with the capitalization in "had married only for reasons of State"; I changed it to "had not married for love".
  • I restored several of your changes to the lead.
  • I kept one part you threw out: "He decided to rule according to his conscience, regardless of the effect his policies might have on the monarchy, and became skeptical that the empire could endure beyond his lifetime. His daughter Isabel received no training for her role as potential empress, and no attempts were made to cultivate her acceptance within the country's political class." [see below] The ways in which Afonso's death weakened the empire seem worthy of the lead to me; is there some kind of compromise we can reach?
  • I made a slight tweak to the royals births sentence; I hope that's enough to address the problem you saw.
  • I restored your edits completely in the rest of the article (except for the image edits, which I don't know how to evaluate ... anyone?) Thanks for those. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just tightened the second paragraph; I hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lecen, John is right that we need something more in the last sentence, because the lead ends with "Pedro II's disinterest in protecting the imperial system ultimately led to its downfall" ... so we have to restore at least something about the downfall, what would you prefer? - Dank (push to talk) 04:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could add the wikilink to Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil, which is an article entirely devoted to the subject. A reader who would wish to know how the monarchy fell could simply go straight to it. If we add more sentences about what happened when the monarchy fell or where Pedro II was sent after he was exiled the article will stop being about Afonso and it will be about something else. --Lecen (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean ... per WP:LEAD, anything in the lead has to be supported in this article, and that sentence isn't ... so either we need to remove the sentence from the lead (but everyone seems to be happy with it), or support what it says with some sentence in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 11:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition Lecen ... I like the link and the language, but could we add just a little more, including some of John's language? Maybe: "and he was deposed in a coup in 1889, marking the end of the Empire of Brazil." (The same citation could probably be used, but it might need an extra page number.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty much redundant to me, but feel free to add it. I won't oppose it. I will add the extra page to the source later. --Lecen (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011 [16].

Murasaki Shikibu

edit
Nominator(s): Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over 2000 years ago in Heian era Japan a lady-in-waiting wrote a work of fiction that's survived as a world classic. This project would have been impossible without help, so thanks to Bamse for answering my questions about all things Japanese, to Modernist for formatting, and to Ceoil and Yomangani for prose polishing. Enjoy! Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tsunoda or Tsunonda?
  • Adolphson or Adolsphson? Check for inconsistencies/typos
  • Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors/editors
  • FN 75: which Shirane 2008?
  • No citations to Shirane 2008a (except possibly FN 75), Bryan 1930, Kokusai Bunka Shinkōkai 1970
  • Explanatory notes should meet same standards of prose as article text
  • When only month and year are available for dates, be consistent in whether they are separated by a comma
  • I'm a little confused by the formatting used for journals - for example, what does the 2 represent in the Inge citation?
  • Check source listing for Ueno. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've fixed everything. Regarding the confusing citation style for journals, the numbers in parentheses were volume numbers, which were followed by issue numbers. According to my most recent MLA edition, issue numbers are not required for bibliographic sourcing, so I've removed them. I do want to note that one journal article is in the references section (Knapp) because I downloaded the html version and don't have page numbers for it, so I treated it as an unpaginated online source. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article is in need of copy editing. I've made a few changes but it requires somebody with greater skills. Also, I wonder whether the first paragraph of the lead should be simplified by the removal of some of the details relating to her name. Aa77zz (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks As77zz. I agree re the first para in the lead - have simplified. The information is in the body and not necessary to have such detail in the lead. Thanks for the prose tweaks. Will go through myself from top to bottom to copyedit. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only one so far, but I guess there may be more.

  • I'll work on it - when Genji was written kana was only being introduced and quite new, so Japanese was still mostly an unwritten language, except for poetry, diaries and such. The sources in the translation section call it classical Japanese, but without kana there wouldn't have been a written language. It makes sense it would have been translated from classical Japanese because the language changed, and by the early 20th century classical Japanese was no longer in use. Think of it as Beowulf being written in English with a new script, and then translated to modern English from some indermediate form of middle English. Does that help? At any rate, I've removed the classical Japanese and will go into more detail on the Genji page, when I get there. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the Japanese scholars who continued to make scrolls as the language changed between the 11th and 19th centuries. But I don't actually have a source that tells me that, and I thought I'd try to dig up that information for the Genji page because it's a valid point. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much of an expert when it comes to language. Bendono would be the one to ask, but he's not too active on wikipedia nowadays. From what I understand, since the original manuscript has not survived, we don't know for sure what it was written in. The language was most likely Early Middle Japanese (the language of the time) and the script either all kana or kana mixed with Chinese characters. The oldest extant manuscript from the 12th century is in kana only. Does this help? bamse (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Just wanted to add that IMHO for the purpose of this article it is sufficient to write that the Genji was written in Japanese (as opposed to Chinese). More details should go into the Genji article. bamse (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bamse. I've sprinkled some clarification in a couple of spots. Malleus let me know if it helps, or whether it needs more clarification. Good point, btw. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bamse that its out of the scope of the article to distinguish, and imo the page should try and vear away from this. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Ruhrfisch. Let me start by saying that the images in the article are all free, as all but one are old enough to be free (and thus have free photographs in the US). The one modern image is a banknote, which is also free, That said, the image file descriptions could be cleaned up in places, as follows (some of these are pretty nitpicky):

I will try to review the article itself, please let me know if you need help (I have fixed a few things as I reviewed images). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch. Quick question - I only recently noticed that we don't have sources for some of the ones I took from Commons, File:Ch20 asago.jpg for instance. I've been trying to find them on the web, in museum sites, all over and can't. Are you saying they should be removed until we can find sources? I've already removed the two monochromes without sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It worth mentioning that most of these images are many hundreds of years old and lack contemporary documentation, in instances the artist's name is lost to time, and many others do not have any definitave title. But Ruhrfisch's comments are well made and...working. Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the licenses and added sources for everything but File:Murasaki Shikibu.jpg. Can't find a source for this, still searching. I'll pull it if necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to wait for a few minutes. I hadn't realized all the ones on Commons need templates - haven't done that yet. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Adding: I think I got them all. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a book that may be the source for the remaining tricky images attributed to Mary Griggs Burke may be from this Abrams book on an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art from the collection. I will try to get it and check. Do you have a copy of "The Tale of Genji: Legends and Paintings" to check it?Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's on Amazon and displays images, but I think they rotate because I haven't gotten the same result every time - [17], I have a pdf about his art - these actually were a series on a screen painting, part of a set, so I'm about 90% sure all of them are in that book. It's a book I'd like to see though, so I"ll put in an ILL order for it to check. He also painted this screen but the illustrations on it are different than the ones we have. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have one concern;

  • Non-English phases such as [mono no aware] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: jp (help) should be marked up with {{Lang}} using the relevant ISO code for the language they use, thus: {{Lang|jp|mono no aware}}.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added one and can go through and do it to all the Japanese words, but I don't see that it's rendering any differently and I'm losing the italics (which are supposed to be used per MoS), so afraid I'm still a bit confused about this. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can wikilink and achieve italics, thus: ''{{Lang|jp|[[mono no aware]]}}'', which will render as: [[[mono no aware]]] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: jp (help). That may look the same to you, but if you view the source code in your browser, you will see that it includes language codes which are meaningful to assistive software and other machines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been meaning to comment but I've been very busy & still haven't read it all carefully. It's a very appealing article, but with some rather mystifying passages, which is perhaps inevitable. Anyway, I'll start:
  • Michinaga needs an introduction & explanation of his importance; in this respect it's perhaps unfortunate he first appears as an author.
  • The early spate of copy-editing has not cleared up all issues - perhaps too many cooks at one point.
  • It's something of a pity the first images are all much later in date. Are there too many images at erratic sizes? Perhaps a mini-gallery in mid-article?
  • What's the content & significance of the Harvard album? Prima facie the remarkable Tokugawa Museum handscroll (first in the gallery) should be given more coverage than this.
  • "After a series of political maneuvers Michinaga secured power through his daughter Shōshi, whom he declared Empress to Emperor Ichijō.[27] Although Ichijō had an empress, Fujiwara Teishi (Sadako c. 976 – 1000), daughter of Michinaga's brother Fujiwara no Michitaka, in c. 1000 Michinaga made the unprecedented move of having Shōshi named Second Empress (chūgū or "Inner Palatine") with Teishi retaining the title of "Lustrous Heir-bearer" (kōgō)." That's one of the rather mystifying bits.
  • More when I can. Johnbod (talk)
  • Thanks Johnbod, these are very helpful - I think it will take me a few days to work through them. I've wondered whether I should add, as all the sources do, that not much is known about her life as a disclaimer to some of the mystifying passages? Truthkeeper (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

  • I've tried to de-mystify Michinaga and have added an explanation about his role at the beginning of the "Early life" and a bit in the court section. Let me know if it needs more.
  • Have been through copy-editing again, fixed and found errors, and more importantly fixed some structural issues.
  • I've swapped out the lead image for an earlier image and the image of Michinaga for an earlier image (though I'm not crazy about how it fits). I'd like to have the one of her with the violet kimono adjacent to the section explaining her name. I think the two images of her at Ishiyama Temple staring at the moon, although they're later, match well, but I could live without one of those if necessary.
  • I've tried to make the images more consistent in size and have rearranged. After thinking about it, I don't think a mini-gallery mid-text is necessary. I'm thinking enough artwork and sources exist to support a full article about the genji-e inspired by her work, and think that would be the place to showcase as much as possible in galleries.
  • I've added information about the Tokugawa emakimono (which I think would go in either a genji-e page or can even have its own page), - that was a bad oversight and needed to be added. Added images from the scroll as well.

I hope these satisfy your comments, which really were very good and helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I just don't know when I'll be able to give it a proper read through - over the weekend perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support, with the disclamer that I'm a friend of TK, and have been copy editing on and off for a while, although leaving a lot of hidden questions and comments as I went. I think the prose are now more or less there, though Johnbod highlights a few points of vagueness above, which I'm confident can be resolved. Once these are dealt with I would be happy to go to full support, on the basis of well, all the criteria, except that its hard to judge comprehensiveness for sure given the subject, but I'm inclinded to give the benifit of the doubt given the quality of the sourcing and from what I've been reading up on over the last few months, since the page began. I echo the notion that the page is very appealing indeed from a visual arts point of view, if not a little naughtier than most. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great improvements...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I finally finished the article (after reviewing the images, above) and find it well written and quite interesting. It meets all the FA criteria and has my full support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011 [18].

Flight Unlimited

edit
Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the fairly-quick return to FAC that I promised during my last successful nomination. While that article depicted Looking Glass Technologies in financial and managerial decline, this one turns back the clock to find the company successfully breaking into the publishing industry with an odd-duck flight simulator. Thanks in no small part to that man of infinite professions—the seemingly-tireless Seamus Blackley—the company produced a game that won over testers, pilots, critics and even consumers.

I spent quite a few months working on this article, largely because it ended up being a much bigger subject than I'd anticipated. User:Prime Blue, to whom I am eternally grateful, was kind enough to provide a tremendous peer review that addressed many, many issues with the article. Among other things, the semicolon overuse, inconsistent reference formatting and excessive quotes that caused problems in the last nomination were ironed out pre-FAC. I believe that the article meets the FA criteria, and I hope that you will agree. A final note: the Official Pilot's Guide reference that I used up to aD is not a primary source. It was written by an outside journalist—Shay Addams of Commodore Magazine and QuestBusters fame—who provided incredibly detailed coverage of the game's development in the first 13 pages. It was published by Infotainment World Books, a branch of the company that (I believe) published GamePro. As such, the excessive use of this source should not be viewed as an over-reliance on primary material. With that out of the way, let's begin the nomination. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnotes should appear in numerical order - eg. [3][5] instead of [5][3]
  • Ranges should consistently use endashes, not hyphens
  • Does the Grossman manual have an ISBN?
  • Be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates when archive dates are present
  • Be consistent in whether or not ISBNs are hyphenated
  • Need to specify whether PC Gamer is US or UK edition, and should include volume/issue if available
  • FN 22, 42: page(s)?
  • FN 35, 41, 42: issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to points in order. Point one: I believe that there's a bot capable of performing this task, but I neither know how to request its help nor even remember its name. It would do a faster and cleaner job than I could ever hope to do. Point two: fixed, I believe. Point three: as far as I can tell, no. Point four: made a few adjustments. Accessdates are now only provided for references that specify "deadurl=no". Point five: fixed. Point six: first part fixed, but I don't know what "volume" means in this context. The PC Gamer issue claims to be "Vol. 2 No. 3", but I've never understood what to do with that information. Point seven: ref 42 specifies the page number, but 22 was not given a page number by the online article search engine where I obtained it. Point eight: fixed 35, but 41 and 42 were again left incomplete by that search engine. Thanks for the review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out. Two are free and well sourced, two are non-free, but have detailed rationales and are clearly justified. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts, from J Milburn-

I haven't checked the references, but this is generally looking fantastic. One last thing- you format quotes different to how I would- you write "Smith said, "the sun is big"." I would go for "Smith said that "the sun is big"." That said, if others don't have a problem with it, I don't either. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! As for the quotes, I've used that method on every article I've worked on since 2006 (including FAs), so, unless standards have changed quite recently, I don't think there should be a problem. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Answers all the questions and is well written, but I cannot vouch for the sourcing. J Milburn (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was unable to load http://www.ttlg.com/articles/SSint2.asp, but I did find this archive from IA. Also, the sources seem to all look good and the facts I looked up checked out. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Images are supposed to stare at the text, so the image File:Immelman.gif that shows the object travelling mostly to the left, but is placed on the left side, shouldn't it be on the right side, so it is travelling towards the text (despite not being a picture of a person)?SCB '92 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011 [19].

HMS Hood (51)

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Hood symbolized the British Empire before World War II and her sinking by the German battleship Bismarck in 1941 was a huge shock. This article had an extensive MilHist A-class review and I believe that it meets the criteria for featured article status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded 15:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC). Let's conduct FAC reviews at WT:FAC, please; premature commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Brassey's Naval and Shipping Annual 1924 (p. 422)" - is this worth having as a bibliography entry?
    • Not since I don't have a copy to hand to add the required additional information.
  • Check for consistent italicization
  • HMS or H.M.S. Hood?
  • FN 37: which Preston?
    • Added.
  • Missing bibliographic info for Bastrop
  • FN 71: publisher, retrieval date?
    • Merged into another ref.
  • FN 75: why hyphens?
    • Fixed.
  • FN 77: supports that both brothers are mentioned on the gravestone, but not some of the rest of the content
    • This is a little trickier. This [20] mentions that the chapel includes a roll of honour in which most likely, Spinner is mentioned, although that's not explicitly spelled out. I can delete or not the bit about the chapel, although I think it's pretty much a given that he's listed since the Association maintains the roll of honour there.
  • Be consistent in how "et al" is notated
    • Fixed.
  • Be consistent in whether you disambiguate shortened citations using titles or dates
    • Fixed.
  • No citations to Bastock, Preston 2002 (unless FN 37 is to this Preston)
    • Fixed.
  • Conway or Conway Maritime Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The publisher's name changed over time. It's given as per the book.
    • Sneaking suspicion that Bastrop and Bastock are one and the same, as Bastock p. 38 places the Special Service Squadron at the scuttling of HMAS Australia. However, while it mentions the Danae class cruisers, Bastock does not mention the presence or absence of Hood. (Other sources I have access to relating to the sinking also fail to specify Hood's presence or absence at the scuttling, and generally fail to specify beyond "the Special Service Squadron"). -- saberwyn 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dab links, have fixed link 71, all other ELs are OK. GermanJoe (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hood was significantly larger than her predecessors of the Renown class. As completed she had an overall length of 860 feet 7 inches (262.3 m), a maximum beam of 104 feet 2 inches (31.8 m), and a draught of 32 feet (9.8 m) at deep load. This was 110 feet (33.5 m) longer and 14 feet (4.3 m) wider than the older ships. She displaced 42,670 long tons (43,350 t) at load and 46,680 long tons (47,430 t) at deep load, over 13,000 long tons (13,210 t) more than the older ships. The ship had a complete double bottom.

Where are the citations? Reformation32 (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the middle of the next sentence. That cite covers everything in the paragraph thus far.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"one is in private hands" --> should be "one is private property" Reformation32 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Private hands is a very common phrase for this sort of situation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat un-encyclopedic. Reformation32 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "privately held"; better? - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media Review - Captions not checked
    • I have serious concerns about File:Sinking of HMS Hood.jpg's status as PD. The situation is this; the image of the painting was taken from the U.S. Naval Historical Center, which asserts that as far as they know, every image there is PD. Okay, but the painting is done by, best I can tell, Propaganza Krieg (PK) Lieutenant Julius Ceasar Schmitz-Westerholt, a German military officer. I couldn't find any German equivalent to PD-USGov-Military, and this had to have been produced sometime after 24 May 1941, so I'm really not sure where the painting is in the Public Domain.
    • Everything else looked good. I'll to the caption check tomorrow. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is most definitely PD but the painting may not be. This should be licensed with PD-art once the copyright of the painting can be determined. Brad (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the image is noted as courtesy of the US Army's Chief of Military History, the painting may well have been captured by the Army and retained as war booty.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll note that I have an email from the NHHC somewhere which explicitly states that the NHHC considers all images on their web page to be PD. I'm going to assume for some images that this is applicable only in the US, but that's solvable by hosting the images on en.wiki instead of Commons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Brad: It dosen't work that way. Taking a photograph of a copyrighted piece of art does not eliminate the original copyright claim, it applies to the photograph as well.
@Sturmvogel: Would that change the copyright status? I honestly don't know. Also, how would we find out about such a thing.
@Ed: If you already have a line of communication open with the NHHC, it is very much worth it to send them an email asking for clarification. They might be able to help us figure this out.
As it stands, this image still makes me uncomfortable. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was a clarification email. I don't have any current communication lines open; the correspondence was back in 2009, and I suspect we would get the same answer. The person who answered my email gave three possibilities for photographs that aren't official U.S. Navy photographs: either they entered the public domain before the copyright laws were altered to their current form (NA in this case), if the "image appears to be an "orphan" where copyright is concerned" (applies here), or is probably an official photograph but it was not explicitly marked as such (NA in this case). Given this, I think we can assume it is war booty, as that would make it one of these "orphan"s.
Here's the complicated part. If this was painted and published in 1941, that would mean that the German copyright lapsed this year. However, the USRAA would have restored the US copyright on a normal image like this because it was still under copyright in 1996. So, assuming the 1941 publishing date is true (would need proof), Commons would accept it, but we would need to note that (a) it is war booty = avoids the USRAA = PD in the United States, and (b) it is PD in Germany and other countries due to the 70 years' lapse.
In short: this image is PD, but we will need to find a first publishing date of 1941 if it is to be hosted on Commons. Otherwise uploading to en.wiki will suffice. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That popping sound you just heard was my brain (:D). Oh, and the caption check is done, everything on that end is good. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed the Army Center for Military History to see if they can clarify its status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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) 15:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Status report: Nikki's two remaining concerns have been dealt with (no "H.M.S." now in the text, and Hood is consistently italicized in the end sections). The only image under discussion has been removed. I've pinged Ed; he hadn't looked at Sturm's replies yet. Ed has responded; best I can tell, everyone is happy. It's my understanding that Sturm has passed previous spot-checking (and if he hasn't, there's no hope for the rest of us. :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support passed the article at GA and can see no reason not to promote to FA. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ran Earwig ([[21]]) on the article and got no results. An unbiased party might wish to do the same and report back to settle the copyvio criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That also might be because the copyvio bots are down. See User:Corensearchbot, which I believe is down for the same reason. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Ed Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At this point in her service, Hood's usefulness had deteriorated because of advances in naval gunnery." Was it just gunnery? Better engines and armor distributions probably played a part too (especially the former).
    • It's been a long time since I looked at sources on the Lexingtons, but I'm pretty sure one of the three(?) redesigns were due to the Brits sharing plans for Hood with the US Navy. Might be worth including a sentence on this, but that's up to you. Otherwise I really like the "Battlecruiser or Fast Battleship" section.
    • "Most seriously, the deck protection was flawed—spread over three decks, it was designed to detonate an incoming shell on impact with the top deck, with much of the energy being absorbed as the exploding shell had to penetrate the armour of the next two decks. The development of effective time-delay shells at the end of World War I made this scheme much less effective, as the intact shell would penetrate layers of weak armour and explode deep inside the ship" Was anything ever done about this?
    • The article on Cervera says "On 21 April, Almirante Cervera, along with the Galerna, was involved in a three-hour long confrontation with the Battleship HMS Hood and the destroyer HMS Firedrake, when the insurgent warships fired upon three British merchantmen in a fruitless attempt to stop them. After blunt exchanges between the Hood and the Cervera, the freighters slipped into Bilbao supported by the fire of a coastal battery and the Basque armed trawler Biskaya.[15][16]", whereas this article only says "On 23 April 1937, the ship escorted three British merchantmen into Bilbao harbour despite the presence of the Nationalist cruiser Almirante Cervera that attempted to blockade the port". First, the dates conflict, but second, I think this would be worth including, as firing salvos at each other seems rather important. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • They didn't fire at each other. Cerveza fired across the bow of one merchantman, but backed off when Hood trained her entire broadside at her. The date is correct according to my source, although my other source on Firedrake says 19 April. Just to confuse things!


Nice work, well written. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki,....
I may be displaying complete ignorance here, but aren't propellers the same as screws, and if so shouldn't we standardise?
Done.
"Around 1918, the US naval staff in Great Britain became extremely impressed by the Hood which was described as a "fast battleship"," would that be which they described as a fast battleship, if not could you give an idea who described her so?
Named.
Unless I'm missing something this still seems odd to me. "became extremely impressed by Hood which was described as a "fast battleship", so they advocated that the US Navy develop a fast battleship of its own" in my view should either be "became extremely impressed by Hood which they described as a "fast battleship", and they advocated that the US Navy develop a fast battleship of its own" or "became extremely impressed by Hood which was described by ???? as a "fast battleship", so they advocated that the US Navy develop a fast battleship of its own". depending on whether the US observers or someone else disagreed with the Royal Navy description and thought she was a Fast Battleship rather than a Battlecruiser. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 13:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Captain Pridham was relieved by Captain Harold Walker on 20 May 1938 and was relieved of command when the ship returned to Portsmouth in January 1939" I think this needs something like "Captain Pridham was relieved by Captain Harold Walker on 20 May 1938 and he in turn was relieved of command when the ship returned to Portsmouth in January 1939"
Agreed.
Three survivors were picked up. Were any bodies recovered or are they all missing and presumed to be in the ship?
Curiously, no bodies were seen by the rescuing destroyer.
Thanks, I think that might be worth adding. ϢereSpielChequers 22:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The UK may have designated it as a war grave, but it isn't in UK waters. Does that designation have any meaning in international law?
I'm not a specialist in maritime law, but I believe that countries retain rights over their sunken warships, even if in international waters. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Protection of Military Remains Act: ""The law concerning protected places applies anywhere in the world, but in practice, outside the UK, the sanctions can only be enforced against UK citizens, UK flagged ships, or vessels landing in the UK, unless backed by local legislation." - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank. I guess that's a pedanticism too far for this article. but a International law re War graves in International waters would be an interesing article. ϢereSpielChequers 13:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:58, 11 September 2011 [22].

Sesame Street

edit
Nominator(s): Christine (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is with much trepidation and humility that I nominate this article for FAC. I've been working on this article for a few years now, and has been substantially improved. It was at once a FA, but was delisted in 2008, and that's when I took it on. It represents a great amount of work and research over three years. This article is essentially a series of summaries of forked articles, most of which I wrote and researched, and some of which are either FAs or GAs. It has been a labor of love. The reviewers should be warned about a few things before they take on this significant and influential subject. I remind you that this is a summary of the literature about Sesame Street; as author Michael Davis has said, there has been a "fork-lift" amount of research done on the show and its effects. The content in this article represents the most important aspects of this huge subject. As the main editor of this and other SS-themed articles, I've discovered that reviewers tend to get distracted by their memories of The Show. I would warn the FAC reviewers against that. Sesame Street is the kind of cultural phenomenon that we all, especially if we're over the age of 45, seem to have an ownership of, so many reviewers have said things like, "I remember this character or event; why isn't that in this article?" My response to that is, "It wasn't notable enough to make it." I hope that you enjoy getting to know this subject and that it gives you some of the joy I've experienced working on this article. Christine (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFA, has been on main page SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page ranges should consistently use endashes
    Fixed.
  • Be consistent in how you notate multi-author refs, and whether you include all authors in shortened citations
    Fixed, I believe.
  • Any reason why you have not done FNs 2 and 29 in the same style as the other refs to that book?
    FN 29 was an error, so I fixed it. The reason they're not done in the same style as the other refs is because they were only used once. My rule of thumb is that if a book and/or article is used more than once, it's placed in the "Reference" section and the citation reads something like, "Cooney in Fisch & Truglio, p. xi". If it's only used once, the full citation is placed in the "Citations" section. Christine (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing bibliographic info for Lesser & Schneider, Zill
    Related to the above. These were both from the "Growing" book with single references that I missed. This was a complicated formatting issue, so I appreciate that you caught them.
  • Citations to newspaper or magazine sources without weblinks should include page numbers
    One source didn't have the URL, but I went and found it. The others were formatted incorrectly; when I added them, I didn't know that it was okay to include "quoted in...". Fixed now. Christine (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 1: formatting
    My only excuse is that someone else added it. But it's correct now. Will address rest of list later, next time I find the time. Christine (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether or not you abbreviate state names
    Fixed.
  • Use a consistent date format
    I re-checked; you must be referring to FN 1, which is correct now.
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as this causes inconsistencies in reference formatting
    The only time that I used untemplated citations was with the sources cited in other sources; i.e, FN 95.
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers and locations for magazines and newspapers
    Now consistent.
  • What is "The CW"?
    The CW" is the television network that aired the 2009 Daytime Emmys. Do I need more information?
  • FN 37: punctuation. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean. Maybe it was fixed when I addressed the above issue re: citing the "G is for Growing" book.
    Thanks so much for the input. I try to be as accurate as I can re: sources, so I appreciate the extra eyes. Christine (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: I have removed File:Raposo joe.jpg (which unambiguously failed NFCC#10c and pretty clearly failed NFCC#8) but, other than that, it all looks OK, copyright/NFC-wise. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I just made this edit. Did you intend for "davis-195" to actually be page 195? Brad (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Another error in a complicated reference section. I pulled out Davis to be sure; the correct source is "davis-167". Thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cannot find any issues preventing promotion. However, I do notice there are a lot of edits going on that are unsourced; mostly by IP addresses. In a couple of cases I've caught changes that were overlooked. I'd recommend partial protection since the changes seem to be a daily occurrence. Brad (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP edits seem to occur seasonally; it's the beginning of the school year, when more kiddies have more access to computers. There's also more attention being drawn to the article with this FAC. I try to catch all the unsourced additions, but I'm just one person, so I miss them sometimes. Consequently, I agree that this article should have at least partial protection. Christine (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The article appears comprehensive to me, and very well written. The images are all correctly tagged and used appropriately. The sourcing is very good, and the organization is excellent. I have a few questions/suggestions: – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is footnote #4 a footnote and not a citation?
      Because instead of listing and describing each study, which would make the article longer and boring, the footnote directs the readers to a source that does that. Actually, the source summarizes the research, so the footnote summarizes the summary, which is what we're supposed to do, right?
      I probably would have used a citation to hold both refs, instead of a footnote, but I'm no expert in footnote formatting, so I could be wrong. If you think a footnote is better (and no expert chimes in to say it's inappropriate to do so), then I don't object. – Quadell (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should footnote #6 be incorporated into the text, changing it to "As of 2010" (or even "As of 2011")?
      No, and here's why. Ref 16 supports the statement, "As of 2009, Sesame Street has received 118 Emmy Awards, more than any other television series." Footnote 6 states that in 2010, The Show won eight additional Emmys, which is supported by Ref 127. There is no source that adds the 118 Emmys with the 8 won last year. The information needs to be separated, and I thought that the most effective way to do that is with a footnote. (Don't ask me what I'll do when they win more Emmys this year; hopefully, some source will have added them all up.) ;) Christine (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. It isn't OR to add 118 + 8, but it would be OR to assert that no other show caught up with Sesame Street last year. Makes sense. – Quadell (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's right. Perhaps a solution would be to add the Emmys together, and then to assert that The Show won the most Emmys, and put all the sources at the end of the sentence, like this, "It was has earned the most Emmys in television history; as of 2010, it won 126." Christine (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the quotes, Sherman is given context as "executive producer" and Gladwell is as "author". Should Cooney and Davis be given similar context?
      Cooney has already been identified as The Show's creator in the very first sentence in the lead, as well as the first sentence in the article's body. Davis is identified as a "writer" also early on, in the second paragraph in the "History" section. I could re-identify them in the quoteboxes, if you like, though.
      I'd prefer it. It'd give context for those who skim the article and mainly look at the quotes and the captions. (I'll bet that's more people than we'd like to admit.) But it's not something to withhold FA status for, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no problem with it, so Done. Christine (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one statement in the lede is cited. Why is this statement treated differently?
      Cause it was an error, silly. It's been fixed. Thanks for the catch, sweetie. ;) And thanks for catching all that picky stuff! I appreciate the input. Christine (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I very much enjoyed the article. Well written, with flowing writing and organization. Every minor criticism I had I changed myself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I like that in a FA reviewer! I think it's kind of silly when reviewers direct the nominator to fix minor errors that would've taken less time to just fix it themselves. Christine (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great content, well organized, well sourced, MoS followed impeccably, prose is excellent. – Quadell (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note on your "to-do" list on the article talk page, you have "Bring to FAC" and "Work on locating and adding fair-use images". Now, if there is further work that needs to be done, now is not the time for FAC. However, further, (and I do not mean to imply that this is being done maliciously) this means that the images would avoid scrutiny at FAC- an area where the article faced problems last time. If images are going to be added, I feel they should be added before the article faces FAC. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I suppose I should've removed the item about images before bringing this article here. You should know, though, that I think that I've pretty much exhausted things to do to improve this article. (What needs to be done is that all SS-related articles need improvement, but that's a discussion for another time and place.) Images for this article have always been a struggle. The Sesame Workshop is notoriously protective of their copyrighted characters, and for good reason. I sent an email to them over a year ago, but got no response. (I suppose I could write them a request through snail mail.) My "solution" was the quoteboxes that are scattered throughout the article. In other words, I've been working on images for this article for three years, and there simply are no free-use images that we can use here. I had an image of Joe Raposo before this FAC, but a reviewer removed it. If anyone has any suggestions about images, I'd be very happy to hear them. Christine (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few comments:

  • Some overlinking: delink addictive in quotation,consider delinking grant. I think I saw CTW linked more than once.
    I have such an issue with overlinking. It was a bigger issue than normal for this article because of all the forking. I think I got all the above instances.
  • Probably better to change twenty-first century > 21st century, and fortieth to 40th
    Done.
  • I think quote boxes should be treated as block-quotes and not have the quotation marks
    Ok, done.
  • What were the "social goals" Hensen expected to get from joining Sesame Street?
    I don't really want to get into that; I don't think a lengthly discussion is warranted here. I also think that the phrase is adequate enough to describe Henson's motivations. Christine (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about - was curious, is all. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise really nicely done. I've read parts of this article before, never had the time the comment, but my impression is that it's greatly improved. It reads well, is informative, and I enjoyed reading it. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an incredible article. Well written and meticulously researched. The only thing lacking in the article, not a big deal to me, are images depicting the show itself. Sesame Street is a unique visual experience, and it seems a shame that such images are difficult to obtain.AstroCog (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Astrocog, and thanks to TK, too. I agree with you regarding the (lack of) images in this article. It's really a shame, because the philosophy of the CW and Wikipedia are so similar. Fortunately, there are lots of opportunities to sample both the colorful and rich sights and sounds of The Show. Christine (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comment: Love the job you've done on the article. I see you have the various audio formats of the show listed in the infobox, but not the video formats (e.g. 480p, 720p, 1080i, etc). If you have access to that information, it would be nice to see it in the infobox too. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, I don't have access to that information. I don't even know if the audio formats are correct, since they were added by someone else and they're unsourced. Personally, I'd like to remove all that information, since I believe that big infoboxes are ugly, so the less information listed in it the better. Christine (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still see some prose/MOS problems:

  • Why do you italicize "'s" in Sesame Street's?
Do you want the honest answer? There are two: 1) because I'm lazy; and 2) because I personally oppose that style requirement. But I "corrected" them, anyway, just 'cause you asked nicely. ;)
  • I can't make sense of the phrase "Morrow credited the CTW's commitment to multiculturalism as the source for many of their conflicts with the leadership of minority groups". They got into conflict with minority groups because they were committed to multiculturalism?

Ucucha (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I clarifed the sentence like this: In spite of their commitment to multiculturalism, the CTW experienced conflicts with the leadership of minority groups, especially Latino groups and feminists, who objected to Sesame Street's depiction of Latinos and women. It's closer to the source, anyway, without being too close of a paraphrase. Christine (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's clearer. Ucucha (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:38, 11 September 2011 [23].

Fomitiporia ellipsoidea

edit
Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike my last nomination, this species is actually an important and interesting one: it produces the largest fruit bodies in the world. When Fomitiporia ellipsoidea was described a few years ago, it looked destined to remain obscure, of interest only to those few mycologists concerned with Chinese polypores. However, a few months ago, it was announced that an enormous fruit body had been found, weighing half a tonne, and the mainstream press around the world picked up on the story- it even appeared on the news section of the main page. I feel that the article is ready for FA status; I've got everything I can from the sources and even managed to get hold of a picture. Thanks to Sasata (talk · contribs) for a thorough GA review, to Danaman5 (talk · contribs) for translation of a Chinese article, to The Pink Oboe (talk · contribs) for the map image and to Dr. Bao-Kai Cui for the release of a free photo of the fruit bodies. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ucucha, with some minor comments:

Overall, it's good work: well-written and using all the reliable sources I could find about the species. But you're saying Gymnopilus maritimus wasn't interesting? Ucucha (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pair named the species Fomitiporia ellipsoidea. - short, crisp sentences are good, but this might be a little too abrupt. I must admit I can't find anything to connect it with as possibly a little long if connected with the following sentence (not a deal-breaker this as nothing jumps out as a clear-cut improvement)
I've rejigged the paragraph slightly. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, nice fix that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
why is ellipsoid in italics rather than quotation marks? It looks a little confusing juxtaposed to italicised latin words... (?)
Adjusted. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd link "polypore"
Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
any reason why " 8 millimetres (0.3 in) " is unabbreviated?
It's the first time the word is used. I'll abbreviate it if you think it'd be better. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's just a pretty common standard abbreviation - I think the conformity gained by abbreviating it is a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The shiny hymenium surface.. - looks a little funny as hymenium is a noun yet it is in an adjectival position sentence wise. I think if we make this "The shiny spore-bearing (or spore-producing) surface, or hymenium,..." (or you could have "hymenium" in parentheses) makes it more accessible to the reader without losing meaning.
Rephrased slightly. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good otherwise. Easy fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments and support. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support With COI as GA reviewer and fungus fan. I carefully reread the article again, and have a few more suggestions for prose tweaks. Sasata (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with some minor prose tweaks listed below. Nice job. Choess (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "ellipsoid" is a noun; I think the adjectival form "ellipsoidal" should be used throughout the article, e.g. "distinctly ellipsoidal spores" in the lead.
  • I feel as though "favorable circumstances" might be more suitable than "appropriate circumstances" in the lead to describe the conditions under which it grows large.
  • I'm not sure it's quite our place to say "further research is needed." Perhaps "Preliminary research indicates that these may have pharmacological applications"?
  • "in 2011 when it was revealed" should be "it was revealed in 2011"
  • "spore producing section" should be hyphenated as "spore-producing".
  • "and they measure from 4.5 to 6.1": it's not entirely clear what "they" refers to, as "The spore shape" preceding it is singular. Replace with "the spores".
  • "easily identified with the use": should read "identified by".
    • I'm not sure- it is not the actual use of the microscope that identifies it (Sally idenfied John by his long hair) but features seen with a microscope (Sally identified John with a picture of him). J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are also septate (possessing of septa)": I would rephrase the previous paragraph to read "The hyphae are septate (divided into separate cells by septa)" and simply say "are also septate" here.
  • I have one conceptual hitch in the chemistry material. As the translated article points out, "ergosterol is the main steroidal component of relatively advanced fungoid groups," so finding ergosterol in the fungus is not really noteworthy. (Indeed, the triazole antifungals work by blocking the ergosterol synthesis pathway.) Maybe say "...could be isolated from F. ellipsoidea with petroleum ether and (after defatting) chloroform. The nine compounds isolated from these extracts included the common ergosterol and its derivative ergosterol peroxide. Two of the compounds..."

It is clear within the body of the article, but I'm not sure if you could find a way to add an "as of" date to this statement in the first sentence, so readers don't have to go looking:

  • ... a specimen of which produced the largest fruit body ever recorded ...

At your discretion, since it is made clear in the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [24].

Northrop YF-23

edit
Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...the article had recently passed a MilHist A-class review with five unanimous supports, which gave me great confidence that it can go one better. I believe the article has met every FA criterion, but it's the community's thoughts that count, so please write down whatever you think about the article, no matter if they're positive or negative. I'd like to thank user Fnlayson for sticking by me for much of the article's development. Cheers! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why WIKICUP nominators are still not self-identifying? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry I forgot. This is a WikiCup nomination. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't include harv links in Bibliography if they're not linked in footnotes
  • Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized or note
  • When a source includes info like page numbers, it's good practice to include it
  • Don't italicize publisher names. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose Comments 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) 01:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you guys find something that indicates whether the two YF-23s are still on exhibit at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force?
  • Okay, there's nothing currently in WP:AVIMOS about this; I'll describe the general problem, you tell me what solution you want. Proposals and articles by engineers are often vague about whether they have a concept, a design, a non-working prototype or a working prototype, and their language reflects this vagueness. I don't have any doubt that your sources use "YF-23" to refer to all four stages, but to most readers, the distinction will matter. I don't see a particular solution in the popular style guides, and I don't want to cite a technical style guide on this, so my proposal is that the common name (YF-23 in this case) will refer to one aircraft if at least one was actually built and is mentioned in the article; use for instance "series" when talking about both aircraft, and use words like "design", "proposal" or "submission" for events before the prototype was built. I'll make the edits; feel free to revert, but don't keep the language that hides the distinctions ... that is, don't use "YF-23" to mean all of the above. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "YF-22" is a judgment call; there's an argument that "to develop the YF-23 series, while Lockheed ... developed the YF-22." is nonparallel, but I don't buy the argument. Since the specific YF-22 prototypes aren't mentioned, I don't think there's enough room for misunderstanding to avoid the simpler "YF-22" throughout. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the use of "U. S. Air Force" (without defining the acronym), "Air Force" and "USAF" all in the first section below the lead, because the lead defines the acronym. I think the arguments would be that there's not much room for misunderstanding, that variation can be good, and that the acronym is more suitable adjectivally. But there are other opinions on the proper use of acronyms; if anyone has a problem with this style, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1981, the U.S. Air Force began forming specifications": What did they do, exactly? - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to oppose; at the moment, I'm concerned there may be more to do here than I'll have time to do, but I'll keep plugging away. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My word "series" was the wrong word ... sorry. But it's confusing to use one name to mean two different things, especially in the same or an adjacent sentence, so if you want "YF-23" to mean the model or the aircraft generally, then let's use something like "one of the YF-23 prototypes" to refer to a specific aircraft, not "the YF-23". I'll make the edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two YF-23s were essentially identical except for different engine types. So no "series" or anything like that (no idea where that came from). Wording such as "the YF-23" refers to the aircraft type. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The U.S. Navy considered using one of the ATF aircraft to replace the F-14": I'm guessing that doesn't mean what it says; they weren't considering using just one plane, were they? - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For other uses, see F23": For other uses of "F23"? F23 isn't mentioned in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are on exhibit in museums as of February 2009": "were". Better would be to find out if they're still being exhibited, but I'm only commenting on the grammar.
  • "The Lockheed and Northrop proposals were selected on 31 October 1986 to undertake a 50-month demonstration phase, culminating in the flight testing of two prototype models, the YF-22 and the YF-23.": I don't know what this means. My best guess is: The Lockheed and Northrop proposals were selected as finalists on 31 October 1986. Both companies were given 50 months to build and flight-test their prototypes, and they succeeded, producing the Lockheed YF-22 and the Northrop YF-23. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better link for the WMOF is http://www.wmof.com/display.htm. Your link gives an image of and story about the YF-23 ... and you'd think that would be the same thing as saying it's currently on display, but GLAMs can be sneaky about this stuff, especially on websites ... they'll give a story about something exciting they used to have or hope to have, and forget to mention that they don't actually have it. The link I gave should be good enough; it says the aircraft is currently on display, and although the website wouldn't be considered a reliable source for some purposes, it ought to be reliable for this purpose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The aircraft has returned to the museum's new location ...": See WP:DATED.
  • "all-aspect stealth": I don't know what "all-aspect" means in this context.
    • I took a guess on this one, and changed "all-aspect stealth" to "to reduce the model's susceptability to infrared and radar detection." If "all-aspect" is something more than marketing blather, if it's a technical specification that includes other forms of stealth, please add the other forms. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The USAF increased the runway distance requirement from 2,000 to 3,000 feet (610 to 914 m) in 1987, so thrust reversing was no longer needed. However, the engine nacelles were not downsized to match on the YF-23 prototypes.": What nacelle size has to do with thrust reversing won't make much sense to people other than engineers and aviation fans. It's not a stretch to figure out what thrust reversing is, and why the runway wouldn't need to be as long if you had it, but if a general reader doesn't have to figure things out on their own, that's always a plus. This might be a little easier for the general reader: The USAF initially expected that the aircraft would have to reverse the flow of their engines after landing so that they could stop within 2,000 feet (610 m). Later, in 1987, the USAF determined that 3,000-foot (914 m) runways would generally be available, so that the engines would not be required to reverse thrust, and their nacelles (housing) could be made smaller. ["housing" feels like a fairly common word to me, certainly more common that "nacelles", but there are still a fair number of readers who wouldn't immediately recognize it; suggestions?] - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a charcoal gray": was charcoal gray
  • "— the latter": There shouldn't be a space after em-dashes per WP:EMDASH, but also per that link, this should be a comma rather than a dash, since the sentence has no other commas.
  • "resembling the underbelly marking of the black widow spider ...": the hourglass is on their backs, not their bellies, that I'm aware of.
  • "The second prototype was two-tone gray colored and was nicknamed "Gray Ghost". The second prototype was two shades of gray, nicknamed "Gray Ghost".
  • "substantial area-ruling, and an all-moving V-tail.": You lost me. Per WP:Checklist, if many readers won't even be able to guess what the sentence means without clicking, give at least a clue to the meaning in the text in addition to the link.
  • "Similar to the B-2, the exhaust ...": This style is so common that it can't be considered wrong IMO, but the job of a copy editor is to shoot for making everyone happy, and many style guides still advise that this would be wrong because "similar" dangles, that is, the B-2 is an aircraft, which isn't similar to exhaust; its exhaust is similar to exhaust. One easy fix: "The same as on the B-2, the exhaust ...". (This is right if it was the same, in the sense that the exhaust flowed through troughs lined with heat-ablating tiles.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The vehicle management system coordinated movements of the control surfaces for maneuvers and for stable flight, along with other aircraft functions." I would probably delete this sentence. Some readers won't be able to make sense of it, and to some, all it will say is "the aircraft's movement is controlled by the parts that control movement".
  • "The wing flaps and ailerons deflected inversely": I'd go with something like "Raising the wing flaps and ailerons on one side and lowering them on the other" if that's right; not many readers will understand "deflected inversely".
  • "rotating both V-tails inward or outward ...": Be consistent on whether you describe this as two V-tails or as both sides (would "fins" be right?) of one V-tail. And ... we're talking about rotating the two sides up or down, right? "Inward" might mean swinging the surfaces to the front or rear. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moving them in the opposite manner.": moving them in an opposing manner, or more simply, moving one up and one down. It's not clear what the "opposite" of "inward or outward" is.
  • "on both sides simultaneously": I don't think this is a big deal, but if I leave it, someone's going to come by and say I got it wrong: "simultaneously" isn't needed here.
  • "Although the YF-23 featured an advanced design, in order to keep costs relatively low, ...": I think this is clearer: "To keep costs low despite the novel design, ...". (But, for the "in order to" haters, note that a substitution of "to" in the original sentence would have completely mangled the meaning.)
  • "nose wheel unit": I'm having a hard time guessing what, or even where (nose? wheel?), that is. Just a few extra words would help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two aircraft were built. The first ...": Since you've already said that two were built, maybe: "Of the two aircraft built, the first ..."
  • "high tempo combat demonstration": I don't know what that means. High speed?
  • "The YF-23s flew 50 times for a total of 65.2 hours.": There isn't a perfect answer here, I'd just like you to be aware that there's always a little room for tension or misunderstanding if we try to use "YF-23" to mean the model and a single aircraft, especially in the same or an adjacent sentence. We could emphasize that we're talking about both aircraft here by saying "The two YF-23s", and it's not totally clear whether each flew 50 times ... I'm guessing it was a total of 50 times, so say that: "The two YF-23s flew for a total of 50 times and 65.2 hours."
  • "The contractor teams used evaluation results in their proposals submitted to win the contract ATF production.": This could mean one of two things with different shades of meaning; better would be either "in their submitted proposals to ..." or "in the proposals they submitted to ...".
  • "The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22 was more agile.": I talked about this a little bit above ... engineers are terrible about saying design when they mean prototype and vice-versa, and I don't fault you for following your sources ... but I think it's really unlikely that the USAF studied the design and decided that they thought it would probably be faster, when they had an aircraft sitting outside that could (and did) fly to test it out. So, something like: "They determined the YF-23 to be stealthier and faster, but selected the YF-22 as it was more agile." - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "YF-119": it would probably be better either to add a hyphen where this appears above or subtract the hyphen here, in case readers need to search to remember what this means.
  • "to power production F-22s;": since "power production" has its own meaning, and since "production" as an adjective is kind of engineer-ese, I think I'd go with "to power new F-22s", with "for production F-22s" as a second choice.
  • "the calibration of strain gauge results and loads": lost me.
  • Sandy has already mentioned (below) the problem with the one-paragraph Possible revival section.
  • In Aircraft on display, I think you guys aren't getting the main point of WP:DATED: "is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force near Dayton, Ohio. The aircraft was recently put on display following restoration and is located in the museum's Research and Development hangar as of 2009." You're giving 3 different times. Also: "The aircraft has returned to the museum's new location ...": Say that it returned on a certain date and is still there as of a certain date.
  • That's all for now. I'm going to switch my oppose to a neutral, since I had time to get to the end, and I can see myself supporting if I'm happy with the results. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We may need to get moving on this to avoid a non-promotion here at FAC; I'll ask for help at WT:MIL. I and others have been getting reverted often enough, and there have been enough misunderstandings here and at A-class, that it seemed like a safer bet to comment rather than to edit directly, but that means there's a lot left to do. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do aviation articles generally list the serial numbers in two different sections (Aircraft on display, Development) in the main text? Would it be possible to move them from one of those sections to General characteristics? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sandy's puzzlement over "requirement"; I think the problem is that the word is used in two different senses, "designed to meet USAF requirements for survivability ..." vs. "a USAF requirement for an interim bomber". I'll substitute "request" for the second sense; feel free to substitute a better word. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to study techniques for the calibration under predicted loads to measured flight results": This doesn't sound quite right to me; what were they trying to do? - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a long-range bomber with a much greater range": That may be necessary, but since any bomber with a much greater range would be a long-range bomber, at least consider: "a bomber with a much greater range".
  • Now supporting, but have a look at these last two points anyway. Great work, and I'm learning a lot, which may come in handy since I see you guys are working on a lot more articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status report: I had to look at a lot of the sources just to get the copyediting done (groan), and in the process, I found no close paraphrasing or infidelities. I can do more spotchecking if anyone likes, and Nikki hasn't specifically revisited her concerns from Aug 20; otherwise, this one appears ready for takeoff. I dealt with Sandy's concerns, and I see no unresolved comments on this page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only references that look a bit odd are the ones with the author lists: "Rich, Michael and William Stanley" and "Jenkins, Dennis R. and Tony R. Landis". The article should probably be consistent about the last name/first name ordering. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support with nitick - overall I think this is a well written and comprehensive article that meets the FA criteria. One minor bone I have to pick however is the frequent use of very technical language with no explanation of what it means for a simple layman such as myself. For example, the exhaust is described as having "heat ablating tiles" which help the plane leave a lower heat signature. What this actually means however is not especially clear, and is reliant on the linked article on ablation being of a high enough quality for me to be able to work it out for myself. I would much prefer it if the article had a very brief sentence explaining what this was to complement the link. Anyway, that aside, based upon the FA policies I would support the promotion of this article. Coolug (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decipher what this paragraph is trying to say at all:

In late 2004, Northrop Grumman proposed a YF-23-based design for the USAF's interim bomber requirement, a role for which the FB-22 and B-1R were also competing.[1] Northrop modified aircraft PAV-2 to serve as a display model for its proposed interim bomber.[2] The interim bomber requirement has since been canceled in favor of a more long-term bomber replacement requirement, although the same YF-23-derived design could have been adapted to fulfill this role as well.[3] However, the possibility of a YF-23-based interim bomber ended with the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which favored a long-range bomber with a much greater range.[4][5]

What is an "interim bomber requirement" and how can a design fulfill it? After that, I can't sort out at all what the paragraph is saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In early 2004, the USAF requested proposals from industry for an interim bomber with the capability to strike at the most demanding targets, intended to enter service in 2015, to fill the gap between its existing bomber fleet and a next-generation bomber planned for service entry in 2037.[25] As one of its responses to this request, Northrop Grumman proposed a derivative of the YF-23 to meet this requirement.[26] - Is that any clearer?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh ???

Some specifications are estimated.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The prose here needs attention for jargon and elegance-- sample in the lead:[reply]

The two YF-23s were donated to museums and are now exhibits.

There is surely a more elegant way to say "and are now exhibits" (which engages MOSDATE#Precise language btw).

Another random sentence:

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force began forming a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) as a new air superiority fighter to replace the F-15 Eagle.

Began forming a requirement? A copyedit by fresh eyes is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These problems and more have now been fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concerns were sufficiently, if not always completely satisfactorily addressed. I suspect that many more details could be added, if it weren't for security restrictions. Hence, this is probably as close as the article can come to satisfying 1b. With that in mind, I give it my support. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have just a few concerns:

  • "Afterward, Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics formed a team that would develop any one of their proposals, if selected." It's a minor point, but the word "Afterward" seems somewhat misleading here. Clearly this must have happened between July and October, 1986. Can a more specific date be given? I don't thing this should imply the team would select which one of their designs they would build. Instead, it should indicate they would work together to build the selected design from among their proposals.
    • Not misleading at all. The five companies turned in proposals in July, then they formed two teams before the selection was made in Oct. The dates are not critical info. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Afterward' could have meant at any time, including post-selection. Ergo it was misleading. The rewording is acceptable for the first part of the concern. RJH (talk)
        • I've resolved my concern with a copyedit.
  • "Both companies were given 50 months to build and flight-test their prototypes, and they succeeded, producing the Lockheed YF-22 and the Northrop YF-23." This doesn't come across as the best-written sentence, so perhaps it could be improved? Does this statement mean that the teams did not work together to produce the prototypes, or should it say "teams" instead of "companies"?
  • "American reconnaissance satellites first spotted the advanced Soviet Su-27 and MiG-29 fighter prototypes in 1978, which caused concern in the U.S." Why? A few more details about the threat posed would help here, so that the reader can understand why a new fighter was perceived as necessary.
    • Addressed with a cited addition. RJH (talk)
  • "...meet USAF requirements for survivability..." This requirement is vague so it could use a little clarification. Since it is listed separately from stealth, I assume this means the ability to avoid enemy fire or survive a hit? Or does it mean the ability of the pilot to escape the destruction of the aircraft? It seems essential to make this clear since these are the basis of the final selection.
  • "It featured a tricycle landing gear configuration with a nose landing gear and two main landing gear." Please clarify that "It" means the aircraft, rather than the cockpit as is implied.
  • "The Air Force selected the YF119 engine to power the F-22 production version; the Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney designs had higher technical ratings, were considered lower risks, and were considered to have more effective program management." Wait, is this sentence mixing a discussion of the engine and the aircraft? If so, why was the YF-22 considered to have a higher technical rating if it had poorer stealth and velocity? What were the risk factors for the selection?
    • I've fixed the ambiguity, but the "higher technical ratings" statement is still vague. RJH (talk)

Regards, RJH (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [27].

SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of my battleships, this article has passed a GA review and a joint MILHIST/SHIPS A-class review. It is also part of what is currently going to be the largest Good Topic on Wikipedia (and what will hopefully be upgraded to a Featured Topic). I feel the article is close to FA standards, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article demonstrates our best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review - Everything checks out. I'm not sure if I like the 'click for larger view' things or not, although that might just be because I've never seen them before. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment oppose the click thru for a larger image the scarpa flow one doesnt work, but both fail to comply with image licensing as they dont attribute the source or provide the licensing information. Gnangarra 10:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they don't. That clicker just bypassed the image description page and goes straight to the full size page. The image description page is still accessable through the normal way, (see this for example). Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bypassing the image credits violates WP:CREDITS. Gnangarra 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may be right, but it's fine for this image, as it's in the public domain. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • change to oppose, its not ok to ignore licensing and to bypass attribution and source information under such circumstances I cannot recommend this as being our best work, such practice is the worse case example of dealing with licensing. Gnangarra 07:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not bypassing the licensing, you can get to it via the typical method (i.e., clicking on the image). There is simply an additional link to the full size image. Parsecboy (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • The link carries no licensing information, no source information and that fails our licensing policies. Gnangarra 12:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't know what interpretation of WP:CREDITS you have, but I can see no prohibition on secondary direct links to the full size image. As far as I can tell, there is no basis for your objection. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • WP:CREDITS provides for the use of the image without credit and licensing information with the image as required by GFDL and CC licenses because for a viewer to see the image the attribution and source information is provided on the image description page. With these links they bypassing the image description page as such they no longer comply with the requirements of GFDL and CC which For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Gnangarra 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You can see the image in the article without attribution. You can still see the image description page by clicking the image. I don't see how adding a second link to the full size image causes a problem. If in some way I prevented readers from being able to click on the image, then yes, there would be a circumvention of the attribution policy. But I haven't done that. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closing delegate The oppose (above) by Gnangarra should be disregarded. It is based a misunderstanding of our licensing requirements and/or a misunderstanding of our image retrial system. While the direct link to the larger view isn't standard, it's not outside of any Wikipedia policies, period. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Its not a misunderstanding the direct link fails to provide licensing information, that is a clear breach of our licensing requirements and Commons reuse requirements. Gnangarra 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Gnangarra on this, though for a slightly different reason. Having a direct link to the full resolution of the image to avoid the Commons version (which in turn is clearly marked with a link for 'full resolution') is awkward and not suitable for a FA. Highlighting this link also implies that none of the other images in the article are available at a higher resolution, which isn't correct. It's also unclear to me why it's even worth highlighting the availability of the full resolution version of this map given that Grosser Kurfürst isn't specifically shown anywhere on it (she's part of the red lines, which are clearly visible at the resolution in the article). Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gnangarra

  • In the opening sentence of the Battle of Jutland section the linking of Jutland in the prose ...resulted in the Battle of Jutland which took place is disconcerting, I recognise what your trying to achieve but think that the link in the title of the battle is poor. suggest that maybe you could give an indication of where the battle took place ie northwest of Jutland and then link that usage which is the place. Gnangarra
  • In the start of the service history section you refer to the ship and its sisters ships of the same class as dreadnaughts yet in the subsection you refer to her as a Battleship without explanation, be consistant. noting that the lead says she's a battleship, see WP:JARGON Gnangarra
    • I linked it. Sometimes we include explanation of the origin of the term. IMO it gets a little tedious to include it every time, but I wouldn't mind. I don't know Parsec's position. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being tedious to include something in every article is a poor response surely, each article stands on its own merits of being comprehensive when one compares to other articles of a similar(near identical) subjects then these types of ommissions and inconsistancies are glaringly obvious we cant assume that reader will find the articles in a set order Gnangarra 07:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean it's tedious for the writer, I meant that any reader will find it tedious if we spell out a lot of things they already understand, so we're required to make some guesses about what they're likely to know if they're interested in an article about a WWI German battleship ... and then we build in safeguards in case we make the wrong guesses. We missed the fact that dreadnought wasn't linked; thanks for pointing it out. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • fourth para of Battle of Jutland The remaining four hits came from the 15-inch guns of Barham or Valiant.[32] One of the 15-inch shells destroyed the No. 2 port-side 15 cm gun,... all previous gun description have both in and mm measurements this sentence doesnt. The following paragraphs have the same issue Gnangarra

Quoting from MOSNUM, specifically WP:MOSCONVERSIONS:

  • Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except:
    • When inserting a conversion would make a common or linked expression awkward (The four-minute mile).
    • When units are part of the subject of a topic—nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, SI units in scientific articles, yards in articles about American football—it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk)

  • One change since the A-class review: wasn't "Großer Kurfürst" also one of the Kaiser's honorifics or nicknames? Understood that the original "Großer Kurfürst" lived in the 17th century. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, another change: a second footnote was added in the first two sentences. IMO, footnotes that are really noticeable ("[Note 2]" as opposed to, for instance "(II)") have their uses, but you don't want too many of them in the lead, clicking on them can interrupt the flow. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments [by Sturmvogel 66]

  • There's no supporting info for shafts, range, and armor data in the infobox. Either add cites or expand, my preference, your descriptive paragraphs.
  • Missing links: what kind of length, beam, draft, torpedo tubes, shp, Lowestoft, Yarmouth, founder, scrapping
  • Suggest that beam referring to the torpedo tubes be replaced by broadside and linked.
  • Coal or oil-fired? What kind and how many boilers? Be sure to link boiler as well.
  • Is range in nautical or statue miles? If the former provide a link and allow the triple conversion by not specifying output. Forex {{convert|25|nmi}}
  • On a related note remove the kmh parameter from knots in the infobox to allow that template to triple convert.
  • Where is the Jade Estuary?
  • Move the link for 1 Scouting Group to the first occurrence.
  • I'd suggest adding HMS to Moorsom and Moresby
  • What kind of ships are Warrior, Malaya, and Defence?
  • How was the ship damaged in April 1918? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)
    • Should all be fixed now - Staff doesn't say on how she was damaged in April 1918, just that it happened while entering the locks. Presumably she grounded slightly or ran into the locks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)
    • Kurfürst was christened by Prince Oskar of Prussia; HR&S volume 4 page 41
    • CO KzS Ernst Goette (July 1914 to November 1917) was later promoted to admiral, noteworthy? p. 41
    • CO KzS Werner Siemens (November 1917 to November 1918) was later promoted to admiral, noteworthy? p. 41
    • The infobox states 10 x 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns. The sections "Construction and design" only mentions six. According to HR&S she had six SK-8.8 cm and four Flak 8.8 cm
    • I think the nomenclature for British and German units is not consistent. I thought only the German units used roman numerals. Sentences like this confused me "Simultaneously, the British III and IV Light Cruiser Squadrons..." Please check
      • Added the bit on Prince Oskar and fixed the number of 8.8cm guns (should be 10 total) and the British unit names. Were either of the two commanders particularly notable? They don't have articles, as far as I can tell. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [29].

Caroline of Ansbach

edit
Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! and DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Caroline was the wife of George II of Great Britain. She put up with his mistresses, and became involved in generational family rows among the Hanoverians. She and Robert Walpole (the first British prime minister) were credited with jointly governing the King. DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is generally good. A few things stand out:

  • "By and large, George Augustus and Caroline had a successful marriage" - I find by and large somewhat un-encyclopaedic.
  • I wonder if compound dates such as "22 August/2 September 1705" could do with a note of explanation as those unfamiliar with the calendar change might find them confusing.
  • I'm not sure what to do here. I think that paragraph and the table are the only places with both dates? I've changed the example to "22 August (Old Style)/2 September (New Style) 1705"; I think that infers that the other date in that paragraph follows the same format. I've left the table as it is, because the footnote explaining the change in calendars is immediately below it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In mid-1735, Frederick, Prince of Wales, was further dismayed by his parents when Caroline again acted as regent while the King was absent in Hanover" could do with a little explanation. Why was he dismayed?
  • "She and her husband moved into Leicester House, while their children remained in the care of the King" Had Prince Frederick come over from Germany? Later on it seems that he was still in Germany. Or were there other children? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support with regards to the issues that I raised. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images mostly check out. The information could do with a cleanup on File:George II, Queen Caroline, and children.jpg and File:Frederick Prince of Wales.jpg, but there's something up with File:Coat of Arms of Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach.svg. The image is unsourced, and a claim of it being CC/GFDL (no matter how common the mistake is) is probably bogus- a faithful reproduction of a PD 2d image will itself be PD. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

  • In the first paragraph of the lead, I think "well educated" should be hyphenated.
  • "Education": I'm not sure why this is two paragraphs.
  • The OS/NS thing: I ran into the same problem when I re-wrote William III of England. It's always cumbersome, why not use exclusively OS, like your footnote says?
  • "her friend the Countess of Buckenburgh": who is this? I couldn't find the city or the title here or on de-wiki.
  • I've changed it to the German Bückeburg (as used by Arkell). "Buckenburgh" is the spelling taken direct from the eighteenth-century English memoirs used as sources by biographers. DrKiernan (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be useful to link excise.
Otherwise, the article is excellent. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • How did it come to be that Frederick and Sophia Charlotte were designated the new guardians of the children?
  • "who were able to talk uncensored and uninhibited" - adverbs here would sound better
  • heavy use of commas and complex sentence structure makes for choppy reading in places
  • no hyphens between adverbs and verbs
  • many of the sentences begin with time periods/dates: "In January...", "When he became king..." This becomes a bit repetitive. Try rephrasing a bit for greater variety.
  • Inconsistent use of old/new calendar dates
  • "past reconciliation between the two Georges" - does not strike me as encyclopedic phrasing
  • "Captain John Porteous, who had been convicted of murder in Edinburgh, when a mob" - confusingly worded
  • "which made a supposititious child unlikely since the baby was so pitiful." - cumbersome
  • "her moral example, but even the Jacobites" - and even...?
  • No reference for the titles and styles section

-- Lemurbaby (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, changes made.[31][32] DrKiernan (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged. DrKiernan (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reasoning for the text in the "Legacy" section being italicized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the italics are purely for aesthetic reasons. I removed them. Ruby2010 comment! 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hyphen here (it doesn't seem to be modifying anything)?

The memoirs of the eighteenth-century, particularly those of John, Lord Hervey, fed perceptions ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the hyphen in eighteenth century, I removed it. Ruby2010 comment! 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the italics in the "Arms" section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't quite sure what to do there as the terms employed are like a foreign language to the uninitiated, but as it isn't covered by WP:ITALIC, I've formatted as plain text.[33] DrKiernan (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a very few comments:

  • "Eleanore Erdmuthe was widowed two years later, after her unfaithful husband contracted smallpox from his mistress.[5] " > "widowed again" to be clear that her second husband died after two years.
  • Do we know when Caroline went to live with Sophia Charlotte?
  • From the two sources I have immediate access to, Oxford says "In 1696, however, Caroline's mother died. She returned briefly to Ansbach, but then went to Lützenburg, outside Berlin, to live with her guardians, the elector and electress of Brandenburg" while Lives says simply that after her mother died in 1696, her guardians became Sophia Charlotte and her husband. I'll wait to see if DrKiernan has something more specific. Ruby comment! 21:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find anything more specific unfortunately. DrKiernan (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Caroline was well-aware of his infidelities, as they were open knowledge" > "open knowledge" is a little clunky - well-known, maybe?
  • "Women of the Bedchamber" probably shouldn't be capitalized if there was more than one
  • Arms - This section is a bit hard to get through. Can it broken up somehow, perhaps? Also, not sure, but maybe check WP:MOSNUM to avoid 1st, 2nd, etc. I haven't a clue what you do with 15th. For consistency, you've probably done it correctly - but it seems a bit off. Also suggest maybe adding a bit to the caption of the coat of arms to describe a little where the 1st, 2nd, etc. is on the picture - not all 15, but a few so give a clearer understanding.

I've always found Caroline to be very interesting, but have had difficulty understanding the various family relationships - congratulations on presenting a clear account of a difficult web of relationships. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking it over. Regards, Ruby comment! 21:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [35].

1991 Atlantic hurricane season

edit
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I like collecting stars and rewards... no, that doesn't work.

I am nominating this for featured article because I want to make WP:100K happen! Eh... that's kinda dead.

I am nominating this for featured article because I worked on it a lot last month and it's part of a featured topic I'm working on and I really like it and I found some neat info on the season and I got some favorable responses to it and I hope you like it too! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikicup nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note - Since Hurricanehink has indicated that he is going to be busy over the next few days preparing for Hurricane Irene myself and other project members will keep an eye on this FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jason, I should be good now since the storm damage wasn't bad here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source for ACE section? The table is linked to this page, which lists no sources
  • Ref 9: publisher? Also, check dash use in this and similar titles
  • Ref 25: do we know full names?
  • Be consistent in whether or not you include publishers for newspapers
  • What is WFO?
  • Ref 74: formatting
  • Ref 76: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got ref 9, 25, 74 (I believe, I changed the author to publisher), and 76. As for the newspapers, they should be consistent. That one, I just made a mistake with the cite web/news. I believe I always do author and newspaper, with the agency when possible (usually AP). I also clarified the WFO. As for the ACE... yea, it isn't really sourced by a good source. I personally hate the section and believe it violates Wiki policy by having it in there (due to lack of sourcing anywhere that proves those storms had those individual amounts), and I would be happy to remove it. However, others claim it falls under the routine calculation portion of WP:OR. If you (and anyone else) wouldn't mind not opposing over that single section, I will bring up a discussion on this to find clarity on the issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds of lousy humor... aside from that, some comments:
  • As of late I've been more critical of wikilinking practices, so I've been pushing for more judicious use of links. In the first two sentences, which should IMO be self-sufficient (we don't want users wandering away two seconds after they reach the page), you link tropical cyclone, North Atlantic tropical cyclone, and hurricane season, which all seem to overlap to an extent, and I think if I were a newcomer to the topic I'd be overwhelmed.
  • I find it slightly disconcerting that the lead bounces from Danny and Erika and back to Bob. I guess it doesn't have to be chronologically ordered, but I'm wondering why the very first paragraph deals with storms that didn't affect anyone, but the second paragraph covers the damaging storms... I think it should be the other way around, myself.
    • Actually, that was deliberate. I thought the most notable storms should get their own paragraph. Danny and Erick were lame storms, so they're more of an afterthought after the introduction. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, there were four non-developing tropical depressions, of which one, the second, struck land and dropped heavy rainfall. - first, "of which one, the second" is hard to parse, and second, where did it strike? I'd like a general region.
  • After brushing the Outer Banks of North Carolina and Long Island in New York - I don't see why those shouldn't be consistent.
    • Well, per Google, it's more common to say "Outer Banks of North Carolina", but "Long Island in New York". I didn't plan it that way, though. I just thought it sounded more natural, since Outer is describing something not quite "in" North Carolina. I didn't care either way about Long Island. Seeing as you're a New Yorker (stater), would you prefer "in" or "of' for NY? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • was most notable for providing the energy - I think this is kind of shaky wording; explicitly forcing that X "was most notable" for N usually disrupts prose flow in my experience.
  • It later transitioned into an unnamed hurricane - meteorologically, it transitioned into a regular hurricane, and it was our (the NHC's) decision not to name it... I think you should remove "unnamed" here.

Juliancolton (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:'
  • "ACE is only calculated for full advisories on tropical systems at or exceeding 34 knots (39 mph, 63 km/h) or tropical storm strength." - I though knots is against project standards.
  • A majority of the ACE section is unsourced.
  • There is still no reference for the ACE values. Someone on here once told me that without a source for the ACE values, it could be considered WP:OR.

--12george1 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - supplies all the information I'd want to know. The ACE issue doesn't bother me, since I believe we're close to reaching an agreement on it. I do have one concern with the Perfect Storm section: The origins of the unnamed hurricane also known as the Perfect Storm. The unnamed hurricane developed as the Perfect Storm nor'easter was fizzling, so "also known as" doesn't really work. Other than that, excellent work! Juliancolton (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the FAC arena, and I do not have much time to work, so I will focus on prose nitpicks. If any of my comments run against the spirit of what a featured article should be, feel free to call me out on it.

  • In the Lead: Can you wikilink "tropical wave"? It is a term that isn't clear to outsiders (like me), and it would be helpful.
  • In the Lead: "developed from a tropical wave, which are the source" - which is the source?
  • In the Lead: "Erika passed through the Azores" - better phrased as "Erika passed over the Azores"? After all, it is in the sky (well, mostly). You phrased it like this later, when Hurricane Ana formed over the Bahamas.
    • Well, literally, the Bahamas and Azores refer to the land itself, but a tropical cyclone is a system that extends from the ground into the atmosphere, so technically it does go over the areas, as well as "through". I changed a few so there is some varied wording, but I kept some at "over". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the comment involving the lesser storms and then the greater storms in the lead...I do find the fact that it is not chronological rather strange, granted the article is laid out in a chronological manner. However, I do find it easier to understand in the way it is currently done, and I like that that the stuff that really matters is agglomerated into one.
  • In the Storm summary section: " calling for eight tropical storms" - I don't think "calling for" is the write phrasing. This isn't quite a recipe. :P
  • In the Storm summary section: "However, a further revision" - better phrased as "a later revision"? It sounds awkward to me.
  • In the Perfect storm section: Both Andrea Gail and The Perfect Storm (the movie wikilink) should be italicized.

Probably the most significant comment I have is that I'd prefer to see jargon (like Cape Verde-type hurricane, for example) defined in the article. I like situations like the Metallicity section of the featured article on the star Tau Ceti, which actually defines metallicity and its relevance to astronomy before even delving into how it relates to Tau Ceti itself. To go into such detail really helps dumb things down for the layperson (again, an outsider like me), and helps people to fully understand the topic.

I apologize that this is not much; I will examine the article more if time permits, but I cannot give guarantees. Hope this helps. :) --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review—I tried to address your points. As for having separate sections for meteorological terms: in some cases this is possible (e.g. explaining what a major hurricane is), but in some cases, we have very long and detailed articles already (e.g. tropical cyclogenesis) that adequately cover the main topic, IMO. That said, I'll give a technical jargon review to the article shortly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, yep, you did. Good job. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Bodnotbod's review with reference to FA criteria: SUPPORT *Judgement: Weak oppose due to reasons given below, with view to every intention of supporting at some later date.

  • Judgement: Support (issues listed below resolved to my satisfaction).
    • Quote: "Before the start of the season, hurricane expert William M. Gray released his annual forecast for the season, which he had issued since 1984." An amusing interpretation of this sentence is that he issues the same report every year like some very lazy expert ;O) Can it be reworded? Perhaps "...forecast for the season, he had been issuing forecasts since 1984."
    • Quote: "Virginia recorded more than 5 in (130 mm)." If this is how such statements are always worded, that's fine. But I had to read it twice, because I read the abbrev. for inches as the word "in", leaving me momentarily thinking "five what?".
    • Quote: "no significant developed occurred until it became Tropical Depression Two". Presumably "development" should replace "developed" here?
    • Quote: "One person died in both North and South Carolina". Again, this could be misinterpreted as if it's one guy who happened to be standing astride the border, it feels a little clumsy. Maybe "There were two fatalities; one in North Carolina, one in South Carolina."
    • Quote: "In addition, there were 15 fatalities in the country." Probably doesn't need "in the country". We can appreciate that the fatalities are where the hurricane is, so I think "In addition, there were 15 fatalities." is sufficient.
    • Quote: " In portions of New England, damage was worse than what occurred from Hurricane Bob two months prior." I think "than had occurred" would be better than "what occurred".
    • Comment: In my browser the article causes a horizontal scroll-bar to appear. I think one of the templates at the bottom of the article is causing it. It's not a deal breaker but it would be good if it can be fixed. When I do actually scroll horizontally it doesn't appear that anything extra is revealed to me, so I can't see that scrolling should be necessary.
    • Criteria 1 (a) which reads: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;"
  • Professional but dull at times. I struggled to remain engaged with the article. I'm only human so I naturally found the storms that caused damage to be more interesting than the weather events that drifted about a bit but caused no human drama. So I was engaged when learning that GWB's house had suffered damage, but for those tropical storms that were uneventful I did find it hard to keep my attention on what I was reading. However, does this mean I'm calling for change? I'm not sure I am. The cost of just telling us the exciting bits would be that the article would be less complete and we are aiming for comprehensive coverage of the topic. So I guess I accept that were I more of a 'hurricane person' then I would want to know about the less eventful storms too.
  • Honestly, and I hope this doesn't sound like too much of a cop-out, but that's because the storms were that boring. Only two of them (Bob and the Perfect Storm) were remotely interesting in terms of human impact. Fabian was a joke, and if Danny and Erika had never formed, no one would have ever known. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criteria 1 (b) which reads "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • Good, I trust. I'm not qualified to say, so I have to place my trust in the editors(s). I'm happy to do that on this occasion.
    • Criteria 1 (c) which reads "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;"
  • Great. No complaints here.
    • Criteria 1 (d) which reads "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;"
  • No issues. Not the sort of article that would suffer from issues on this score, perhaps.
    • Criteria 1 (e) which reads "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."
  • Excellent. No sign of issues here, having checked the history of the article over the last year.
    • Criteria 2(a) which reads "a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;"
  • Excellent
    • Criteria 2(b) which reads "appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;"
  • Excellent: takes a chronological approach which makes perfect sense. Easy to find individual storms/hurricanes if one wishes.
    • 2(c) consistent citations
  • Defer to others - I believe other reviewers have looked the citations over, so I'll not address those.
    • Criteria 3 which reads "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly."
  • Pass - Images seem to be from some institute, and I assume they are allowed to be used on Wikipedia.
    • Criteria 4 which reads "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."
  • Pass - Article is concise and has links to other main articles for the more eventful storms.
    • Closing comment: Definitely a good article. Still feel it's held back by a) rather uninspiring descriptions of some non-events and b) lack of inspiration not helped by some hurricane jargon. Let's look at the Claudette section as an example. It contains the following quotes: "area of convection", "system became organized", "low wind shear and a large anticyclone allowing for the development of outflow", "weakening trend", "tropical depression status", "became extratropical". These are all rather opaque to me. However, as previously said, I'm not sure if it would be right to try and change things for the sake of the general reader as it risks making the article less useful for those with hurricane knowledge. It's a dilemma.
      • Yea, that's usually a dilemma, and we try to make it useful for non-hurricane readers. Claudette was one of the sections I didn't write from scratch when I did the rest of the article, so I did a bit of a rewrite. I'm not sure if that's better now, but I changed some of the wording and terminology. However, for some of the terms, they are explained and/or linked previously in the article on their first instance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Signing off: --bodnotbod (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) (PS, HurricaneHink, maybe now you can see why it takes me more than 10 minutes to do a review ;O)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [36].

USS Constellation vs La Vengeance

edit
Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i believe that it meets that standards of a Featured Article. This article covers the engagement between the American frigate USS Constellation and the French frigate la Vengeance. It was one of the of the bloodiest battles of the Quasi War between France and the USA, and was the engagment that saw the most American casualties out of any in the conflict. The article has passed both a Good Article nomination as well as a WikiProject Military history A-class review. Any advice or comments are greatly appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad101 issues resolved Brad (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Was just passing by.

  • Have to mention you should check your Hill source carefully against other sources. When using Hill on other articles I've noticed he's often mistaken.
    • I have added a supporting ciatation from James Fenimore Cooper's The history of the Navy of the United States of America, the only hill ciatation was there in regards to the number of crew the Constellation had at the time of the battle.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truxton's opening double-shotted broadside slammed into the port side of La Vengeance's hull. "Slammed" is a bit sensational but there are other areas in the article similar.
    • Does "slammed" convey any subtext that either isn't accurate or isn't supported by the sources? Is it colloquial or informal or inaccessible to some of our readership? Those are the questions I ask myself when I'm copyediting; I'm not sure what the answer is in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg needs shoring up. "Bailey Collection of watercolor views of U.S. Naval actions".. What or where is this source? Date of painting needed; not the upload date. When was the photo or scan of this painting taken and by whom? Likely this should be a PD-art license.
    • The bailey collection of watercolor views of U.S. Naval actions" is a collection of water colours that was purchased by the Mariners Museum (http://www.marinersmuseum.org/). When purchased the museum thought that the collection was from the 19th century but eventually discovered that the paintings were created by Irwin Bevan as part of a book that apparently never was finished. The dates of the paintings are unknown, though they likely were created before 1923.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "likely created before 1923" isn't very reassuring. Again, when was the photo or scan of this painting taken and by whom? The licensing for a photo in an FA needs to be top notch and leave no questions open. Brad (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As ive stated before, the owner of the painting of the painting (the mariners museaum) has no idea when it was created. Images from the bailey collection are frequently used by the military and other published works. It is literally impossible for someone to claim copywrite over them because they would not be able to prove that the images are copywritable in the first place. Given that Bevan was 71 in 1923, it is increadibly likely that they are in the public domain.XavierGreen (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for not ramming 25 pics into the article. Brad (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Issues in my collapse box above are resolved. Brad (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency review of sources

    Comments –

    Support Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ Hebert, Adam J. "Long-Range Strike in a Hurry." Air Force magazine, November 2004. Retrieved: 24 June 2011.
    2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Miller_p38-9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    3. ^ "New Long-Range Bomber On Horizon For 2018." Physorg.com, 26 July 2006. Retrieved: 26 June 2011.
    4. ^ "Quadrennial Defense Review Report." U.S. Department of Defense, 6 February 2006. Retrieved: 25 June 2011.
    5. ^ Hebert, Adam J. "The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends." Air Force magazine, October 2006. Retrieved: 24 June 2011.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2011&oldid=452773304"